Funny, (RRS)

I'd like to see this person pray, show me how you do it freind, yeah God bless us ....  of course ....

sounds great ! Now what ?  

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Astonishing. This is precisely what I mean about internet theists being tried and shot for their vicious mangling of our beautiful language. This person is not merely vapid and irritating, he is an astonishing idiot with no ability to express himself coherently whatsoever. I wonder what he finds so grueling about having to sit down and put a tiny amount of effort into making sure that his prose is at least half-decent? You should tell him that you refuse to respond to him until he learns to read and write and ceases to babble like a retarded four year old. This post contained no punctuation, no articulation, improper use of grammar, improper spelling, run-on sentences, no coherency and no intelligence. But...

What the hell, might as well live up to my badge...

This opening statement immediately undermines your objective credibility and hence reveals that you are not interested in proper discourse.

This is an argumentum ad ignorantium. 

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE The argumentum ad ignoratium or the argument from ignorance, is surely the most oft-abused and most poorly understood fallacy in the whole of debate, which is most odd, considering it is extremely simple.

The fallacy is double edged:

X is true because it has not been proved false

X is false because it has not been proved true

And usually, it is followed by the substitution of another hypothesis, in which case it becomes:

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE Hypothesis X is false because it has not been proven true, therefore hypothesis Y is true

To wit: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 The misuse of the argument from ignorance is indicated heavily when one argues regarding atheism. Most theists do not understand that atheism is inherently dichotomous, meaning there are two schools of thought. The first is mutually compatible with agnosticism, hence called agnostic or weak atheism. The position:

-There is no evidence for God. This absence of evidence does not mean that God does not exists. However, it does mean that there is no reason to suppose God exists, and the default position, as with all evidence-free claims should be non-belief, albeit retaining open-mindedness to the possibility. This position does not require faith. It is an admission of not knowing, but retaining that there is no reason to suppose the existence of the entity in question.

This is different from the strong atheist position:

-God does not exist. I am quite certain of this. I can disprove God.

And many strong atheists have indeed formulated arguments against God.

Correct. However, nobody claims that it does. The geophysical, biological, astrophysical, biochemical, genetic, molecular, astrochemical and cosmological processes responsible for creating complex structures in the universe are deterministic. 

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE Let us begin with something simple pertaining to false dichotomy fallacy. Many theists argue, fallaciously, for the existence of God based on the idea that existence is too complex and intricate to have formed randomly, and often attempt to make a fallacy of conflation between “not God” and “randomness.

The bifurcation occurs because the argument rests on the false dichotomy that “if not God, then chance”. This is fallacious because there is a third alternative (hence, we have a triconditional premise, which means that bifurcation is fallacious). That third alternative is natural process, which is not random, which is guided by the laws of physics and chemistry and such, but has no conscious will behind it. The bifurcation occurs because the theist makes the unjustified assertion that conscious will (ie a “mind” such as “the mind of God”) is necessary to create the order we see around us because it cannot be random. While it is true it cannot be random, this does not necessarily imply that it must have conscious guidance, because that fallaciously implies that we have a dichotomy between “conscious will” and “randomness”. In reality, we have unconscious, but certainly not random, processes which form the order we see. The process of biological evolution, for example, is blind-guided. But it is most certainly the absolute and precise opposite of randomness. This is true of vast numbers of natural processes which explain why things are the way they are, from star formation and cycles to geological columns . Everything down to the quantum level and up to the macrocosmic scale is governed by sets of physical and chemical laws which have no consciousness behind them, but still produce complex Order. In reality, the natural processes which do produce the order we see around us are extremely complex and anything but random. They are much, much more capable of producing natural order and complexity than we are at producing artificial complexity.

I admit, this one is quite instinctual. Since we are conscious entities, we tend to have some confirmation bias on the necessity of consciousness for anything to occur which is not random. In reality, this is not the case (and it just begs the question anyway). The problem is that we are used to the notion that only conscious entities may produce complexities, because that is what we do (this is why the unusually dim may compare natural structures and order to our artificially generated devices such as watches as per Paley). Hence, we tend to fallaciously conflate “not conscious” with “random”. This is a bifurcation which is false.

Many theists hence make the following statements

“Evolution is just randomness”

“abiogenesis (actually, most of them, fallaciously, say “evolution”) says that a bunch of molecules randomly collided to make life

Or more usually “evolution (again, fallacy of conflation) says that life came from rocks” (Take note, Hovind, this is factually false as well as fallacious)

“The Big Bang was just an explosion which was purely random”

And then use these falsehoods (which are based on the false dichotomization of “randomness” and “God” to make the following a posteriori statements:

“Life could not have formed randomly. Therefore God”

“Life appears designed. Therefore God” (This does not mean anything since “appears designed” is merely

Which are all false since they all depend on the false dichotomy.

The following arguments are all variants on the same theme and are hence refuted in the same manner:

In addition, much of your argument was a strawman of evolution coupled with a poisoning the well fallacy and an argument from incredulity. A modern ape is just as far along the cladogram as a modern human. Nobody believes that humans evolved from apes. Humans and apes have a common ancestor, as indicated by molecular phylogenics. This is a grade school error on your part. You obviously know nothing about the theory of evolution and might as well just leave since you demonstrated irrevocable ignorance. If you wish to debate the merits of evolutionary theory should you return, I promise I shall ground you to powder and leave nothing left of you, absolutely nothing. The humiliation will be total. 

In addition, your post indicated a problematic misunderstanding of thermodynamics which seems to be a principle driving force in your arguments. Hence, allow me to correct you: Thermodynamics is actually an extensive topic in biology.  Nothing in biology defies thermodynamics. Nothing. We need a quantitative unit to measure entropy, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 ∆S=R ln (PB/PA)

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu). But that equation is normally used for chemical reactions which change the entropy of a system because they change the energy distribution, from highly ordered packets of free energy in reactive chemical bonds to vastly more disordered, probable heat energy released. On Boltzmann’s tomb there is a famous epitaph:

 S=klogW

That equation is simply a rewording of the one above, where the entropy of a system is the gas constant multiplied by the natural logarithm multiplied by W, the number of possible microstates in question.

Once we begin to consider the nature of ordered systems, the probabilities in question become mind boggling. Consider a book with 500 pages, if unbound, and tossed into the air, what is the entropy change associated? The 500 pages all in correct order represent a single ordered state. 1/W. The number of disordered states is vast, truly and utterly beyond comprehension, for the number in question is (500*) or 500 product, which means 500 x 499 x 498 x 497....x 1, where n! is expressed as n x (n-1) x (n-2) x (n-3)...(n-(n-1)) This number is 1.2 x 10^1134, or to make it more visually holding:

1220136825991110068701238785423000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000

 Entropy therefore is a measure of the probability associated with a system, and an increase in entropy in invariably a tend towards more probable states, by which we mean less ordered states. When we consider entropy in relation to Enthalpy, we realize that highly disorderd states are vastly more probable than highly ordered states, since there are simply so many more than there are ordered states. At any rate, when we consider that it is the nature of all things to head probabilistically towards the lowest energy state, one might ask why, in fact, all things do not immediately do so. Why does paper not spontaneously combust? Paper is an ordered state. Ash and gas, disorder and vastly more probable. The oxidized ash and the escaping carbon dioxide never reconstitute themselves into paper. Clearly, there is vast favorability associated with this combustion? So why do we not all spontaneously combust. The answer is activation energy, for a reaction to occur requires a certain energy level be reached that systems in their stable state normally do not attain unless prompted to do so, such as by being supplied by a fire, in this case. Activation energies are the principles upon which catalysis work. Most reactions in the body could only take place inside an oven without catalysis. Occurances into lower-probability states still need energy inputs into the system in order to coax the reaction to fall towards the lower probability state. In the case with a bound book, the book will not spontaneously disorder itself, but once given the necessary energy (unbind it and toss it into the air). For any reaction where the Free-energy change is positive, which thence cannot proceed with spontaneity, not only a vault over an energy barrier required, but also then, state B is less probable than state A, as opposed to a favourable reaction, where upon the completion of an energy barrier, the free energy drops such that the reaction proceeds spontaneously, hence, if I toss a book, unbound, into the air, I have provided the activation energy, and the rest proceeds spontaneously. If I drop an egg off a table, I have provided that activation energy such that the reaction may proceed spontaneously, but I cannot do the same for attempting to reconstruct the shattered egg, for such is expressly forbidden by the laws of probability.

In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is R log 10^298 is about 1370eu per mole of each container (6.02x10^23 containers). ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

∆Ssea =h/T

We must now look at a critical concept: Gibbs Free Energy (G)

When observing enclosed systems, we need to know whether or not a given reaction can occur spontaneously. The question regarding this is whether the ∆S for the universe is positive or negative for the reaction, as already discussed.

In the cell in a box system there are two separate components to the entropy change in the universe. The ∆S for the inside of the box and the ∆S for the surrounding sea. These must be added together.

For example, it is possible for an endothermic reaction to absorb heat therefore decreasing the entropy of the universe (-∆Ssea) but at the same time cause such a large disorder in the box (+∆Sbox) that the total ∆S is greater than zero. Note that ∆Suniverse=∆Ssea+∆Sbox.

For every reaction, ∆Suniverse must be >0. We have just encountered another way to restate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In this case, the reaction can spontaneously occur even though the sea gives heat to the box during the reaction. An example of this is a beaker of water (the box) in which sodium chloride is dissolving. This is spontaneous even though the temp of the water drops as it is occurring.

This allows us to predict the nature and course of reactions, and also the free energy associated with the reactant and product in question. For a reaction to proceed, at the end of it, as a result of the reaction, there must be an increase in disorder in the universe, even if the reaction itself produces an island of order inside the cell. The laws of probability do not allow for this to be reversed. It would be analogous to eggs unbreaking. When we consider that a reaction can be predicted like this, if the ∆G of the product is greater than the reactant, the reaction will proceed spontaneously. If not, the reaction must be coupled to one which is, and that drives biological life.

This is given by the following formula

∆G=∆G(s)+RTlog{A}/{B}

What this basically says is that the change in free energy in a reaction will be equivalent to the free energy change under standard conditions for the products and reactants (available to be consulted in any data booklet), where R is Boltzmann’s constant (the universal gas constant), T is the temperature in Kelvin, and {A} and {B} are the concentration of A and B in mol/liter respectively.

Many chemical reactions are wholly reversible. If A can become B, there is no reason that B cannot become A, it’s just that for many reactions, B has a much lower G value than does A, and so is more probable, whilst B becoming A again is improbable. On the other hand, in biochemistry, reactants and products are violently colliding in the cytoplasm all the time, and this can provide the activation energy necessary such that B might return to A even though this is normally impossible because of the activation energy barrier. Consider a reaction with 100 molecules of A and 100 molecules of B. As A favourably turns into B, there will begin to be a large excess of B over A, and therefore, with the random collisions associated with molecules, a small amount of B will turn back into A. When the concentrations of the two are such that the rate of conversion of A to B is exactly the same as B to A, we say the reaction is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This is very useful because it allows us to calculate the concentrations of A and B and the standard free energy change if we so desire. Because thermodynamic equilibrium means ∆G=0, then the equation becomes:

-∆G(s)=RTlog(B)/(A)

For which we can rearrange to make the concentration the subject, where (A)/(B) would now represent the equilibrium constant. The ratio of B over A such that the reaction proceeds in equilibrium. The greater this ratio, the greater the free energy loss, and the more favorable hence probable A to B becomes. Now:

{B}/{A}=e^(-∆G(s)/RT)

For example, if a reaction A to B had an equilibrium constant of 10^5, it would mean that 10,000 times the number of molecule B would be needed over molecule A in order that the precise rate of A to B is equivalent to the rate of change of B to A, and then the two would be considered in chemical equilibrium. And, in that case, the free energy change would be precisely zero. The concept of free energy, or G, is what will be examined next.

The most useful composite function is Gibbs Free Energy (G) which allows one to deduce ∆S in the universe due to the reaction in the box. The formula is: G=H-TS.

For a box of volume V, H is the Enthalpy (mc∆T) T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy. All of these apply to the inside of the box only. The change in free energy in the box during a reaction is given as the ∆G of the products minus the ∆G of the reactants. It is a direct measure of the disorder created in the universe when a reaction occurs. At a constant temp, ∆G= ∆H+T∆S. ∆H is the same as –h, the heat absorbed from the sea. Therefore

-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S

h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

A reaction will spontaneously proceed in the direction where ∆G<0, because it means that the ∆S will be >0. They are inverse functions of each other. For a complex set of coupled reactions involving many molecules, one can calculate ∆G by adding the ∆G of all the different types of molecules involved before the reaction, and comparing that to the ∆G of all the molecules produced by the end of the reaction.

In this regard, there is a central distinguishing in chemistry between two types of reaction, endothermic and exothermic. When bonds are broken, heat energy is released, and so such reactions are considered exothermic, and such reactions hence are thermodynamically favorable, as has already been established, whilst those that make bonds are endothermic, and hence thermodynamically unfavorable, and occur as described. Since certain bonds have certain amount of energy associated with them, it takes a certain amount of energy to break certain chemical bonds. This is called the bond energy and is measured in kJ/mol, meaning the number of kilojoules required to break one mole of said bonds. So, a bond with a bond energy of 20 kJ/mol entails that it requires 20 kJ to break 6.02x10^23 of said bonds.

