Aca wrote:checkmate, ahteizts
It never ceases to amaze me how people can spout so much ignorance in so little space and think that they are doing something incredibly clever and smart.
edit: from this FB group
https://www.facebook.com/TheAbsurdityOfAtheism
What a total piece of crap.
Let's deal with these in sequence, shall we? Once again, personal pronouns addressed to the original author of this drivel.
[1] This isn't what cosmologists postulate, who, incidentally, are the
actual people who postulate testaable natural mechanisms for the emergence of physical entities and phenomena. What those cosmologists
actually postulate, instead of this ridiculous and tiresome supernaturalist strawman caricature of actual physics, is that
the processes responsible for the instantiation of the universe, dumped a large quantity of energy into the space-time vacuum, and that the matter we observe arose from that energy. Courtesy of a little equation you might have heard of, that was derived by a certain Mr A. Einstein, namely:
E = mc
2Now we
know that this equation, demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy,
works. It's the equation that describes the liberation of energy from nuclear weapons. which manifestly work. As a consequence, I suggest you start learning what physicists
actually postulate, and pick up some relevant physics textbooks.
Moving on ...
[2] Actually, this is also wrong. This is because during the first Planck second, the energy dumped into the space-time vacuum was sufficient to keep the ambient temperature at around 10
43 Kelvins, a temperature at which stable matter particles are not known to exist. The conditions facilitating the emergence of stable matter particles only arose
after space-time expansion had resulted in the ambient temperature dropping to somewhere nearer 10
15 Kelvins. Even then, those stable matter particles were too energetic for neutral atoms to form. That had to wait until the ambient temperature had cooled to around 10[sup]3[sup] Kelvins, at which point space-time expansion had resulted in the effective radius of the space-time vacuum becoming something of the order of several thousand light years.
[3] Oh dear. The Big Bang was
not a fucking "explosion". It was
an expansion of the space-time vacuum. Plus, the assembling of neutral atoms into ordered structures was facilitated by
gravity, which attracts particles with mass to each other. Once again, pick up a physics textbook and learn what physicists
actually postulate.
[4] Actually, the modern cosmological view is that the laws of physics were always present. Indeed, cutting edge cosmological research is aimed at
determining the nature of the laws that existed before the Big Bang. See, for example, braneworld cosmology. Which, at the moment, whilst still awaiting direct empirical test (though Steinhardt & Turok presented a possible empirical test in two of their peer reviewed papers on the subject), is still mathematically consistent with known physics.
[5] Oh wait, this might have something to do with the fact that
the behaviour of gravity has been subject to constant and precise observation for 350 years, and has been observed behaving in the same manner throughout that entire period. Plus, if gravity had behaved
differently in the past, this would have been reflected in observations of distant objects, which would now be observed forming structures in accordance with a
different behaviour of gravity, Anyone who passed their exams in calculus is equipped to demonstrate the results of those different behaviours, if they had ever occurred.
[6] This isn't a "miracle", it's chemistry. Life is chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body every second, and if some of those chemical reactions
stop, you die. It therefore makes eminent sense to postulate a chemical origin for life. The research demonstrating in the laboratory, that relevant chemical reactions
work with respect to such matters as the formation of proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, is contained in several thousand peer reviewed scientific papers. Go and read them.
[7] Bullshit plain and simple. The number of peer reviewed scientific papers containing documentation of empirical tests of evolutionary postulates, runs into the millions. Oh, and this includes
direct observation in the laboratory of the emergence of multicellularity in populations of single-celled organisms. Once again, go and learn what biologists
actually postulate, instead of pretending that your sad little caricatures thereof constitute the reality. They don't. Game Over.
by 
