Hate Mail

Jordan Srnec

December 5, 2001:

I understand that in your arguments page you have already stated that the "something cannot come from nothing" argument is a "strawman attack". However, it is still very true.

Of course it's true that something cannot come from nothing. This is the first law of thermodynamics, which is routinely ignored by the Bible.

I do not believe that Evolutionists believe that life came from nothing. However, whatever you believe it came from was obviously supernatural. For whatever it came from either always existed with no end or beginning, came from something else which came from something else etc., or came from another something which always existed with no beginning or end. If you are a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, then you believe that everything came from a rock.

Actually, a massive singularity, not a "rock". And it has always existed.

That rock either came from God or was God. If the rock didn't come from God (and it didn't come from nothing), then it is, by definition, God because it always existed- it had no beginning.

Everything which is eternal is God by definition? That's ridiculous. God is defined as a sentient supernatural being with power over the universe and its denizens. God does not necessarily have to be eternal, nor does everything which is eternal have to be God. In fact, many god-myths throughout history have involved the births and deaths of gods.

The physical universe has always existed. However, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any theistic belief system.

Definition of God is control over nature and humans, immortality, and being supernatural. Something cannot disappear into nothing either, so the rock is endless- immortal. The rock is above natural law since it always was and will never end- supernatural. It fulfills two attributes of a deity.

Your logic is deeply flawed. Think about it: you are saying that God is eternal, therefore anything which is eternal must be God. This is a serious fallacy of composition which is perhaps best illustrated by using a mundane analogy. The Cubans are communists. Does this mean that any communist must therefore be Cuban?

Darwin said, and I quote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," in his book The Origin of Species on page 171. He also said, quoted again, "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection," in The Origin of Species on pages 186 and 187.

The minute someone starts basing his argument on quotes rather than reasoning, he reveals a literary rather than scientific mindset. This does not bode well for the rest of your argument. The theory of evolution was founded by Darwin. Darwin, however, is NOT its god. This is science, not theology. If Darwin is proven wrong about something, evolution is not necessarily proven wrong with him.

[Editor's note: I should have added that no one has successfully met Darwin's criteria for falsifying his theory]

Sadly, for the evolutionary theory, there are animals which could not have been formed through numerous, successive, and slight modifications; and it has been proven that a symbiotic relationship in which one species depends solely on the other for survival does/did exist.

Nonsense. Every creationist attempt to produce an example of an animal which could not have evolved has failed. In many cases, the animal was described in a completely inaccurate fashion in order to maintain the creationist deception. Animals such as the bombardier beetle and the Monarch butterfly and the trilobyte have all been used as the creationists' silver bullet, and all have been conclusively shown to be examples of evolution, not creation.

The Surinam toad females have extra-long oviducts and skin flaps on their backs. These toads are land-based amphibians. They cannot lay eggs in water (because there isn't any where thay live) and they cannot lay eggs on dry land or they would shrivel and die.

"There isn't any" water where they live? They are amphibians! Can't you see that glaring contradiction in your own words? It's not hard to do a quick search on Surinam toads and find that they do live in around water. In fact, they mate in the water!

The females can lay eggs on their backs with their specialised oviducts and the skin flaps envelope the young and sustain them in a liquid substance, safe from the elements.

Wrong again. The females lay eggs which stick to its back after fertilization. They sink into the spongy skin, which forms a honeycomb structure to support them over time.

When the water of their habitat dried up they would need these body parts immediately or the species would go extinct.

Where on Earth did you read this? Did you honestly believe some creationist website when they said that the amphibian Surinam toad lives in a waterless environment? The Surinam toad's habitat is South American rainforest! Their habitat did not dry up!

If these body parts happened one at a time or together in slow, succesive manner, then they would have died out because they had no way of laying their eggs. An oviduct without skin flaps is as worthless as skin flaps without an oviduct or no voidcut or skin flaps at all! This alon, Darwin admitted, demolishes his theory.

No, it demonstrates your creationist source's willingness to resort to blatant lies in order to attack evolution theory.

Onto dodos. Dodo birds ate a plant (Calvaria Major) and spread its seeds on the ground. In the birds gizzard, the seeds were scratched by stones and made able to germinate. Only the scrathed stones grew into plants. When the dodo went extinct the plant nearly did also, but humans saved it by artificially scratching the stones, only these artificially scratched stones will germinate. Once again, the Darwinian theory is annihilated by a fact which Darwin admitted would ruin it.

Nonsense. The Dodo and the Calvaria Major are very easy to explain through evolution. It needed to eat stones in order to make its digestive system work, just as the pigeon does today. The harsh conditions in its gizzard would have destroyed delicate seeds, so variants of the Calvaria Major with hardier seeds gained an obvious evolutionary advantage. Over time, variants with extremely tough seeds would have become dominant, so that they became dependent upon the dodo's grinding gizzard as part of their reproductive cycle.

At no time do we have a structure "formed for the exclusive good of another species". The grinding conditions in the dodo's gizzard were not there for the exclusive benefit of the Calvaria Major; they were an integral part of the dodo's own digestive system, just as they are for the pigeon. The Calvaria Major merely adapted to take advantage of it.

Thank you for hearing me out, J. Srnec.

I strongly suggest that you consider getting your information about evolution and biology from sources other than creationist propaganda. They have a habit of acting as though evolution cannot explain phenomena which it can explain, with great ease.


Last updated: February 27, 2001


Continue to Scary or Belligerent

Jump to: