The Nothing: a.k.a. Creationist Questions Answered
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 7:09am
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2010/07/kent-hovinds-10-fallacies-refuted.html (championed previously on Facebook)
This blog entry is, as the Monty Python sketch’s were fond of saying, “Silly”. It posits “the nothing” as the creator of the universe…and then circuitously re-references “the nothing”, laws of “the nothing””, elementary particles of “the nothing”, energy of “the nothing”, emergent properties of “the nothing” as well as the “arising” of “the nothing”.
Of particular interest is this astute excerption:
“A replicator arose because a molecule capable of replicating itself arose. Once this happened, replication was an inevitable result of basic chemistry.”
Read : A replicator arose [out of the nothing] because a molecule capable of replicating itself arose [out of the nothing]. Once this happened [out of the nothing], replication was an inevitable result of basic chemistry [out of the basic nothingness]. Once they get past “the nothing” – there are umpteen various laws with which they explain things which sound good…but are, in actuality “nothing” piled atop the original “nothing”.
All this is referenced as a “Singularity” – a seemingly clever term made up to deal with the inability to explain what actually happened…so it is classified as a “one off” event arising out of, you guessed it…nada. When pressed as to what’s behind the singularity, science’s reply is “We, uhm…know it’s a problem…but we’re working on it.” : D
Read: “Anything but a deity, dammit (and we mean that, shallow Bible thumper!!!)” [Mind the gap]
Thus, as shown by this obviously, uhm…”Brilliant” article, when speaking of origins, science has absolutely “nothing” to tell us – or, as Chesterton states it:
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”