Re: OK, now THIS is funny! Duke vs. the Doctor (was: Creationism

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:11:17 -0600 in
T4GBj.16226$Er2.15772@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "adman" <72545@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

> "Brian E. Clark" <reply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2240ee77a1cdfbdb98aef6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 | [piggyback]
> |
> | duke <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> |
> | > I know [the Big Bang] says that an infinitely small | > point of
> mass of infinite density appeared from | > whence there was nothing
> previously. |
> | Leaving aside creationist misrepresentations, whose | description of
> the Big Bang says that? The | explanations I've read acknowledge that as
> we recount | events from present to past, we reach a point several |
> moments after the Big Bang before which we can say | nothing certain.
> This is a far cry from saying that | the universe appeared from
> "nothing." |
> | Also, your "nothing previously" wording betrays a lack | of
> understanding of the Big Bang models, as space and | time are said to
> have originated in the Big Bang, so | "previously" has little meaning in
> this context. |
> | > That's creation at it's finest.  And that takes a creator. |
> | Does it? Then by your own reasoning, this creator | needs a creator,
> too.
> |
> | > We call the creator God.
> |
> | Triply wrong. First, the Big Bang model doesn't say | what you
> attribute to it; second, the model doesn't | deal with creation in the
> sense you mean it; and | third, even if you weren't mistaken on the
> first two | points, there is no justification in identifying the |
> creator with anyone's god.
> |
> | > I suggest you read "The First Three Minutes" if you | > want to
> learn something.
> |
> | Perhaps you read the "doctored for Creationist" | version of the book?
> The version I read sup****ts | nothing you've written in this thread. The
> author | makes it clear that he's describing events that | occurred
> *subsequent* to the Planck Time.
> 
> The big bang is bull****.Matter can not come from nothing unless there
> was a God.
> 
> It is really THAT simple

Simple answers for simple minds.

-- 
Mark K. Bilbo                a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes
 that some people are not able to maintain a position of
 independence....The law is humane and also unsentimental."
 -- R.J. Rushdooney, architect of "Christian Reconstructionism."