Re: Re: funny creationsist

On 9 Feb 2006 15:18:50 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006 18:31:19 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 22 Jan 2006 13:07:19 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Bob,

Just because you don't view the mountains of direct and inferred
evidence pointing to God's existence as legitimate and real doesn't
mean that such doesn't exist.

But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to
explain why that is?

There is evidence.

No there isn't. Far better men that you have tried to find it - and
failed.

Far better men than both of us have tried to find it and succeeded.

Liar! What does it feel like to be exposed as a liar on a public
newsgroup? Not nice is it - a lable you will have to carry from now
on. What an idiot you are.

Just because you haven't really looked means little to others. You do
understand that there is a difference between intelligence and the
desire to use it as a tool to seek the truth?




Try this one: show me one piece of matter or bit of energy that created
itself or came into existence without a cause.

We live in a universe that came into existance 15 billion years ago,
how much more matter/energy do you want?

Show me the evidence that it all "popped" into existence as opposed to
being created.

Just take the time to read up on the Big Bang. There is so much
evidence even a lying idiot like you can't miss it.

Show me something that came into existence from nothingness and without
a cause within the past thousand years.

Easy. Hawking radiation (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_creation to understand what is
happening)

Heck, show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence
between now and 15 billion years ago?

You cannot. You know of nothing which came from nothingness. You know
of nothing which began to exist without a cause.

This whole made-up theory of quantum particles popping in and out of
existence would be laughable if it were ever mentioned in a religious
text. But, because it is talked about in the scientific community,
well, then...it must be true. Whatever.

The difference is that we can see the results of the particle
creation, in other words there is EVIDENCE - something that does not
exist for your evil god.


What an unbelievable stroke of pure, random chance whereby the
universe, which created itself, expands at such a precise rate where
it's not too slow to collapse back into itself and not too fast where
matter cannot coallesce and form stars and planets. But, I guess that
such things just happen randomly, huh?

We have our universe as proof.

...which holds as much scientific credibility as merely saying the
universe is proof of God's existence. Please.

No, wrong again. Your god isn't needed.


How strange that the forces of gravity and molecular attraction, which
are needed to form a universe, got randomly created as well during the
Big Bang. Must be pure random, uncaused chance too, huh?

Much more believable than "goddidit"

Hey. The world of science where EVERYTHING must have a naturalistic
explanation is your domain, buddy. Look at the statistical side of
things just by itself without comparing it to any other theory,
religious or not. The chance that this universe exists as it does
(stable, materials can collalesce into planets, gravity) as a result of
undesigned events is statistically zero.

No, wrong again. The universe is here to prove it is not zero.

Evaluate that without the "well, it's better than your theory" remarks.

You haven't got a theory.


What are the chances that two molecules would come together in a pool
of primordial sludge and form the first protein which then would
randomly interact with other molecules to form the first
proto-bacteria.

Very high. We know that the chemicals exist everywhere in the
universe. We also know that the enegy required to drive the process
existed in abundance. Add to that one other thing that there was a lot
of - time, and it would be very hard to believe it did not happen many
times.

How general and overly broad a response.

But a correct one.

You mean like...we know that
supernatural events occur every day.

No, wrong again. It is becoming a habit for you.

We infer that matter and energy
don't create themselves from nothing because no one has ever seen or
reproduced such events...thus something/someone caused it.

Why? No need for your god again. The useless evil *** is better
left in out primitive past - he has no place in the 21st century.

Let's be specific. What was the exact process of abiogenesis?

Chemicals + Energy + Time = Life.

What is the exact process by which this new life added material to
itself in such a way that it could begin to reproduce?

In the early days, just chemical reactions. We use chemical reactions
every day - why do you have problems with them?


Strange that this proto-bacteria would randomly have
the ability to reproduce. Strange that this reproducing bacteria would
somehow have the ability to mutate over time. What are the odds?

As I said, very high.

Why do you say this?

It would be very hard to think of something that replicates that would
not mutate over time.


And, while you're making a god out of nature,

Nobody is doing that - there is no need for a god.

Technically, a god is any entity or thing which you seek after and
which you adapt your life to beyond anything else. A god technically
could be money, sex, power, and even another person. In this case,
some have made a god out of science and even out of nature.

Even if it was true (which it isn't) it would be better than your god
anyday.


tell me why scientists
have yet to be able to create a life form (ANY life form) even though
nature RANDOMLY did it only 2 billion years ago.

A few small labs, a few dozen years - against a whole planet and maybe
a billion years. Do the maths.

Sure. A scientist using equipment and controlled conditions can
eliminate every piece of pre-DNA matter except the two amino acids that
he desires and then force them to combine. Weird that no one has been
able to do that so far.

Did you read what I said? No! Clearly not. Ok, I'll say it again - now
read it carefully and this time do your level best to actually
understand what it says.

"A few small labs, a few dozen years - against a whole planet and
maybe a billion years. Do the maths."



Nature cannot eliminate everything except the two amino acids nor can
it force them to come together. A scientist can. Certainly, a
proto-bacteria is not as complicated as an airplane. And scientists
can easily build one in a month or so.

No, it took us 4 billion years to build the first plane.

Or is a proto-bacteria THAT complex...

Nothing in life is complex, all life is build from very small (and
fairly simple) building blocks.


Actually, I'm an early life proponant. Less than 500 million years
after the formation of the Earth our planet suffered the cataclysmic
collision that gave birth to our moon. Several scientists believe life
would have already started, even that early, so oneday we may find the
evidence for it on the moon.

--
Bob.

Now THAT takes real faith to believe...

No faith involved at all.

--
Bob.

.