Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Yasha Hartberg (Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu)
8 May 1995 21:19:03 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (DANIEL
C. VOELS) wrote:
> If you take a Rolex apart piece by piece, then put all the pieces into
> a box and shake it up... (sure, you can try this at home) and shake and
> shake and shake... it will never, ever randomly "fall into place" to once
> again be a watch. Would you not agree? And you guys _really_ believe
> that something as sophisticated as a human being could have just "sprung"
> up out of some primordial soup with no intervention from something?
Well, first I would ask you to explain what the evolution of humans has to
do at all with the Big Bang. Second I feel I have to point out the
inherent weaknesses with your argument against evolution. Namely, your
analogy is only appropriate if Rolex watches reproduce themselves. Since
they don't, you haven't made a useful comparison. Additionally, evolution
depends on intervention from a little something called natural selection.
> Yeah. Right. Please excuse me, I'm going to go sit outside and wait for
> a nice cloud to rain tacos and hamburgers on me. This _is_ possible as
> well, no?
Well, no. But do feel free to spend your time as you wish. The Great
Pumpkin should arrive in October so perhaps you'd better mark it on your
> I think you guys should move on to another topic. Nobody really gives a
> good d*** what anyone else thinks. You can't change other people and they
> can't change you. Why not just drop it? Life is entirely too short to
> waste it arguing with brick walls.
And thank you for your insightful addition to this thread. It is at least
clear that YOU don't care enough what others think to spend even the least
amount of time to understand what they are talking about.
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol