"I like to ask the “No God–Don’t Know God” crowd to respond to the following hypothetical.
Suppose you awaken alone in your house with its doors and windows locked to find your table set with a scrumptious breakfast awaiting you. Which explanation satisfies you? Your breakfast always existed in its present form, or your breakfast organized itself from lesser matter? Maybe the eggs, ham and cheese just evolved into an omelet, the muffin popped itself into the toaster then rolled around in the butter, the oranges squeezed each other, and there’s coffee but no Mr. Coffee.
The response is usually an ontological admission, as in, “Somebody came into my house while I was asleep and fixed breakfast,” or a simple “I don’t know.” I’m amazed at the atheists who find it easy to swallow the big bang but not the evolving breakfast." Janet M Larue
2007-10-31 03:37:47 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Link to stupid article here:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JanetMLaRue/2007/10/30/faithful_atheists&Comments=true
2007-10-31 03:38:38 · update #1
All of the attacks on non-believers are pretty stupid, the superstitious mind has to create false reasons for believing for religions to be able to control the programmed masses.
2007-10-31 03:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by Steve C 7 · 9⤊ 0⤋
At Least the Big Bang is Based In Some Facts.
2007-10-31 05:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some people will come up with anything to try and make a point.
But proving the big bang is slightly more complicated than explaining someone had a key to your house and decided to make you breakfast. In fact, the comparison is so stupid that it pretty much doesn't merit a response.
2007-10-31 03:43:26 · answer #3 · answered by Justin H 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
can i get an evolving breakfast at my house? I don't care how it gets there!
people say the most retarded things sometimes. She could have at least made an analogy that sense instead of trying to invent something as ridiculous as an evolving breakfast.
unimaginative people should not spout silliness.
2007-10-31 03:47:06 · answer #4 · answered by echos_passion 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
2007-10-31 03:59:31 · answer #5 · answered by skibm80 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There was obviously a perfect combination of chemicals and energy in the kitchen over billions of mornings, and one random result led to another, resulting in the ultimate breakfast. It makes sense.
2007-10-31 03:44:29 · answer #6 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is not an example of evolution or creationism - it is the over simplification of complex processes used to defend a non argument. Examples like this are the sign of a weak intellect that is unwilling to rationally examine complex issues.
*DRINK*
2007-10-31 03:45:58 · answer #7 · answered by Atrum Animus AM 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe we have just found the "missing link" between homo-sapiens and our primate ancestors.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you MRS. JANET LARUE!
2007-10-31 03:46:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree, that's one of the stupidest re-wordings of "The Watchmaker" argument I've heard in a while.
Flaws in the watchmaker argument (down a few paragraphs from this link):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#design
What we should REALLY conclude from the watchmaker argument:
http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker
2007-10-31 04:33:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And when this happens, I'll be the first to blast off about it to the news crew, police, and anyone else that will listen.
Sorry- yet another retarded straw man.
French Fry?
2007-10-31 03:41:13 · answer #10 · answered by Katie Couric's 15 Minutes... 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