Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dragoon Knight

Life, the Universe & Everything: Fenceposts at Dawn

Recommended Posts

Here is a thread made by someone who completely understands the subject matter, since it seems to be the fashion all of a sudden. :)

As is always the case with creationist rhetoric, the best place to start is somewhere in the middle, carefully ignoring detailed and reasoned explanations that would make this entire conversation meaningless, while simultaneously failing to understand anything about the topic at hand. Let us waste no time, then, and get directly to the heart of the issue.

Who's the king of the jungle? (Ooh-aah.)

Who's the king of the sea? (Da-da-da-da-dah.)

Who's the king of the Universe,

And who's the king of me?

That's right, JESUS. Who is interchangeable with God. And God created everything. Except so did Jesus, who is also God, and vice-versa. This is not a paradox and is also a perfectly sound basis for rational argument.

Now God created the entire world in 7 days. If you don't believe me, read the Bible, because it totally has my back on this. Don't even get me started on things like carbon dating and whatnot, because God made that, too. And the dinosaur fossils. All fossils, come to that. He just made them seem older than they actually are. Shut up.

LA LA LA, moving on. God was a complete bad-ass in the Old Testament, but then turned all nice after sending his son down to do some awesome things that really happened, honestly. Like curing leprosy. This turning nice had nothing to do with making Christianity attractive as a religion because SHUT UP.

The practical upshot of all of this is that science is all wrong. The intracoil... intrackickery... difficult question that has plagued religious nutjobs since we realised that nobody will take us seriously, is how to push our worldview on others with only an ancient copy of Deirdre Waggon's Book of Etiquette to guide us. But let's bypass this for a moment, because I'm going to do the classic creationist move of conveniently ignoring entire aspects of my argument to try and argue one point. More specifically, we shall ignore the entire Bible and the fact that it is the basis for all my creationist arguments, and try to poke holes in respected scientific theory!

The first step is to make a lengthy introductory post that has been read from Wikipedia and then re-written in my own words to simulate intelligent discourse. This has the double effect of obfuscating my ignorance and making it look like I'm willing to engage in rational discussion. At the same time, I will claim that some of the best scientific minds have struggled with the notions I list, but I understand them completely. Now, I will posit that because my carefully selected batch of scientists that I'm willing to quote (i.e. those who support my arguments either via misquoting or misunderstanding) can't explain precisely how the universe works, SCIENCE IS WRONG.

Failures! Miserable, horrible, worthless failures! You and your theories! You don't really explain anything. Of course, I'm happy to quote your work and use your arguments to back up mine, and this is perfectly fine to do, despite everything being hopelessly wrong! Just look at this quote from a scientist!

I'm wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Clearly, to all rational beings, science is wrong.

Now, post things that tell me I'm right, or I'll tell you you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, your argument has some merit but I'm afraid that NAH.

Firstly, the Bible says lots of things. It says that stoning people for planting different crops in the same field is a-ok. But it also says that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Presumably this means god, so one can only assume that the dinosaurs were wiped out for being poor horticulturalists.

If you read the bible then you will find that the "seven days" more accurately translates to "seven periods of time," which rather neatly fits in with the more scientific view of the Earth's genesis. You will also find that Waldo is in fact just behind the yellow lifesaver to the upper left hand side.

Lets go back to the beginning, which is a far more sensible place to start than the conclusion. I mean end.

In the beginning, electricity and heat and chemicals and the like combined to make RNA, which sooner or later cottoned on to being DNA. Perhaps this happened before proteins, perhaps after. For more information, consult this pagan deity. Your contention is that this could not have happened without some sort of "intelligent" input, which implies either Jean Grey or aliens.

The problem with the aliens theory is that of the two alien types known to man, one is more interested in practical jokes involving bursting out of stomachs at parties and the other has a face like a turd with eyes. Not only that, but it just puts off the question of the origin of life to another planet.

Jean Grey, on the other hand, as a fiery redhead who's died more often than she's had hot dinners, is clearly superior to Jesus-who-is-god. I mean, he only came back from the dead a measly once, and it took him three days. She's managed it so often that there's now a revolving door between here and the hereafter, which incidentally is just her second home in Nashville. The obvious conclusion is that Jean Grey used here awesome phoenix-augmented telekinetic powerz to shift together all those little molecules into a form that could go on to evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve evolve... I'm sorry I seem to have gotten carried away.

As I was saying, random chance is responsible for forming the building blocks of life out of inorganic parts. After all, the alternative is that some timeless, never-dying magical entity shimmied the little molecules together with her fantastic powerz. And interestingly, nobody can provide any evidence of that.

So instead of, y'know, providing evidence for their own theories, they simply attempt to tear down everyone else's and thus triumph by default. After all, you can't disprove what can't be proven!

Incidentally, you're living in the Matrix.

In conclusion, why do you care anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, you're living in the Matrix.

Your face is living in the Matrix.

...one can only assume that the dinosaurs were wiped out for being poor horticulturalists.

God invented the dinosaur fossils, we've already proven that.

If you read the bible then you will find that the "seven days" more accurately translates to "seven periods of time," which rather neatly fits in with the more scientific view of the Earth's genesis.

Aha!  So the Bible is right!  You totally said it, you can't take it back now, hahahahahaha.

I'm going to ignore the vast bulk of your argument, because it's inconvenient.  Whoops, did I say that out loud?

