Re: funny creationsist


Ye Old One wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006 13:58:44 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
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.

If you cannot say something nice about someone, then keep your thoughts
to yourself please. Thank you.

If you try telling a lie like that then you have to expect to be
called a liar.


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.

Sir, if you cannot present any evidence, then just say so. It's OK.
Really.

Look in the mirror - you are the one not offering evidence.


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)

You just copied and pasted without really reading the text. You just
shot down your own argument.

No, if you think that then you clearly didn't understand the article.

You apparently missed the part about "...pair production cannot occur
in empty space."


To explain it for you. Throughout space random particle pairs, usually
an electron and its anti-particle twin a positron, jump into
existance, and yes, this has been proven in the laboratory.

PROVEN in a lab? Ha! Name the experiment. Give the reference. Were
these particles shown to exist or INFERED to exist?

Dude, it takes more...faith...to believe in these mysterious particles
than to believe a dead man once walked out of a grave very much alive.


Of course, because matter and anti-matter destroy each other they
don't last very long. However, close to the event horizon of a black
hole, one of the particle may be swallowed allowing the other to
survive.

Seems like an educated guess...if the rest of the theory is accurate.


So yes, things DO indeed appear out of nothing.

Finally! Now, you're starting to come around...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1



"Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by
something, pair production cannot occur in empty space."



So much for matter coming into existence in empty space.

Even in empty space there will still be odd particle which manage to
survive - maybe a few tens of billions every day.


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.

You cannot see the evidence of any particle creation. All you can see
is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists
don't really know the cause but are guessing at this particle creation
theory. Again, it cannot occur, by scientists' own admission, in a
empty space.

I really would recommend you take time to learn what the hell you are
talking about - it would stop you looking so firking stupid.

You just don't seem to have an educated answer to that "pair production
cannot occur in empty space" thing, do you? It's your theory, buddy,
not mine. Dodging the question and calling the questioner names is
so...amateurish.


You want evidence that there is a Supreme Being? OK. Since particle
creation cannot occur in empty space and without a cause, then
something/Someone must have caused it in the beginning.

Please provide one shred of evidence for the existance of your
so-called supreme being.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/01ffd5d19eb27fac




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.

Refer again to wikipedia.org quote above.

Learn about science. You may (but only may) look a little less stupid
when you do.

Please stick to the topic at hand. How you and I look to others is
irrelevant. Thanks.

OK. Let's try this again. "...pair production cannot occur in empty
space." And your scientific response is?




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.

Logical fallacy.

Not at all.


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

You haven't got a theory.

You got that right, buddy. Christianity is far more than a theory.

Yes,it is a bunch of fairy stories written for primitive people and
kids. Which are you?

Sticks and stones, tough guy.





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.

About as useful and informative as stating that raindrops coalescing in
clouds and falling to earth show that water molecules are "sticky" and
gravity exists.

So now you have learnt a few facts of science. Keep going and we may
wean you off the sicko god of yours.

Actually, it was science that first pointed to God's existence.



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

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

Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no
bearing on others' experiences. Please don't make the mistake of
looking to your own life as the norm for the human experience.

It is rather childish to believe in the supernatural.

And if you were never married nor even had a girlfriend in your life,
I'd bet that you would doubt the existence of love.



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.

I don't need any Jedi mind powers to discern that the idea of a Supreme
Being upsets you greatly.

Sure - lies upset a lot of people - why do you lie so much?

Now we've come to the heart of your problem: you're personally offended
and angered by even the possibility of there being a Supreme Being.
You probably have this spiritual conflict deep within you which
generates that anger. I can't help you there except to pray for you.
Your life will never change for the better until you let go of that
anger and seek this God who you now oppose.



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

Chemicals + Energy + Time = Life.

Nah! More likely...chemicals+energy+time=the same lifeless universe
but with less entropy.

Well we know if happened once - even you are here to prove that.

That's not good enough. Such a statement is like my saying that our
existence by itself proves scientifically that a Supreme Being exists.



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?

No problem, except what is the specific chemical process? Don't know?
Well, then, scientifically speaking, how do you infer that abiogenesis
happened? Because there is no other naturalistic explanation? Not
good enough.

We know abiogenesis happened. We are here.

And chemicals can keep people alive, but only when SOMEONE guides the
process, right? Yep.

Wrong. Nobody guides nature.

Well, in that aspect, I'll agree with you...usually. Nature seems to
progress right along without any outside intervention. Of course,
nature is indeed changable by any intelligent force.




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.

Most of your body's cells reproduce without mutation. You don't see
skin cells turning into brain cells. Aside from cancerous cells, you
don't see your liver slowly turning into something else.

Our cells don't have enough 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.

Your own personal desires just kicked in again.

Yes, a desire to see truth rule out the lies you keep spreading.



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."

No. The scientists have their two amino acids already isolated in an
environment without barriers to their coming together. That right
there eliminates 99.99999999% of the reason why abiogenesis doesn't
occur on a daily basis. There must be some other reason why it is so
difficult to force a proto-bacterial creation.

What "two amino acids"? And as for proto-bacterium, that is aiming a
little high.

You have to have two amino acids to get to the first protein, right?

Also, if you think that a proto-bacterium is too complex, take one of
its precursors then. Same deal. Why are scientists not creating all
kinds of precursors nowadays? Certainly, such a discovery would make
front page news.





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.

You're assuming again that abiogenesis had to occur.

We are here to prove it did.


Or is a proto-bacteria THAT complex...

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

You think that a rudimentary cell containing over 600 volumes of DNA
information is not complex? Weird.

What part of my comment above was to hard for your simple mind?

Your comment was easy to understand. It's your personal conclusion
that nothing in life is complex which boggles the mind.




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.
--
Bob.

.