Nasty Evil Athiests Denying God And All His Wonderful Works. You Are All Going To Burn In Hell. The Bible Is True Because Every On Knows That It is True So It Must Be.

You Are Corrupting Children With Your False Science. DIE ATHIESTS DIE

Sorry- not enough grammatical errors for a real fundie

Nice, LH. But I think this is more along the lines of most drive-by creationists (complete with faulty spelling, punctuation, and grammar):

If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys. We couldnt of come from nothing. There had to be a Creator. Also, evolution can’t be true because it violates teh laws of physics. How come you never see a person evolve into a tree, huh???? Kent Hovind is a good guy. I think you must be really insecure if your making fun of him. Go get a life.

Sadie: If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys. We couldnt of come from nothing. There had to be a Creator. Also, evolution can’t be true because it violates teh laws of physics. How come you never see a person evolve into a tree, huh???? Kent Hovind is a good guy. I think you must be really insecure if your making fun of him. Go get a life.

Also Evolusion cant be true cos if it was there would be no godless homosexuals. How can you evolve into perverts if you dont have children.

Sadie- are you depressed at how easy this is to type?

Close, Sadie, but you are still capitalising words that do not refer to “Him”

LH: Sadie- are you depressed at how easy this is to type?

I don’t know--it’s depressing in that we are able to so easily reproduce these people’s diction, yet at the same time it’s a lot of fun, perhaps because it is so easy.

I crushed up a timex watch and put it in a paper bag; then place it in a locked cabibet.  When it turns into a Rolex.  Ummmmmm, that is evolution. By the way search: creation VS evolution Even Darwing’s book contains the word “perhaps” more than a few times.  The human eye cannot be the product of evolution.

Amazing. You managed to demonstrate in just five sentences your complete ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and managed to repeat the primary creationist canards all at the same time.

Come back once you figure out why the argument you posted above makes the rest of us laugh at you.

I emailed a link to this to Les, but now a appropriate thread has surfaced I’ll put it here. Read the rest of this site- Anakin questioning the physics of Coruscant, lunatic RPGs, inept DEATHs, Lego Hitler’s-brain-in-a-jar…

Very nice link, Hussar.  Check it out, everyone.

Kiwi- nice try, Sadie, but the inconsistent verb tenses are not typical of fundies: they go more for simple spelling errors and errors in logic.  I did like “Darwing” though.

Everyone,

Despite possible mis-spellings and other grammatical mistakes that may, or may not be made here. (I didn’t think we were discussing the rules of the english language anyhow), here’s my question.

Q. If evolution, or even the big bang is true, where did the original particles come from to form the first ‘things’ that other ‘things’ could be based on?

I will agree that people, and even other life forms can ‘adapt’ we get live in a hot place, we seem to have more melon in our skin, we live in a cold place, we may grow more hair, we work hard for generations and we may start coming out of the hatch a with a little more ability to quickly gain muscle, etc…

But at some point there was nothing, and then something came up from that nothing, or, there was always something.

Either way, I’m not sure we are capable of explaining how either of those could be the case.

I’ve heard of abiogenesis, and I don’t believe that personally. Believing that we can ‘adapt’ is far more believable then that way some people explain abiogenesis.

Well? Any thoughts here (Not related to my spelling, grammar, or what I may have eaten for Brekfast, just to the question)

Thanks everyone,

- The Questioner

All of these points have been discussed on this site many many times already. Also all this information is easily available on the internet, many scientific sites as well as in biology and physics text books. Since you can’t be bothered to look it up in books, on the internet or even on this site itself, I don’t believe that trying to answer your questions would be anything more than an exercise in futility.

However given that

we seem to have more melon in our skin,

you seem to have already accepted the concept of common descent with plants anyway.

Q. If evolution, or even the big bang is true, where did the original particles come from to form the first ‘things’ that other ‘things’ could be based on?

A.  No one knows, although there’s lots of speculation.  In any case, though, proposing a God to jumpstart the Universe does not answer the question, but simply moves it back one notch: where did God come from?  Here’s a good exposition of the usual questions about origins answered from an atheist viewpoint.

I’ve heard of abiogenesis, and I don’t believe that personally. Believing that we can ‘adapt’ is far more believable then that way some people explain abiogenesis.

As with the origin of the universe, there’s lots of speculation and research about the origin of life.  A good overview of current work is Robert Hazen’s Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origins.  If you google “abiogenesis” you’ll come up with more information than you can shake a stick at.  A good place to start is the Wikipedia article.

So far, no one has created life in the laboratory.  And it may well be that we will never know exactly how it happened.  But that’s no reason to disbelieve it, in my opinion.  I don’t know much about the citric acid cycle either, and even biochemists don’t understand it perfectly; but the evidence shows that it exists and that I exist because of it.

To me, it seems far more believable that the universe and life originated naturally, even if I don’t know how, than that an inconceivably complex and powerful being, who was somehow always here, created us.

Atheist: “Who created god?”
Theist: “That’s an invalid question.”

In any case, though, proposing a God to jumpstart the Universe does not answer the question, but simply moves it back one notch: where did God come from?

That’s precisely the point that theists don’t get: as an explanatory tool, the god hypothesis is less useful than luminiferous aether.

So far, no one has created life in the laboratory...But that’s no reason to disbelieve it, in my opinion.

No reason to disbelieve it?  Or no reason to believe It? 

In any case, though, proposing a God to jumpstart the Universe does not answer the question, but simply moves it back one notch: where did God come from?

That’s precisely the point that theists don’t get

I’m not so sure you are right that theists don’t get it.  Sure, there are some that might not, but I doubt that it is all, as you suggest Julian.

More likely, there is a substantial number of people that start with the proposition proffered that: Life came from non-life.  They find that the burden of proof for such a proposition can not be carried by science.  Quite understandably, they seek out other explanations.