As I was saying, random chance is responsible for forming the building blocks of life out of inorganic parts. After all, the alternative is that some timeless, never-dying magical entity shimmied the little molecules together with her fantastic powerz. And interestingly, nobody can provide any evidence of that.

Nobody can't not provide any evidence of not-that!  So yeah, shut up, God totally created life.  Isn't it obvious?  I mean look at everything.  You can't tell me that a watch evolved from a road, or something...

Besides, I don't have to be clear, or rational, or logical for that matter!  It was all magic!  I mean God.

STOP BELITTLING MY BELIEFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's becoming painfully obvious that you don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about either. Do you even know that you're talking? It's not beyond the realm of the Forms possibility that you're just mashing your face into the keyboard in the hope that something sensible will come out. Wait, no, that's far too Darwinian, isn't it?

God invented the dinosaur fossils, we've already proven that.

I'll dinosaur your invented god.

Everything has a rational explanation, you don't neeed god. I'm not opposed to you believing that god was behind the scientific method, so long as god does not replace the scientific method. Because once you start accepting that for one argument, it's only a matter of time before you feel like it's a perfectly rational and sensible explanation for all sorts of things.

Did the planets form spheres thanks to gravity? Nope, it was GOD, who had a thing for marbles before he lost them.

Where did whales come from? Could it be millions of years of modification from a base design? Nope, they were pulled out of a giant and indescribably stylish top hat, by god.

Why does the Simpsons suck these days? Because it's been running for so long that the writers are running on empty? Dear me no, it's GOD punishing them for allowing Family Guy to exist without setting fire to Seth McFarlane.

Did Lady Dierdre Waggon collect several volumes of ancient practical advice and tips on how to achieve that perfect 'just attacked by infidels' look? NO AGAIN, it was GOD, in the form of JEAN GREY, who lost her scrapbook one day and only realised her mistake when some woman turned into a pillar of malt.

Basically, it's a slippery slope. Once you accept the unprovable for one hypothesis, the entirity of the scientific method becomes worthless. Why believe in calculus when it's easier to think that planets move in perfectly circular orbits? Why indeed. To answer, we must consult the ghost of Sir Isaac Newton.

That bastard Einstein stole my idea!

Ahem, what Sir Isaac meant to say is that science is founded upon rational beliefs. If you start accepting irrational ones, the whole thing falls apart and becomes worthless. Which I rather suspect is what you want, seeing as it calls into question those plump little pink cushiony lies that you comfort yourself with when the world seems a bit too real.

The more important question is, do you want to stop being a mason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to belittle you, now! Oh you're so wrong! And naïve! Guffaw! Chortle!

You're using science to prove things, when we've already established that science is wrong! Any rational being can clearly see that you're wrong, because science can't definitively prove everything! But it's perfectly fine for the Bible to do this, because of the Magic God-Glue (i.e. FAITH).

The Bible offers a much more balanced and accurate representation of the world, and is therefore a much better basis for constructing an argument upon than things like objective scientific reasoning! But fine, we'll play it your way - I'm going to pretend to assume that I believe that science is right!

So your argument is that suddenly nothing turned into everything in a huge bang? THEN WHO WAS PHONE? THEN WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?!

After that, all life on Earth just formed out of inert, lifeless matter? Further guffaws and superfluous chortles! Don't you know that infinity is 10 to the power of 139 and that it's impossible for lightning to strike a puddle?

Remember that I know what I'm talking about, here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you do. You know so much about the subject that your entire argument about it revolves around an unrelated subject. That's real knowledge, that is.

On a related note, I can prove that crocodiles form from rotten logs through use of the Riemann hypothesis. I used the hypothesis that is, not the crocodiles.

Also, why are you appealing to rationality while belittling science? That seems like something of a contradiction.

Or a work of fiction.

With doleful diction.

Fortunately, my counterpoints are bitchin'.

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,

Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait:

The Earth began to cool,

The autotrophs began to drool,

Neanderthals developed tools,

We built a wall (we built the pyramids),

Math, science, history, unravelling the mysteries,

That all started with the big bang.

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,

As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.

A fraction of a second and the elements were made.

The bipeds stood up straight,

The dinosaurs all met their fate,

They tried to leap but they were late

And they all died (they froze their asses off)

The oceans and Pangaea

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya

Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day

It will cause the stars to go the other way,

Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard

Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us

Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)

Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy

It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology

It all started with the big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

...I'm sorry, I seem to have wandered offtopic. We do do that sometimes, don't we?

I hope you realise that the primitive Earth was much more than a puddle. Also that it was Maggie who shot Mr Burns.

Your argument of likelihood relies on quantifying the Earth in a time before the stars were even in their current positions. Interestingly, you seem eager to embrace the various studies that postulate on the conditions at the time, but appear reluctant to accept those that suggest that those same conditions could have been favourable to early life. But then, you don't know exactly where life is found, do you?

Here's a Thing.

Here's another thing: The Big Bang is not the same as the beginning of life. It's the beginning of the universe as we know it. You can't expect one theory to have the answers to everything, especially those questions that are outside its own discipline. Darwin himself did not know by what means Natural Selection took place, it was only with the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on Heredity that modern genetics (and interpretation of Darwin's idea) could exist. And it was only with Franklin's work on the structure of DNA that we were able to see exactly what those pesky chromosomes were doing. That's three great discoveries that cover barely a fraction of that which falls under the catch-all term of 'evolution.' And you want it to explain the beginning of all matter, space and time? Leave it for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not questioning your faith, I'm just pointing out that the world is bigger than your personal beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...