SEB Mailbag: Scientific Law comes from the Creator edition.

Got the following earlier today:

From: Buck Yancey buckyancey@comcast.net

Subject: The peanut butter argument
Let’s see: you believe that there was nothing, and then it exploded.  [Wow!]

He believes that, if you guys are right then there should and could be new life forms popping up everywhere, even from a glob of peanut butter.  Do you not understand that he has really pulled your chain, but you are so up tight that you didn’t even catch the sarcasm?

Buck

I responded with the following:

Buck,

You don’t start off well when you begin with making assumptions about what I believe. That just makes you look arrogant. It also makes you look ignorant because it’s clear you don’t understand the theory you’re attacking.

Einstein showed us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore to say that “nothing exploded” is, quite simply, wrong. The theory doesn’t even come close to claiming that’s what happened.

Sarcastic or not, the peanut butter argument is based on a strawman that has no basis on what the actual theory says. Not to mention that abiogenesis and The Big Bang Theory are two entirely different and unrelated theories.

Go off an read up a bit on the actual theories from actual scientists and not creationists before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it again. You’ll find there’s no unpleasant aftertaste that way.

Les

As per usual, Buck felt he already knew the theory well enough to not require studying up and opted to reply right away. I’ll post it below the fold.

Here’s Buck’s stunning follow up:

Hi Les,

“Actual theories?” Somewhat of an oxymoronic statement, isn’t it?

You advertised on your website that you’re an atheist? Or maybe I just misunderstood your posted statements. Anyway, now that you have clarified that you are not an atheist, I must accept that you are a theist. I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

As to my other statements: Actually, I think that I started out pretty well when that I pointed out that it was your view was having the fun poked at it by Missler, and not Missler’s by your response. By misunderstanding his humorous jab at the ridiculous view of something coming from nothing, (as Eliza Doolittle would say), “he was sniggering at you.”

Einstein did gave us a “theory,” but by it he never contradicted the God of the Bible, which he actually believed. He was not an atheist, and often said so.

His “theory” always was merely a working postulate, not a proven “fact.” But that is altogether another topic, and I don’t have the time nor desire to deal with another’s ignorance of the facts.

Yes, I have read science for years, but I have not seen any science which offers any real evidence against creation. If you have anything which is not theory, but full evidentiary fact, then you should tell the world, because no one else has found a “fact” in support of evolutionary “theory.” I have seen a lot of “actual theories” (sic), but very little “actual facts” in this ongoing remonstrance by the anti-creation group.

Here is a principle to keep in mind as you read science: all scientific law came from the mind of the Creator, therefore, scientific law cannot contradict creation when it is properly applied.

Have a nice day Les, and learn to laugh when others poke fun at your theories. Someone will always be laughing at you as long as you insist on being wrong, so just laugh along with them.

Until the next time I must go relax and ponder your view that there was nothing, then it exploded. What a humorous thought. There is just so much to snigger at these days. 🙂

Buck

Not only wrong about the theories, but also wrong about Einstein’s beliefs. Einstein was no atheist in the traditional sense, but the God Einstein believed in is far and away anything like what the Bible suggests. Einstein said as much himself:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. – in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. – from his obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. – “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Such clear ignorance is hardly worth bothering with. Here’s the reply I sent back:

Buck,

I’m not going to waste my time on you until you have the requisite knowledge. Though I will post both your emails on my blog for others to laugh at.

Thanks for the material.

Les

17 thoughts on “SEB Mailbag: Scientific Law comes from the Creator edition.

  1. “You advertised on your website that you’re an atheist? Or maybe I just misunderstood your posted statements. Anyway, now that you have clarified that you are not an atheist, I must accept that you are a theist. I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying that for me.”

    OK, Les has been lying to us. It’s just so obvious from his reply that he’s a theist! And to think we never would have known without the help of our new friend Buck!!!!!!11!!! Les, I demand you change the name of this site to Stupid Theistic Bastard and start praying to the deity of your choice for forgiveness from the sin of False Witness.

    I recommend the love of Sweet Zombie Jesus (Braiiiinnnssss) but understand if you choose the Flying Spaghetti Monster as he is more popular and tasty! 😀

  2. Oh, and subscribing for follow-on posts, I have to see if our new friend has anything else to say

  3. Buck, and others like him, love to talk about “theory” as the same as “some idea someone made up”. If someone can’t understand the concept of a theory as being based on empirical evidence, there’s little point in discussing science with them, since they fail to understand its basic tenets.

    His first statement calling “Actual Theories” an “oxymoron” says it all really.

    Gravity is a theory Buck… Would you care to offer a sniveling, smug suggestion that it is just an idea some athiest made up?

    Maybe you think Galileo should have been burned at the stake instead of merely hounded and persecuted?

