Guest Al Klein Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:27:55 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Steven J. Gould is another person who proposed ONE OF the THEORIES of >> evolution, and he was NEVER a Christian. >Yeah, Gould had an idea. Mixed up by a lot of those bible-thumpers. >Actually a pretty good idea. He is NOT a saltationist. A "staccato saltationist", maybe? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >I have never researched the >life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR >newsletter about Mr. Gould. They probably distorted something about him. Nothing he ever said had anything to do with creationism. Except the occasional snort. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:00:11 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072100120001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <igv663ta5p30ec3uvffhi272aess74bsav@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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: .... >> >> 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. > >Be honest--do you or don't you know the answer to my last question--I will >give you a hint--it involved a big explosion. I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Certainly you cannot be talking about the Big Bang, since it was not an explosion. You'll have to do better with your silly game. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <f3vsi4$3j1$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 a substance produced by a chemical process or used for producing a chemical effect. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <igv663ta5p30ec3uvffhi272aess74bsav@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Be honest--do you or don't you know the answer to my last question--I will give you a hint--it involved a big explosion. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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. >jason > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no reason, unless you give me one. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:05:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306072205570001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <d5076317avbqq57vlf3n32jnickcksogql@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >I have never researched the >> >life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR >> >newsletter about Mr. Gould. >> >> They probably distorted something about him. Nothing he ever said had >> anything to do with creationism. Except the occasional snort. > >I seem to recall that he was mentioned because he refused to debate Dr. >Gish. I believe the reason was because he was afraid that he might lose >the debate but his reason was that he did not want to do anything to >promote creation science. > Once again you put your own dishonest spin on it. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 4:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > ... > > > >> 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. > > > Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you > > can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of > > 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are > > thinking of have are not real colleges. > > > >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. How would you feel if a Christian college > > >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of > > >evolution? > > > Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal > > discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his > > religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. > > I attended a Christian college for two years. That explains everything. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > "Clumping" of hydrogen by gravity, not equally distributed, pressure starts to build, temperature goes up, fusion starts. You have a star. This is not chemistry, though. Physics. "Kernphysik" in german. 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 6:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ba8663tn66fnvj274pchevj2ue693ks...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:11:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071411580...@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqf...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@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 > > > Gish is a con man. It's not great that he is allowed to teach his lies > > anywhere. Churches should feel shame that they let him teach such > > nonsense. > > He has debated hundreds of science professors and won most of those > debates. He easily won the the debate that I attended. The main reason is > because the professor from the state college lost his temper and made a > fool of himself. Even the students that came to support their professor > stopped clapping for him after he made a fool of himself. I learned from a > professor that a taught public speaking class that when someone that is in > a debate starts name calling, it means that person lost the debate. That's > the reason I don't get upset when people call me names--it means that I > won the debate. You just keep telling yourself that and you might believe it. There is a difference, by the way, between pointing out that a person has lied and calling him a liar. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 6:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqf...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@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. It obviously didn't help you though. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 6:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uAF8i.15454$JQ3.7...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306071312560001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >> ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> 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. > > > >> Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you > > >> can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of > > >> 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are > > >> thinking of have are not real colleges. > > > >> >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. How would you feel if a Christian college > > >> >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate > > >> >of > > >> >evolution? > > > >> Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal > > >> discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his > > >> religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. > > > > 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 > > > I'm curious Jason, what did he teach the students? Since there is no science > > involved with creation 'science' I fail to see how he could teach anything. > > 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". And yet fossils don't speak. If they could they would say "Hell yeah!" Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3vsi4$3j1$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > a substance produced by a chemical process or used for producing a > chemical effect. > > Well, see Wikipedia for a more exact definition, but never mind. Heavier atoms came from stellar fusion, inside stars, these can blow up depending on starting weight. Stars are basically "burning" hydrogen. See other post. 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 7:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). RNA is commonly believed to have existed before DNA, which then emerged much later. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity ). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 7:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. Why do you presume to make arguments based on genetics when you admit you don't know anything about it? If you really want to understand about evolution then wouldn't it make sense to read some books about genes? If scientists were able to construct a living virus from basic chemicals (which sounds like an unholy bad idea but there you go), how would you be eexpected able to understand any paper on how they did it? You claimed that you've read papers on abiogenesis. You obviously haven't: you don't have the background necessary to understand one. You can't eveen answer the simplest of questions we ask. Would you consider it "name calling" if we said you were pathetic? Martin 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.