Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <f3vl1n$l0j$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f3t24v$7mv$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > >>>>> luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > >>>>>> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >>>>>>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > >>>>>>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > >>>>>>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > >>>>>>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I > >>> am with > >>>>>>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >>>>>>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > >>>>>>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point > >>> that he > >>>>>>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > >>>>>>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > >>>>>>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > >>>>>>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one > > celled life > >>>>>>>> form. > >>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > >>>>>>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > >>>>>>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > >>>>>>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > >>>>>>> years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in > > spite of > >>>>>>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > >>>>>>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > >>>>>>> sundays. > >>>>>> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction > >>>>>> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". > >>>>>> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated > >>>>>> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very > >>>>>> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies > >>>>>> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian > >>>>>> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! > >>>>>> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". > >>>>>> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned > >>>>>> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea > >>>>>> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped > >>>>>> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME > >>>>>> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and > >>>>>> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" > >>>>>> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' > >>>>>> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very > >>>>>> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' > >>>>>> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt > >>>>>> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be > >>>>>> constructed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. > >>>>>> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off > >>>>>> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, > >>>>>> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice > >>>>>> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a > >>>>>> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > >>>>> The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > >>>>> allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. > >>>> If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid > >>>> scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and > >>>> plainly fails said criterias. > >>>> > >>>>> They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > >>>>> about creation science. > >>>> See above. > >>>> > >>>> Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the > >>>>> Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not > >>>>> allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. > >>>>> The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > >>>>> to be taught in the public schools system. > >>>> NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach > >>>> it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce > >>>> it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.) > >>>> > >>>> The evolutionists are the new > >>>>> fascist. > >>>> lol > >>>> > >>>> Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > >>>>> advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). > >>>> That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can > >>>> be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually. > >>>> > >>>> Of > >>>>> course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > >>>>> tenure. > >>>> Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>> I was told he taught astronomy classes. > >>> > >>> > >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too > >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" > >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that > >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs > >> into tons of trouble. > >> So, no. He is out. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Tokay, > > He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could > > get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't > > discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Discrimination is > > suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this > > newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to > > discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by > > not granting them tenure. > > Depends on what their field is. If it is biology, or astronomy, they > have a hard time. Hey, to decide who is better fit to teach a scientific > class, I would look at what he actually wants to teach. If he wants to > teach "goddidit", as we all have endlessly explained to you, then, yeah, > he is out. Because it is not science. And actually hinders teaching > science in some fields. Biology is one. Astronomy another. > > So, if you want to say I am discriminating against ignorance, then yes. > I am. > > I would also not hire a car mechanic that believed there were little > demons inside the engine. If thats discrimination, then I am all for it. > > > How would you feel if a Christian college > > refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of > > evolution? > > I guess he would not apply for the job in the first place. > > Tokay I have only met one biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He taught evolution theory to his biology students. He was an excellent profesor. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <E%I8i.18094$px2.298@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be > >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two > >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from > >> >our > >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not > >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > >> > >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > > > > Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > > Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > > Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't discuss a > subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other side. IN > this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is attempting to > refute. > > In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. If the > fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please > present the evidence that the fossils support creation. I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a copy of that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's book if he wants an answer. I Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ... >> >>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >>>> creationist "arguments"? >>>> >>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else >>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or >>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR >>> college. >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> requires you to lie? >> >>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We >>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would >>> not be living cells. >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >> you, none of it good. >> > > How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be? > > For me to answer your question, define "chemicals". Tokay -- Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <u1J8i.18095$px2.5052@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071814470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would > >> >> >be > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a > >> >> >two > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from > >> >> >our > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did > >> >> >not > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > >> >> > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > >> > > >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > >> > > >> I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil > >> evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book, > >> you should be able to show this. > > > > Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 > > pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to > > read the books, here are the titles: > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > > You are really hung up on the number of pages. Why don't you pull out one of > either Gish's or Lubenow's points and we will examine the evidence behind > the point. I mentioned the number of pages for a reason. Several people stated that the advocates of creation science have no evidence. Dr. Gish's book has 391 pages and M. Lubenow's book has 295 pages. My point was that there is EVIDENCE discussed on those pages--they are NOT blank pages. People should read the books if they want to examine their evidence. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> How could it not? > >> > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. > >> > >> Through natural chemical processes. > >> > >> What other method has evidence to support it? > > > >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? > > Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical > processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's > not at all hard for the processes to have happened. I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > Denton or >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR >>>>>>> college. >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >>>>>> requires you to lie? >>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like > this: We >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would >>>>>>> not be living cells. >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >>>>>> you, none of it good. >>>>>> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come >>> to be? >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >>>> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical >>>> reactions work? >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking >>> you how those chemcials came to be? >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught > that steller refers to a star or stars. > > Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova (IIRC). Tokay -- Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > >> >> creationist "arguments"? > >> >> > >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> >Martin, > >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else > >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or > >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR > >> >college. > >> > >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > >> > >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > >> > >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > >> requires you to lie? > >> > >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We > >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would > >> >not be living cells. > >> > >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have > >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > >> you, none of it good. > >> > > > >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be? > > I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. > > Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical > reactions work? I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking you how those chemcials came to be? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> >> > >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical >> >> processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >> > >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >> > >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are >> present. > >How did all of those things come to be? Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:43 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072003430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article ><1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >> >> >> >> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >> >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else >> >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >Denton or >> >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR >> >> >> >college. >> >> >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >> >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >> >> >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> >> >> requires you to lie? >> >> >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >this: We >> >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would >> >> >> >not be living cells. >> >> >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >> >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have >> >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >> >> >> you, none of it good. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come >> >to be? >> >> >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical >> >> reactions work? >> > >> >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, >> >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >> >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking >> >you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > >How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >that steller refers to a star or stars. Yes, all atoms more complex than hydrogen arose as a result of fusion within stars. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <5WI8i.18091$px2.14794@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071713550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <jvd6631jv27i1d1c4qter9cls9uifdhge9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:32:20 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071532210001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13928@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqfevk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> <...> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology > >> >> >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation > >> >> >> >science. He > >> >> >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his > >> >> >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he > > taught the > >> >> >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to > > attend > >> >> >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were > > required > >> >> >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did > >> >> >> >not > >> >> >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a > >> >> >> >conversation > >> >> >> >with > >> >> >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have > >> >> >> >been > >> >> >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had > >> >> >> >worked > >> >> >> >in > >> >> >> >a state university. > >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific > >> >> >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of > >> >> >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism."" > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish > >> >> >> http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html > >> >> > > >> >> > That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the > > local state > >> >> > college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the > >> >> > debate in > >> >> > the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of > >> >> > Christians attended the debate. > >> >> > Jason > >> >> > >> >> Ah yes, old "Bullfrog" Gish. Tell me Jason, do you think that real > >> >> science > >> >> is done by public debate? > >> > > >> >No--it's a great method of helping people that attend the debates to > >> >understand the issues. > >> > >> No it isn't, Gish and his ilk are telling lies and misleading people. > >> How does that help understanding? You are completely confused because > >> you believed his lies. > >> > >> >Most of the people that attended Dr. Gish's debates > >> >are not involved in any science related fields or involved in scientific > >> >research. > >> > >> That is why he was able to get away with so many lies. > >> > >> >Dr. Gish has retired. > >> > > >> But the organization that he was part of is still telling lies and you > >> are still being misled by them. > > > > I don't believe they are telling lies. > > You aren't going to believe anything that anyone says that is contradictory > to your beliefs in the bible. That is fine, the problems develop when you > try to make the world of science conform to your religious beliefs. Because > of this conflict all creationists lie. The reason they lie, science does not > support the creationist belief. I am trying to learn how life can develop from non-life. Some people are helping. Two different people have told me that life may have developed from non-life as a result of chemical reactions. If you agree with them, explain how the chemicals that were involved in those chemical reactions came to be. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071954110001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnriq6@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was >> >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the >> >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be >> >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to >develop a two >> >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter >from our >> >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of >> >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook >did not >> >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. >> >> >> >> >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: >> >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? >> >> > >> >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not >> >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? >> >> > >> >> I've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that >> >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that >> >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything >> >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather >> >> than the scientists. >> > >> >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else >> >that has a Ph.D degree. >> >> The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my >> experience of them. > >I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > Then no one should respect you. You are demonstrating that you are a fool an can be misled by anyone who claims that God wants you to believe something. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:52:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071952190001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rkut0c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071902110001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2.298@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was >> >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the >> >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be >> >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to >develop a two >> >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from >> >> >> >our >> >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of >> >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook >did not >> >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. >> >> >> >> >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: >> >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? >> >> > >> >> > Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not >> >> > Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? >> >> >> >> Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't discuss a >> >> subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other >side. IN >> >> this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is >attempting to >> >> refute. >> >> >> >> In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. >If the >> >> fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please >> >> present the evidence that the fossils support creation. >> > >> >I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question >> >since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a copy of >> >that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's >> >book if he wants an answer. I >> >Jason >> >> If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence >> to support creation. > >I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. > He has no evidence in support of creationism in it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:24:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072024020001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <aao6639456a097rsoe5vgeic57t6nhn823@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:42:08 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071842090001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> > > <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> > > >In article >> >> >> >> > > ><1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > ... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the >> >> >> >> > > >apes >> >> >> >> > > >and >> >> >> >> > > >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they >kept the >> >> >> >> > > >gori= >> >> >> >> lla >> >> >> >> > > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw >> >> >> >> > > >fecal >> >> >> >> > > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and >> >> >> >> > > >designed >> >> >> >> > > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to >> >> >> >> > > >confu= >> >> >> >> se >> >> >> >> > > >the advocates of evolution. >> >> >> >> > > >Jason >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use >> >> >> >> > fire?-= >> >> >> >> Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No >> >> >> >> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely >> >> >> >> meaningless. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > These are some of the differences: >> >> >> > the use of fire >> >> >> > burying the dead >> >> >> > the ability to communicate by talking >> >> >> > differences in DNA >> >> >> > differences in IQ >> >> >> > the ability to worship >> >> >> >> >> >> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as >> >> >> explained >> >> >> here: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf >> >> > >> >> > Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books >> >> > or articles about genes. >> >> >> >> Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with >> >> chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either >that or >> >> god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect. >> > >> >I don't know enough about genes to make a comment. >> >> Then why have you been so arrogantly dismissive of evolution? > >I agree with many aspects of evolution theory. The main area of >disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis. > You don't know enough about evolution to have an informed opinion about it. Augustine said that Christians who didn't know what they were talking about should keep their mouth shut so they don't make Christians look like fools. Why do you insist on repeating your ignorant opinion when everyone here has tried their best to explain to you why your opinion is wrong? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:19:08 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072019080001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <h5o6631oms0mnhgkn628bpjpisapgbkrck@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was >> >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the >> >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be >> >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to >develop a two >> >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter >from our >> >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of >> >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook >did not >> >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. >> >> >> >> >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: >> >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? >> >> > >> >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not >> >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? >> >> > >> >> I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil >> >> evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book, >> >> you should be able to show this. >> > >> >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >> >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >> >read the books, here are the titles: >> > >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> > >> I don't think you get my point. THe way science works, the >> creationists have a positive obligation to show that the fossil record >> confirms creationism. How can I say that more directly? > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If you want >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you will have >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option would be to >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" into their >search engine. Once again, you are assuming a fact that is not so. Gish and Lubenow did not offer any evidence for creation in their books. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it >happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >> >> > >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >> >> > >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are >> >> present. >> > >> >How did all of those things come to be? >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. > >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical precursors come to be? > Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:34:21 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072034220001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <9mt6635s170bthiq1e7nlj0kqsukukcnjp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:43 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072003430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article >> ><1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >> >> >> >> >> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >> >> >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >anyone else >> >> >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >> >Denton or >> >> >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at >the ICR >> >> >> >> >college. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >> >> >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> >> >> >> requires you to lie? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >> >this: We >> >> >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >there would >> >> >> >> >not be living cells. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >> >> >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >you have >> >> >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >> >> >> >> you, none of it good. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come >> >> >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical >> >> >> reactions work? >> >> > >> >> >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, >> >> >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >> >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >> >> >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking >> >> >you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> > >> >How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >> >mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >> >that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >> Yes, all atoms more complex than hydrogen arose as a result of fusion >> within stars. > >How did the stars come to be? > The beginning of the universe as we know it is a cosmic expansion called the Big Bang. The name was originally offered to mock the hypothesis, but the name stuck and the opponent who was doing the mocking has turned out to be wrong. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>>>> In article >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Martin >> >>>>>>> Martin, >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >> > Denton or >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR >> >>>>>>> college. >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >> > this: We >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >there would >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come >> >>> to be? >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >>>> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical >> >>>> reactions work? >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> > >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. >> > >> > >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova (IIRC). >> >> Tokay > >This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. >How did those stars come to be? > You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology textbooks. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rkut0c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071902110001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2.298@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from > >> >> >our > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > >> >> > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > >> > > >> > Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > >> > Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > >> > >> Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't discuss a > >> subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other side. IN > >> this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is attempting to > >> refute. > >> > >> In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. If the > >> fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please > >> present the evidence that the fossils support creation. > > > >I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question > >since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a copy of > >that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's > >book if he wants an answer. I > >Jason > > If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence > to support creation. I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:49:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1crln7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >In article ><1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it >> >happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come >> >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had different >ones. It's >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >> >> >> > >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are >> >> >> present. >> >> > >> >> >How did all of those things come to be? >> >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. >> > >> >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical precursors >come to be? >> > >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. > > >Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions? > No, I'm stating that you have demonstrated enough bad faith in this discussion that I am no longer willing to answer your unending questions when you show no willingness to learn from any of it. You want to believe the lies that the ICR tells you. Go ahead. I cannot stop you. It would be nice if you stopped telling those lies to other people, though. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:46:42 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072046430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0lu663pg2iop4rbao2fl538a1c0rhnru3q@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:34:21 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072034220001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <9mt6635s170bthiq1e7nlj0kqsukukcnjp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:43 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306072003430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> ><1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here >can refute >> >> >> >> >> >> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's >degree is not >> >> >> >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >> >anyone else >> >> >> >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >> >> >Denton or >> >> >> >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at >> >the ICR >> >> >> >> >> >college. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to >be wrong >> >> >> >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from >non-life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you >worship that >> >> >> >> >> requires you to lie? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >> >> >this: We >> >> >> >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >> >there would >> >> >> >> >> >not be living cells. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. >The fact >> >> >> >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >> >you have >> >> >> >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a >lot about >> >> >> >> >> you, none of it good. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical >reactions come >> >> >> >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how >chemical >> >> >> >> reactions work? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the >experiments, >> >> >> >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already >know that >> >> >> >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I >am asking >> >> >> >you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> >> > >> >> >How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >> >> >mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >> >> >that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >> >> >> Yes, all atoms more complex than hydrogen arose as a result of fusion >> >> within stars. >> > >> >How did the stars come to be? >> > >> The beginning of the universe as we know it is a cosmic expansion called >> the Big Bang. The name was originally offered to mock the hypothesis, >> but the name stuck and the opponent who was doing the mocking has turned >> out to be wrong. > >How large was the mass that exploded? It wasn't an explosion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnriq6@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from our > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > >> >> > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > >> > > >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > >> > > >> I've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that > >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that > >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything > >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather > >> than the scientists. > > > >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else > >that has a Ph.D degree. > > The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my > experience of them. I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:45:01 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072045010001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <7cu663pl9fvark7chq9juck6erljt1dgs5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:19:08 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072019080001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <h5o6631oms0mnhgkn628bpjpisapgbkrck@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was >> >> >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The >> >> >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish >discusses the >> >> >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It >would be >> >> >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to >> >develop a two >> >> >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter >> >from our >> >> >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of >> >> >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook >> >did not >> >> >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: >> >> >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether >or not >> >> >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? >> >> >> > >> >> >> I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil >> >> >> evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book, >> >> >> you should be able to show this. >> >> > >> >> >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >> >> >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >> >> >read the books, here are the titles: >> >> > >> >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> >> > >> >> I don't think you get my point. THe way science works, the >> >> creationists have a positive obligation to show that the fossil record >> >> confirms creationism. How can I say that more directly? >> > >> >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book >> >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If you want >> >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you will have >> >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option would be to >> >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" into their >> >search engine. >> >> Once again, you are assuming a fact that is not so. Gish and Lubenow did >> not offer any evidence for creation in their books. > >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false information? > The evidence says they are. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2.160@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> How could it not? > >> > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. > >> > >> Through natural chemical processes. > >> > >> What other method has evidence to support it? > > > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? > > Through supernovae's. How did supernovaes come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> >> How could it not? > >> >> > > >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. > >> >> > >> >> Through natural chemical processes. > >> >> > >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? > >> > > >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? > >> > >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical > >> processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's > >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. > > > >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? > > > Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial > chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical > reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are > present. How did all of those things come to be? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:54:29 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtllal@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>>>>>> In article >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> ... >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin >> >> >>>>>>> Martin, >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >anyone else >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >> >> > Denton or >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at >the ICR >> >> >>>>>>> college. >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to >be wrong >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from >non-life. >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >> >> > this: We >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >> >there would >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. >The fact >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >you have >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a >lot about >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical >reactions come >> >> >>> to be? >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how >chemical >> >> >>>> reactions work? >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the >experiments, >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already >know that >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I >am asking >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> >> > >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. >> >> >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova (IIRC). >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. >> >How did those stars come to be? >> > >> You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology >> textbooks. > >Someone else stated that the Big Bang played a role related to the >chemical reactions that you mentioned, would you agree? > You misread what was written. Physics and chemistry are views of nature at two different layers of abstraction. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.