On 2021-01-12, TimS  wrote:

> On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher 
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>>  That nicely takes care of creation science...
>>
>> Well no.
>>
>> In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
>> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
>> which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
>> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
>> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
>> figure is.
>
> If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started  in 4004
BC,
> then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago,
no
> I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
>
> And so on.
>
> But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem
> Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.

They've probably been following too many politicians.

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /        |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05