RE: The world is 6000 years old rejoice -
06-05-2006, 06:37 PM
>>The Bible's creation story might sound far-fetched to some,
>>but the evolution theory is even more ludicrous! The Big
>Bang
>>theory assumes that celestial matter already existed in the
>>universe, and that was the building blocks of the universe.
>>Where is the starting point? What are the chances of a
>cosmic
>>explosion taking place, the flying debris forming into
>>perfectly shaped planets, one of which is earth, The earth
>>forming an atmosphere with just the right balance of gases
>to
>>support biological life, some microscopic organisms somehow
>>surviving the big exlosion which must have been accompanied
>by
>>heat in the order of millions of degrees, these cells
>somehow
>>finding the perfect environmental conditions to survive and
>>thrive, and somehow evolving to the millions of plant and
>>animal species populating the earth? If you can believe
>that,
>>then you can believe anything!
>
>
>Americanized,
>
>to you it's absolutely inconceivable that single celled
>organisms, the simplest living things ever, could have just
>been created by the right conditions existing. You argue that
>the cells must have been created by something. Yet, you still
>have no issue believing that god, the most complex and
>powerful organism ever, could have created itself, and has
>always been there. That is just absurd. Remember those paper
>boats we used to make in primo by folding up a piece of paper?
>You are like a person who just cannot believe that those paper
>boats could have created themselves, then turn around and
>argue that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier carrying 100
>planes and enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world 50
>times over could have created itself. Hello?????
>
>I know the probability of the stars aligningby themselves is
>low, but events with low probabilities have been shown to work
>numerous times. There are some things that have an "impossible
>chance" of happening, but they do happen.
>
>Think about this - for you to be here, only ONE specific sperm
>from one specific man had to meet this ONE specific egg from
>this one specific woman at a perfect time when the eggs was
>ready for fertilization. If another sperm had hit that egg, or
>if your sperm hit the egg when it wasn't ready, or if another
>sperm outsped yours and hit the egg first, or if your mum had
>a headache, or if your dad used a condom, or if he had decided
>to masturbate, or if -----, there would be no you right now.
>
>Now when you consider that a man ejaculates about a billion
>sperm during every sexual encounter, and that people have sex
>many times with many other peoples over many years before
>getting this one "correct" woman pregnant, then of course that
>reduces the probability of what I outlined above (your one
>sperm hitting the one egg) to inconceivable figures.
>
>To make it more complex - when you count backwards and think
>of the probability of your folks being born and then meeting
>to produce you, then your grandfolks being born and then
>meeting to produce your folks, etc, it even looks bleaker. If
>your relative in 4,000 BC performed coitus interuptus that one
>afternoon, you'd not be here. If he had chosen a different
>chic, you'd not be here. etc etc etc You get my point. For you
>to be here, those people all had to meet, agree to have sex,
>and your ancestral sperm is the only one that could have won
>the race. What I'm saying is it's almost mathematically
>impossible for you to have been born. But the fact it you were
>born, meaning that such odds, despite being that low, are
>conceivable.
Just tell me how life could have evolved from an explosion generating heat in the order of millions of degrees. Show be a living organism that can thrive in an environment exceeding 200 deg.F.
|