Billions of years ago

Published February 26th, 2008 by Bobby Henderson

“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.

Here is another:

“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”

Note that the banana…

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation – the human body.

Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…

Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.

Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”


613 Responses to “Billions of years ago”

1 70 71 72 73 74 77
  1. Sarah says:

    Jeff M,

    I’d have found it easier to process your argument on a logical basis if you had not proceeded to state facts which are blatantly untrue, specifically: “Atheists (and people who start cynical little religions to make a point) can only convert the prideful and morally deficient because they don’t want to believe in God, because they want to do what THEY want, without conviction or moral restraint.” Atheists, in general, are not morally deficient; we simply base or morals on something other than “God said so”. Murder, for example, is a bad idea – not because God said so but because humans function better in societies where murder is not tolerated. Charity, as another example, is a good idea – not because God said so but because humans function better in societies where people are willing to collaborate and help others when they are in need. As for the rest of what you posted, I’ll pay attention to that when you can cease insulting me.

    RAmen, Sarah

  2. BD says:

    Jeff, friend, you are wrong. You clearly have a view of evolution that makes it spontaneous. Evolution does not happen in a can of beans because there is no selection criteria. If I were to put a bacteria that consumed beans in the can and there happened to be one left afterwards and planted it you could end up with a new kind of bean that is resistant to this bacteria. I would need to grow these new beans but if i were to can these beans and do it again, the process would continue and this is evolution. But it requires a selection criteria. The argument that there is no proof of macro evolution is bunk. I would like for you to look up a fossil called Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil found between fish and amphibians. If you are with the FSM we have a perfectly logical explanation for this, the FSM has divinely created Tiktaalik to keep his/her powers hidden. But if you are someone who is looking for proof of macro evolution your going to have to understand that you are never going to be able to see it. As someone who believes in talking snakes, magical staves and water walking, the idea of a fossil having at one point been alive should not be a stretch. If you believe that it is Atheists who act “without conviction or moral restraint” I recommend the Pardoner’s Tale in the Canterbury Tales. If your not a fan of Chaucer look at your pudgy evangelists and see where their hearts are. Countless deaths have been justified in the name of just about every God and every Prophet, the hands of theists are unclean. If a man kills me for God how do I know it is not His will? God has ordered the deaths of many, Moses’s (alleged) dispatching of the Amorites proves this. What I can do for you Jeff is tell you that there is a God. I hope that makes you feel better. There is a great mover in the universe. Now, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this God had children. I need some proof that there were talking snakes and magic immortality gardens. I need to know that before the 10 Commandments people were wildly killing each other, that before God said “don’t kill” people were unsure of its morality. And don’t forget…world destroying floods! The loving God that kills all but 2 of everything, praise his justice! The spectacular thing about the scientific world is that you do not know everything. And you cannot go to one scientist for every answer. If you ask an astrophysicist about evolution you may not get a good answer. In the future it will be within the human understanding what happened before the Big Bang. And we will come to a common theme; religion will have to contort itself once again to justify its near useless existence. If I have faith in anything, I have faith in humanity. I believe that people don’t need the threat of divine punishment or reward to do good. The divinity of bananas is a horrible argument. You don’t dismiss it, you just rephrase it.

  3. Diosaucean Synod says:

    Bananas? What about apples, oranges, cranberries, blueberries, strawberries, Starfruit and kiwi fruit?

    Stop picking on bananas! You’re being fruitist!

    None of the other fruits above have ‘been made to suit our hands’ so why should bananas be any different? Is that the Theist’s nightmare?

    You seem to think that your god said ‘Hey, this idea for bananas, well they don’t sound very conventional do they? Well okay, pass me one [pauses to rub his hands up and down it to make the grooves]. There we go: Banana!’ But what you don’t seem to clarify is why ‘God’ didn’t seem to bother with any of the other fruits.

    The other thing is, some of the bananas I get have completely round skins! A lot of people I know don’t like them, so they AREN’T ‘pleasing’.

    Next you will be saying bananas are easy to cut so you can make Banana Sundaes!

    MAJOR flaws in your theory.


  4. steve says:

    I’ve got this banana that curves away from my mouth…

    What’s with that???!?

  5. Really? says:

    To almost everyone here; you need to learn some basic grammar, spelling, and forum etiquette. Sure, a mistake here and there is acceptable, we’re human, but when you make the same mistake over and over again, some of us might think that you don’t know what you’re writing. The saddest part is, the Christian “IDiots” have a better track record than the people that have enough intelligence to realize that Pastafarianism did not start as something people were supposed to follow (but who knows what it is now).

  6. Tora says:

    You seem to think that evolution is completely random. Like, if you threw a bunch of random cells into the air, they’d fall down and create a perfect human. This is not the case. It’s more like, if you had a bag of marbles of a thousand different colours, and wanted a red one, and started picking out marbles randomly and every time you took one out, you put one in of one of the colours already in the bag but NOT one of the colours outside the bag. It’s a bad analogy, I know, but it’s all I can think of at the moment.

    Also, if we took that same bag and wanted a red marble again, you could say that it’s very very unlikely to get a red marble. But you could say that about a blue marble or a yellow one or a green one. Evolution isn’t determined to get our exact DNA, it’s to come up with an animal that can live well in the environment it evolved in. Maybe, if something had happened just slightly different, we would be giant talking dogs walking around, with people crawling around doing tricks for food.

  7. Dangerstevey says:

    The Religious persons nightmare:

  8. Dangerstevey says:

    First I was mad, than I understood. You’re simply an uneducated retard. You believe anything you’re told in church, or by a religious official. You don’t understand. Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. For an eye to be created by chance is absurd, and so it wasn’t. It was created over millions of years by the process of natural selection, which in the end created a better eye each time it happened. in the end, we have the eyes of today, eyes suited to each individual animal that has them.

1 70 71 72 73 74 77

Leave a Reply