We have had this argument before.

More likely, there is a substantial number of people that start with the proposition proffered that: Life came from non-life.

That’s a misrepresentation. If there are any starting propositions, then they are more aptly framed as “there’s no evidence for a supernatural creator whose own existence needs to be explained.”

They find that the burden of proof for such a proposition can not be carried by science.

That’s again a misrepresentation. It’s not likely that we’ll ever know exactly how abiogenesis on Earth happened, but science allows for many hypotheses how it could have happened without a bearded guy intervening. The other side still has nothing more than “you can’t currently explain abiogenesis in every excruciating detail, therefore god exists”.

Quite understandably, they seek out other explanations.

It’s still the argument from ignorance.

Unsubscribing…

“Just a question/ the questioner” - I can answer a little

Q. If evolution, or even the big bang is true, where did the original particles come from to form the first ‘things’ that other ‘things’ could be based on?

Nothingness can split into matter (as quarks) and antimatter (as antiquarks), which, if would later meet, would eliminate. These are progected in opposite directions (either in space or in time, one idea is that the point of the BB was the middle point of time and another bang (of antimatter) occurs when time is run backwards from before that middle point.

It happens because it can (and has an infinite number of oppertunities with the infinite quantity of nothingness in space), and that it’s the more probable to remain in the split state. Why more probable? - because it takes time to recombine, but not to split, but this can only work when you have a law that says that time must pass in order for stuff to accelerate, and that law has no obvious reason to exist.

And it would be a very valid challenge to what I just said to ask why more big bangs havn’t occurred (in all empty space it’s possible and infinitely likely, so should happen instantly).

You may say that all the antimatter that would be around if all of nothingness was constantly splitting, it would make existence of complex aggregates of matter practically impossible - they’d be degraded into simpler ones. Luckily enthalpy (energy from particle interactions) changes the energy of an aggregate once it does form (IF it can) and, also luckily quantization says that, with this changed energy it would be far less likely that the agregate would interact, because it would nolonger match the levels of the primary particles trying to eliminate it (elimination requires symetry to cancel to nothing, which complex matter also won’t do). Again it’s a very valid question as to why enthalpy or quantization exist, because there doesn’t appear to be a reason for them to apply at all

zilch: In any case, though, proposing a God to jumpstart the Universe does not answer the question, but simply moves it back one notch: where did God come from?

It’s the same with the meaning of life - they try to give an explanation in terms of something more metaphysical, but don’t look for a meaning behind existence outside of life. If there was an afterlife not much would really change mentally, the same philosophical questions would still apply, the meaning of life would shift back a notch to existence, which would require an explanation itself, and again there could be another unobserved god in this new world

We have had this argument before.

That we have.

More likely, there is a substantial number of people that start with the proposition proffered that: Life came from non-life.

That’s a misrepresentation. If there are any starting propositions, then they are more aptly framed as “there’s no evidence for a supernatural creator whose own existence needs to be explained.”

It is not a misrepresentation Elwed.  The fact that you say so, well, that is revealing in and of itself.

It would be fair to say that this

To me, it seems far more believable that the universe and life originated naturally, even if I don’t know how, than that an inconceivably complex and powerful being, who was somehow always here, created us.

may be fairly modified to say this

To me, it seems far more believable that the universe and life originated (from a god), even if I don’t know how, than that an inconceivably complex (and heretofore never seen process happened), (that)...somehow..., created life.

all without any intellectual dishonesty.  The only dishonesty that exists is the lie that individuals tell themselves about the lack of pretentiousness that exists with respect to their own position. 

One may choose to believe one or other.

More likely, there is a substantial number of people that start with the proposition proffered that: Life came from non-life.  They find that the burden of proof for such a proposition can not be carried by science.  Quite understandably, they seek out other explanations.

In my experience it’s the other way around. Talking about life coming from non-life is a lot less unlikely than god coming from non-god. Most people start out being indoctrinated into a religion and a few of them manage to get de-programmed in the face of the overwhelming absurdity and explanatory bankruptcy of the god-hypothesis. No matter what evidence exists or does not exist for abiogenesis, the god-hypothesis adds absolutely nothing.

Consi - The complexness arguement tends to target evolution. For sure, we need to explain this to those who don’t know, but we do have an explanation that makes sense. I think there are other, fundamental things that need to be explained by both sides.

It is an easier option to say goddidit, that won’t encourage or put me off considering it, becuase I am in no position to disprove, nor do I have a complete explanation for either theory, so need every tool available. Nethertheless ‘goddidit’ doesn’t explain why he did, that’s were that breaks down

It would be fair to say that this

To me, it seems far more believable that the universe and life originated naturally, even if I don’t know how, than that an inconceivably complex and powerful being, who was somehow always here, created us.

may be fairly modified to say this

To me, it seems far more believable that the universe and life originated (from a god), even if I don’t know how, than that an inconceivably complex (and heretofore never seen process happened), (that)...somehow..., created life.

all without any intellectual dishonesty.

The only intellectual dishonesty involved here is the “heretofore never seen process” appended to the theist’s statement and left out of the atheist’s- or has the creation of a god been witnessed heretofore?  Other than that bit of subterfuge, the modification is honest but indefensible, imho.  While science may never have the full answers to these questions of origins, our partial understanding is increasing by leaps and bounds.  As Julian points out, the god-hypothesis adds absolutely nothing to our understanding.

Of course, it cannot be “proven” that no god exists.  But since there’s no evidence that any gods do exist, and because they add nothing to our understanding of the universe, I say chuck ‘em.

What’s particularly telling to me is that “The Questioner” was just a troll seeking to stir the pot. They didn’t even use a valid email address so it’s unlikely they’ll be back this way again.