The entropy of the local system can decrease, providing the entropy of the global system increases. This is excellently indicated when you rise in the morning. The big yellow ball in the sky, which is smiling happily, as it has done for billions of years, is sitting there politely puzzled at this very odd species which appears to deny its existence (creationists). In a nutshell, It was Schrodinger who realized that decreases in entropy and the construction of high-order information patterns (measured by Gibb's Free Energy) are the result of a very important function in the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that for any concentric set of systems, decreases in entropy in local systems can be attained by a correspondingly larger increase in entropy in the total system. These entropy decreases and high-order systems are not random quantum fluctuations but precise mathematically equitable systems which can be measured very precisely using the basic formulae of thermodynamics (Helmholtz equations, Gibb's equations, entropy, negentropy, Enthalpy etc).

Entropy is in effect a measure of probability states and it has a proportional relationship to temperature (that is, the tend towards disorder is accelerated at higher temperatures).

But all high-order systems are open, otherwise they would be unsustainable. A closed system does not allow the crossing of heat, matter, energy etc across the boundary from the surrounding to the system. The necessity of all low-entropy systems is an influx of free energy, the expenditure of which is always compliant with thermodynamic, which allows for "order islands", that is, pockets of increasingly high order called the local system where the whole system (assuming closed) tends towards disorder. This is why the net entropy is always >0.

One more thing I can mention is that the thermodynamics equations that allow for evolution operate on the same mathematical principles that allow for other order-generating systems like reproduction etc. Entropy measures probability associated with ordered systems, but ordered systems, far from being random results of a vat number of possible microstates, are forced to be created as pockets of order, like us, in a disordering universe, because, ironically, of precisely the same principles. This is, in essence, what entropy is, a probability measure, but the probability only matters when the system is closed, which is why anyone who wishes to understand the principles must first understand that:

∆Ssea+∆Scell=∆Suniverse, whereby:

∆Suniverse>0

But the entropy of the local system can decrease, as long as a corresponding increase in entropy in the whole system obeys the second law, which dictates that ∆Suniverse for every reaction always>0. When S=KlogW, wherever W is vastly higher than the number of ordered states, it indicates, when ordered states are discovered, the entropy is lower. That’s what ordered states are, low entropy, hence low probability. But that probability function applies to a system where the total energy is increasingly progressing towards uniform distribution, the lowest energy state, like the universe. We do not live in such a system. Our system is supplied by a constant influx of free energy by a massive free energy generator which simultaneously generates vastly more entropy into the surrounding environs: A sun.

The mathematics, in short that dictate that you can drop salt into water and increase its order are the same mathematics which allow for the replication of DNA, the generation of a tree from a seed, the evolution of life. The Earth is an island of order fed by a huge system of dG (Gibb's Free energy), which, if you understand the logarithmic relationship between it and entropy, it should be easy to understand that the precise and quantifiable mathematics which allow for the coexistence of order-generators (like life) in an increasingly disordered universe is permitted. It is to these principles that you owe your very existence, since if they did not hold, a device of monstrously low entropy like a cell let alone a multicellular organism could never be generated:

Biological Life is a system of very high order, generating very high order, but at the expense of the universe overall. Without the laws of thermodynamics forcing things to take their lowest energy states, biology could not possibly functions. Proteins would not fold properly. Enzyme catalysis would not work. Bonds couldn’t form, reactions could not proceed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the functions associated make systems of extremely high order maintaining and producing this high order bound to expend a great deal of disordered heat energy into the surrounding system in order to continue functioning. This is the basis upon which carrier packets like NAD and ATP work. Systems of very high order can be generated in a universe which must progress towards disorder. Free energy can be created within a local system (like a cell) so long as the reaction required to do this forces the expenditure of significantly more disorder into the universe than order is produced in the local system. Without this, not only could evolution not occur, nothing could occur. Gas clouds would not collect, stars would not form, planets would not form, life would not form. Biological life is utterly forcibly complied with thermodynamics.

Now let us consider your arguments pertaining to Cosmology and Astrophysics:

I should first point out that you have a numerical error in your estimation of the number of galaxies that indicates you have erred by  five orders of magnitude, since the actual total is closer to 1 x 10^11, whereas you wrote 4x10^16, hence an error of 40,000 times.