    Christ on a cracker, what a smug little moron

  4. So, in a nutshell —

    Buck — “So you believe that first there was nothing, and then it exploded. HA!”

    Les — “…um, no. That’s fundamentally wrong.”

    Buck — “So you DO believe that first there was nothing, and then it exploded. HA!”

    But, like the Bible, there is a little truth to his words.

    “Have a nice day Les, and learn to laugh when others poke fun at your theories. Someone will always be laughing at you as long as you insist on being wrong, so just laugh along with them.”

    Some Creationists really do need to learn this.

  5. You have to wonder if they really think they’re making new arguments, or if they think that somehow by repeating old arguments they’ll make their past debates somehow seem more credible?

  6. You have to wonder if they really think they’re making new arguments, or if they think that somehow by repeating old arguments they’ll make their past debates somehow seem more credible?

    They think they’re making points we’ve never seen before. Comes from taking Chick tracts seriously.

  7. Bastich, he’s actually replied several times now each time making the same stupid statements and berating me for refusing to engage him on it. I keep replying that he’s a waste of time because it’s clear he doesn’t understand the theories he’s attacking.

    I did toss him a bone in my last reply, however, after he claimed to have personally heard Albert Einstein say he was a creationist and believed in the Biblical God. I pointed out that all of the public statements Einstein ever made on the topic flatly contradicted that claim and provided two such quotes to prove it. That’s about all I was willing to engage him on, though. He’s a smug moron who spews straw-man arguments.

  8. after he claimed to have personally heard Albert Einstein say he was a creationist and believed in the Biblical God

    Now I wonder how old our boy Buck is, seeing as Albert Einstein died in 1955. As for the same old same old I’m not shocked.

    Now about that name change…… 😉

  9. “Let’s see: you believe that there was nothing, and then it exploded. [Wow!]”
    Wait a minute. Isn’t that what the bible says happened? As I recall, in the book of Genesis, “In the beginning there was the void…”

  10. Technically the Bible doesn’t say the void exploded. It says God talked to himself and filled the void with creation. And if you want to really split some hairs you could argue that “the void” is something and thus something existed before creation did because that’s where God put it.

    Even if the Big Bang Theory said that there was nothing and then it exploded, which it doesn’t, how is the idea of a being of such immense power that he can create anything simply by talking to himself less ridiculous than the idea of nothing exploding into something?

  11. So, in this debate, you either get it, or you don’t. Author clearly gets it. How about instead of being so high and mighty on the subject, we collaborate on ways to help these silly, misinformed people see our side of it in a way they would understand: scare the shit out of them.

    Bonus points for twisting it to make it seem like the bible says it’s true. Can’t be that hard, they do it all the time for their own purposes.

  12. Harry, I’m not sure having them believe the facts because it scares the shit out of them is any better than them being ignorant. They should believe the facts because they are true, not because it scares them.

    Of course, you’re also assuming it’s possible to convince the average True Believer™ that anything is scarier than Hell. Or, for that matter, that they have any desire to know reality beyond what they already believe to be true.

  13. Hi Les. I suppose scaring the shit out of them is a less than elegant solution. However, these are less than elegant people. By saying ‘scare the shit out of them’ what I really mean is that we have to beat them at their own game.

    Let’s be honest, we’re fighting the majority. No amount of comics depicting a creationist with his fingers in his ears or blog posts of email exchanges with these people will change anything.

    I would venture to guess that when it comes down to it, creationists love their technology more than they love their bible. By starting war against progress and science, they wage war on their daily modern conveniences that otherwise would not be possible without science.

    … it is a bit hopeless, isn’t it?

  14. Education is the key the more educated the less a person is to believe in god or gods.

    “It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: you came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?” -Ricky Gervais on being an atheist

  15. You know what I love? Theists that like to state that evolution is wrong because something can’t come from nothing (despite God creating ex nihilio!).

    I had to laugh at a creationist the other day. I asked why God didn’t tell us about gravity in the bible. His reply? Humans aren’t supposed to know about that stuff.

    So why exactly would God tell us, in detail, how he created life if we don’t know something that is far more useful to our survival, like physics and gravity, which would aid us greatly in our ballistics for hunting?

  16. Because their deity is a dick – he’s omnipotent and all-powerful, but first he knocks up some jackass carpenter’s wife and then has a bunch of other guys hammer some nails into his kid. Then, apparently he changes his mind again and brings him back to life because apparently all his all-powerful-ness really had to accomplish was nailing some bronze age talking head who had the poor graces to be related to god to…I dunno, make his execution of supreme power um…more powerful? And if god lets some people slip teh ghey into folks, you can bet it’s just so he can have the fun of blowing them all to hell for it. The Christian god is a contrary asshole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.