I think I know where this comes from, another idiot arguing for creation. But still, it only shows how little thought this udsuna invests into anything outside church and maybe Final Fantasy. Very ignorant.
8/31/2006 12:45:42 PM
WOW, 3 atoms combine and that is too perfect for chance. I can almost understand fundies not getting human evolution (we are pretty complicated) but to not understand that 3 atoms can combine by themselves?? Using toilet paper after going to the bathroom is probably too complex for this person too.
8/31/2006 12:47:16 PM
Yeah! That dihydrogen monoxide sure is perfect. I mean, ionic bonds are SOOOOO random. Two hydrogen and an oxygen molecule BONDING? Well, thats just unpossible!
gb2 /science class/
8/31/2006 12:49:50 PM
Too perfect? Um, at it's most basic level it's 2 hydrogen molecules attatched to 1 oxygen molecule. I would call it \"simple,\" but \"perfect?\"
I suppose they are probably referring to the old idea that water is the perfect substance to support life, so it must have been created to do so. This is a \"chicken or the egg\" argument,\" because water would also be the perfect substance to sustain life if the water came first, and life evolved to utilize it.
It's an example of the good old \"argument from personal incredulity.\" They are saying \"I can't believe that life evolved to take advantage of water, because I refuse to believe in evolution. Therefore water was created to meet the needs of life!\"
8/31/2006 12:54:06 PM
I assume \"perfect\" is meant to mean \"ideal for life to exist\". Consider the possibility that it's perfect for life as we know it to exist because it evolved to make use of water, which is abundant. If the planet were instead covered in seas of some other liquid, or maybe some gas cloud, might life of some other kind not evolve to make use of that instead?
8/31/2006 12:55:08 PM
Well, water does have nice property that since it's densest at 4 degrees of C and since ice is less dense than liquid water, big areas of water tend to stay liquid at the bottom.
However, that hardly proves creationism.
8/31/2006 1:06:53 PM
Whereas ethanol evolved.
8/31/2006 1:13:45 PM
Napoleon the Clown
Water's not perfect. For example, most creatures humans interact with cannot breathe it.
8/31/2006 3:42:40 PM
Water's actually kind of lame, if you think about it.
I mean, that whole supporting life thing is great and all, but water doesn't have any carbonation or fruit flavoring or anything. Why should I care about it?
8/31/2006 4:01:43 PM
plain water is chance... but with a slice of lemon, that is creationism!
8/31/2006 4:37:22 PM
HAHAHAhaha... Ohmigod, this is just too much... **wiping tears**
8/31/2006 5:35:20 PM
like, yah, omigosh! You just, like, turn on your tap, and, like, right - omigosh! There it is!
8/31/2006 7:18:05 PM
Please, you're too kind.
8/31/2006 8:17:43 PM
Jeez, how many more posts from the Final Fundie are we going to get?
8/31/2006 8:18:31 PM
\"Please, you're too kind.\" -Water
Also, DoctorX, this guy is a hoot and a half. Like Raitslin said in another post, we could devote an entire website to this guy. He's like the articulate version of JohnR7.
8/31/2006 8:48:26 PM
Deionized water is 'pefect', and not natural. Naturally occurring is rather 'imperfect'.
8/31/2006 9:05:16 PM
<< Please, you're too kind. >>
BWAHAHAHAHA! Good one, \"Water!\" That cracked me up!
8/31/2006 9:40:55 PM
never been there
I thought water was explained not by chance, but by molecular orbital theory. And I have actually had to learn the thermodynamics of liquid water short-range structure in a course. Fascinating, actually.
8/31/2006 11:26:55 PM
But what about water's evil twin, DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE? it must be THE DEVIL'S WORK!
9/1/2006 2:16:42 AM
Cool, can we attribute it to the laws of Nature then?
9/1/2006 2:33:27 AM
Humans tend to put a supernatural spin on what they fear and what they don't know. Apparantly udsana failed 7th grade science and has decided it was another of god's magic tricks.
9/1/2006 6:31:47 AM
If there IS an argument for creation, it's obviously the cacao bean, not water.
9/1/2006 7:28:23 AM
Sinister Minister, are you KIDDING? Do you know how much processing it takes to turn the cacao bean into a bar of chocolate?
9/2/2006 4:48:24 PM
Your problem, udsuna, is that you assume humans were a foregone conclusion— that the world as it is now was predestined from the beginning of the universe.
If you assume humans to have been predestined to exist, the fact that the world presents a perfect place for us to live does seem to support a god/designer.
The problem is that humans weren't predestined to exist; it's quite arrogant to assume we have a special place in the universe. When you put down the egocentric limitations creationists place upon themselves, it becomes clear that we are adapted to the Earth; we've adapted to survive on the planet that the laws of the universe handed to us, not perfect \"predestined\" beings living on a planet designed to accommodate our pre-made form.
9/13/2006 4:11:28 AM
Define perfect please.
10/3/2006 7:51:21 AM