Got the following earlier today:
From: Buck Yancey email@example.com
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?
I responded with the following:
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.
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:
“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. 🙂
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:
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.