Shall we begin with how planets, stars, galaxies, etc. formed after the Big Bang?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE Planets, stars etc take millions of years to form.  Based on our observations of quasars, the earliest star formed 200million years after the Big Bang. By the reckoning of Genesis, all the stars that were ever made were created within a day, and this also means no new stars form. This is simply not true, nor can stars be created in a single day. The birth of a star (which we have seen) is one of the most public and obvious things to happen in the universe. A budding astronomer with a telescope can see that the Orion Nebulae has a hazy patch in the middle of the Sword, part of the Perseus Molecular Cloud Nebulae chain, the patch is from the brightest star within, the NGC1333. Inside the nebulae chain is a massive dark swirl of gas that are collapsing under the pull of gravity to become rotating gas disks that condense into Yellow dwarves, like our sun. The dark patches around the star are filled with an infrared glow, as young stars condense, they shoot out massive jets of hot gas back into the nebulae cloud, which produces a glow visible from Earth. Even with your eyes, you can watch stars being born, very slowly, as the process takes millions of years, but you can watch snapshots of it nonetheless, since many different stars are in different stages of formation.

Ever since we discovered nucleosynthesis, we have gained a rather complete understanding of the stellar life cycle. All stars begin as a diffuse cloud of hydrogen gas which starts to collapse as driven by gravity. As hydrogen accumulates, the gravity increases, and it starts to condenses faster and faster, acting like a gas jet, sucking in hydrogen, at which point it is called a protostar, a phase which lasts 100,000 years. The cloud starts to spin rapidly (this often results in binary star systems), before condensing into the core, and the star's dense core heats up so much due to the kinetic energy of stellar gas being forced into the star's core, it starts fusing hydrogen atoms together to make the next heaviest element, helium. The process of converting hydrogen to helium is called "ignition", because the star starts to burn it's hydrogen. And this is the longest part of the star's life, the part our sun is roughly halfway through now. This is how a star is born.

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN X-NONE At the immense temperatures of the Big Bang’s immediate effects, free protons and neutrons collide with such incredible force that the protons bind with neutrons and each other, forming element nuclei, a process called nuclear fusion. However, this can only form elements up to beryllium. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was responsible for the formation of all the nuclei up to of Beryllium-8 isotope, which includes deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium built successively from free protons and neutrons, then deuterium, then helium, which were created in the immense temperatures of the first several minutes of the Big Bang. The ingredients created by BB Nucleosynthesis form stars, which, as discussed, continue to fuse nuclei to create all the elements up to Iron. When the star dies, it generates such massive energy levels as to create the rest of the elements in the table. Deuterium is highly unstable and almost all of it fuses to create helium. However, the deuterium bottleneck delays this process slightly. Anyway, the gist of BBN is that all the elements to create a star (helium and hydrogen being of primary importance), are there. And then the star can make the rest up to Iron, this is why the process is called the nucleosynthesis bridge. The stars take over from where the BB left off, they start by forming the most important biological element, carbon, by the triple-alpha process, ignition by the proton-proton chain, the other biological elements of oxygen and nitrogen by the C-N-O cycle, silicon, the noble gas neon, and the heavy metal Iron.

After Beryllium-8, the hyperbolic increase in fusion energy levels necessary make it impossible (since the BB nucleosynthesis is very short, only lasting a couple of minutes). That is why the stars need to generate the rest of the elements. The stars can only generate up to iron, the rest of the are produced by the utterly incredible heat of a supernovae which blasts all the elements out into the surrounding area. The process of star death, in other words, is necessary to create life. But if a star takes hundreds of thousands of years to be born, it takes billions to die, for the ignition phase of a star is the longest of it’s life, as the rotating disc continues to accumulate helium, billions of years, the number of billions depending on the size and Hertzsprung-Russell class of the star.

I trust this detail is enough?

Signed

Deludedgod

  Alert, DG finally goes berserk with Bazoocka blazing

Yicks .... the end is near .... 

[edit -Cool .... the end is near ....   (of religion)

oh come on deludedgod you r just an intolerunt grammerist that discriminates against the punctuation impaired the speling impaired and think you are so smart cuz u use big words and science i mean really like who the F do you think you are with all yur logic and biomoleculer stuff that u just copy out of other scientist books who thinks they are so smart to because they drink there fancy tea out of test tubes? whut no answer to that mister arrugent smarti pants im better than ever one else cuz i no how to punctutate propur sentances with the right umino acid see i can throw out a few scientific points to i mean who cant just look up smart sounding terms on wikipedi huh

You know what's sad, HC?  Your education shows through this.  I can tell you know how to use good spelling and grammar and are just choosing to type badly.

 Just goes to show that it's impossible to fake the kind of stupidity some people possess.

I'm crushed. How dare you insult the authenticity of my comedic prowess! Nobody tells me I can't be stupid! NOBODY! I live in Texas for Christ's sake! You're just an Astupidist...

This problem will be rectified in a few minutes. 

It's so funny because it's true. Thanks guys that gave me a good, deep laugh.