Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >gudl...@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? On Jun 4, 9:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be? Here's some more links. (I can't be bothered to go back and poost that stuff I've posted twelve times already.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_Eukaryogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html That's easily hundreds of pages of evidence and explanations right there. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <f40469$3b5$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how did that hydrogen come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 > >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. The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google search. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:09:22 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com> >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? Magic -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:26:48 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f3uj38$h5n$1@news04.infoave.net> >Martin Phipps wrote: >> He does have a point though: we have not heard him talk and so far we >> have no reason to think he is intelligent either. > >Yes, Jason has never TALKED to any of us, his IQ seems to be very low >and I've never seen him use fire. So I guess he's an animal and not a human. My best guess is: Sea Slug. Or Jehova's Witless. Same thing, really. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:00:12 -0700, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1180875612.470704.149680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> >Oh, Jason. You are a nuts case. > >Evolution is a just theory a respectable and cannot answer all the >questions you or anyone can posit. But many of the questions that you >posted here have a satisfactory answer so far. And many of >propositions you present as a counterpoint to evolution is rather >stupid. You have not any way to know, that because of evolution >should be millions of organisms more that there are really. You can >posit any stupid question you like, and you can misled a ignorant >hillybilly or any stupid inhabitant of US or Europe. As for all those >supposed enigmas of Grand Cannyon, the midoceanic ridges and others, >it is stupid presume it is an anigma at all. You should not waste >your time and energies battling against atheist, Jason. Go to preach >the gospel to the morons of your home town, Jason. >Bramble : There's only kinfolk in his home-town. Thirteen sisters, foruteen brothers, twelve fathers and three wives (sisters again). An' five hogs. (More wives) -- Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pa7663tokub9lapejjglc4p0hquo5fp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:12:56 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071312560...@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. > > > A real college that was associated with a Christian denomination like > > SMU or Notre Dame or a Bible College that has no use for science like > > Bob Jones? > > > >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. > > > Good for him. > > > > 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. > > > Because special creation is contrary to the evidence. Do you want other > > lies taught in college as well? How does astrology fit into your > > curriculum? Maybe you want dowsing taught? Would witchcraft fit in? > > Magic? > > Believe it or not, they probably teach courses like that at some colleges. Thank you for admitting that creationism belongs in the same category as astrology and witchcraft. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071830200...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@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? And we've told you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment Water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) are naturally occuring elements that can be found anywhere in the universe. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5WI8i.18091$px2.14...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306071713550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <jvd6631jv27i1d1c4qter9cls9uifdh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:32:20 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071532210...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >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. > > > >> 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. 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 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rku...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071902110...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> >> J...@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. Present some. Go right now to a library or a book store and find the book. I'm in Taiwan so I can only find legitimate books on the subject. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >gudl...@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? They were stars that exploded because the strength of their fusion reactions came to exceed the gravitational force that was holding them together. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnr...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071721290...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> >> J...@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. Why? Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Martin wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnr...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: >>>> In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>> <Jason-0306071721290...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>> In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >>>>>> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>>>> J...@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. > > Why? > He believes every liar his lying preacher tells him to. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > 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? Go back to school and take a science course. Seriously. We are not responsible for your ignorance. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Don't come complaining to us if you don't understand anything at the above link: consider your high school and college professors responsible. They should have done a better job of teaching you when they had a chance. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > 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. It does. That's why he shouldn't have to understand what he means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <h5o6631oms0mnhgkn628bpjpisapgbk...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> >> J...@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. I've done that. They present no evidence to support their assertions. Now that you've stated there is evidence then the onus is on you to either admit you are lying or show us the evidence. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:19 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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? Chemical reactions can be understood from the first principles of quantum mechanics: electrons obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle and form orbitals around the atomic nucleus. These orbitals determine the chemical properties of the atom. It's that simple. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I agree with many aspects of evolution theory. The main area of > disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis. Correction: the main area of disagreement is whether there is any evidence for abiogenesis. People have posted links to the evidence but you continue to claim that the evidence doesn't exist. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> >gudl...@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? First prove to us that you even know what those terms mean. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > How did the stars come to be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3vsqa$4ud$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > 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). > > This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. Indeed. > How did those stars come to be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3vsi4$3j1$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >>> In article <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@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". > a substance produced by a chemical process or used for producing a > chemical effect. Define "chemical" You can't define a word in terms of itself: it's circular. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <7cu663pl9fvark7chq9juck6erljt1d...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:19:08 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0306072019080...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <h5o6631oms0mnhgkn628bpjpisapgbk...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >> >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >> J...@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? Absolutely. Just like I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0lu663pg2iop4rbao2fl538a1c0rhnr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > 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? Please. It is said to have been a singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <d5076317avbqq57vlf3n32jnickckso...@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, J...@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. Or perhaps he just had better things to do. 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.