Guest Michael Gray Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:55:30 -0700, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <1180940130.734812.145150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >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 Note that the village idiot said "steller". This is a reference to an extinct sea cow. Steller fusion is two extinct sea cows mating. -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 01:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180909764.150176.122...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 4 Jun., 01:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: snip > > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure since > > > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right?- Skju= > > l tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > Probably, but one would hope that the school would not be accredited, > > since it obviously is not teaching what it pretends to be teaching, > > i=2Ee. science. > > Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they teach > course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one college > teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question marks) > > I googled witchcraft professors and found this: And you got examples of legitimate courses that did not teach that magic was real, that witches really had the magical powers claimed for them. In other words the courses were legitimate and cannot be compared to teaching creation science as if it were legitmate. Are you truly so stupid that you think teaching about something is the same as advocating it? > > As a cultural studies major at Columbia, sophomore Erin Polley had always > been interested in women's history, so after learning about an elective > class in witchcraft, she decided to sign up. > > Witchcraft in Colonial America, a one credit, two-day class offered on a > trial basis in March, examined witchcraft in 17th century America. The > course explored religious beliefs and gender issues while attempting to > establish an understanding for the culture of the society. > > Cultural Studies instructor Teresa Prados-Torreira created the class, > which attracted about 20 students, after seeing an interest in the topic > among students in her previous classes. > > I know that students are very interested in witchcraft,? Prados-Torreira > said. ?There are always students who are wanting to write papers on > witchcraft and Salem in my other classes.? > > Students first learned the history of witchcraft in context with colonial > America, such as the infamous witch trials in 17th-century Salem, Mass. > Polly said she learned about the witch movement in relation to the > political and economic background during that time in history in > Prados-Torreira?s class. > > I didn"t have much history of colonial ... > > l Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 01:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180907175.744386.265...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 3 Jun., 21:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: snip > > > Tokay, > > > He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could > > > get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't > > > discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Discrimination is > > > suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this > > > newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to > > > discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by > > > not granting them tenure. > > > Would it be okay to keep a professor who taught that the Earth was > > flat? > > They actually teach withcraft classes at Columbia. Here is the proof: > (ignore the question marks.) The evidence you provide shows clearly that they do not teach witchcraft classes. You are a fool. > > As a cultural studies major at Columbia, sophomore Erin Polley had always > been interested in women?s history, so after learning about an elective > class in witchcraft, she decided to sign up. > > Witchcraft in Colonial America, a one credit, two-day class offered on a > trial basis in March, examined witchcraft in 17th century America. The > course explored religious beliefs and gender issues while attempting to > establish an understanding for the culture of the society. > > Cultural Studies instructor Teresa Prados-Torreira created the class, > which attracted about 20 students, after seeing an interest in the topic > among students in her previous classes. > > I know that students are very interested in witchcraft,? Prados-Torreira > said. ?There are always students who are wanting to write papers on > witchcraft and Salem in my other classes.? > > Students first learned the history of witchcraft in context with colonial > America, such as the infamous witch trials in 17th-century Salem, Mass. > Polly said she learned about the witch movement in relation to the > political and economic background during that time in history in > Prados-Torreira?s class. > > I didn"t have much history of colonial America,? Polley said. So it was > interesting for me to learn another aspect of women?s history.? > > Students also watched excerpts from The Crucible, a film adapted from the > famous Arthur Miller play depicting the Salem witch trials of 1692. > > The Salem witch-hunts started after 12-year-old Abigail Williams and > 9-year-old Elizabeth Parris started demonstrating bizarre behavior, > including screaming and seizures, in January 1692. Within months, more > women and men were being accused of witchcraft, many of whom were > respected members of their community. > > Physicians believed the girls were under the spell of Satan and by the end > of February, warrants were issued for their arrests. Though Williams and > Parris were not executed, more than 20 people died as a result of the > trials. > > ?At that time women were considered irrational,? Polly said. ?The movie > helped get the point across and to see the differences between the book > and readings.? > > Prados-Torreira said it?s an important part of women?s history. > > ?It?s a good topic [to pursue] these days,? Prados-Torreira said. > > Salem State College, in Salem, Mass., developed classes in witchcraft > seven years ago after professors realized most students were ... > > l Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180907895.450122.123...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 3 Jun., 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180863203.738843.244...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@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=3D > > > > lla > > > > > > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw f= > > ecal > > > > > > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed > > > > > > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to c= > > onfu=3D > > > > 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 fi= > > re?-=3D > > > > Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > 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 > > > The DNA in dogs is not the same as that in cats. Does that mean that > > dogs are not animals or is it cats? I cannot wait for your answer. > > The DNA is one of the reason that dogs are different than cats. And the various types of apes have differences in their DNA, yet they are all animals including man. By the way I am not surprised that you didn't answer the question. Such silly evasions as the above are what one expects from you. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 01:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 4 Jun., 01:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <RoF8i.15298$JQ3.14...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-0306071236540001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <1180864433.482133.263...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, M= > > artin > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> > In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > >> > > Jason wrote: > > > > >> > > > In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > >> > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > >> > > >>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>, Free > > > > >> > > >>> Lunch > > > > >> > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> > > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> > > >>>> <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse..net= > > >: > > > > >> > > >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com>, F= > > ree > > > > >> > > >>>>> Lunch > > > > >> > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> > > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> > > >>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.n= > > et>: > > > > >> > > >>>>>>> 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 k= > > eep > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >> > apes and > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, th= > > ey > > > > > kept the > > > > >> > > >>> gorilla > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escap= > > e 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 > > > > >> > > >>> confuse > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 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? > > > > >> > > >>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans > > > > > learned to tame > > > > >> > > >>>>>> fire and other animals did not? > > > > > >> > > >>>>>> Wow.... > > > > >> > > >>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference bet= > > ween > > > > >> > mankind and > > > > >> > > >>>>> animals. > > > > >> > > >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. > > > > > >> > > >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships G= > > od > > > > >> > > >>>>> and > > > > >> > > >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans > > > > > worship God. > > > > >> > > >>>> Another trivial difference. > > > > >> > > >>> Another major difference: > > > > >> > > >>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. > > > > > >> > > >>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talk= > > ing. > > > > > >> > > >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some > > > > >> > > >> scientific > > > > >> > > >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign languag= > > e=2E So > > > > >> > > >> they > > > > >> > > >> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to > > > > >> > > >> sound. > > > > >> > > >> What was your point again? > > > > > >> > > >> Tokay > > > > > >> > > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY > > > > >> > > > TALKING. > > > > > >> > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. W= > > e are > > > > >> > > communicating by internet. No sound? > > > > > >> > > > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder ou= > > tside > > > > >> > her window. > > > > >> > > > When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her > > > > >> > > > window to > > > > >> > > > let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After = > > she > > > > > refilled > > > > >> > > > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs l= > > et > > > > >> > > > their > > > > >> > > > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign langu= > > age. > > > > > Do you > > > > >> > > > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 = > > year > > > > >> > > > old > > > > >> > > > child? > > > > > >> > > Hardly. But that is not the question. > > > > > >> > > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the solut= > > ion > > > > >> > > > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low I= > > Q=2E > > > > >> > > > jason > > > > > >> > > Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > > > > > >> > > You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... > > > > > >> > I have provided three separate reasons. > > > > > >> The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than that > > > > >> of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape could > > > > >> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirement > > > > >> for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting. > > > > > >> You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you? > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it out f= > > or > > > > > me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. > > > > > Jason > > > > > It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. Now there is > > > > life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin from non-life. > > > > Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the distribution = > > and > > > > diversity of life on earth. > > > > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.- Skjul tekst i an= > > f=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn > > > How could it not? > > You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 01:55, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180908743.707884.147...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 4 Jun., 00:26, 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 taugh= > > t the > > > > >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to a= > > ttend > > > > >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were req= > > uired > > > > >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did n= > > ot > > > > >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversati= > > on with > > > > >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have be= > > en > > > > >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had wor= > > ked 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 f= > > or > > > > >> 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 s= > > tate > > > > >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. Someone told me that Dr. Gish lost the debate that he > > > attended. The reason was that the professor had attended a previous debate > > > and was prepared to respond to every issue that Dr. Gish mentioned in the > > > debate. That professor that won the debate never lost his temper or > > > started name calling. > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > Whether he won the debate or not, Gish was wrong. Science is not > > determined by debating skills, nor is it determined by the opinions of > > the people attending debates. > > I agree.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 02:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 3 Jun., 22:12, 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: >snip > > > > 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. > > > Not if the school acted properly. If he tried to teach it, the proper > > action would be to dismiss him if he insisted on continuing such > > behavior. Did you think you had a point? > > My point was that a biology professor that is an advocate of creation > science can teach evolution theory as well as a biology professor that is > an advocate of evolution. The special session was probably approved by the > college administrators. It was a Christian college. I attended the college > in 1971 to 1972. Back in those days, the vast majority of the students and > professors were Christians. I doubt that they would now allow a professor > to have a special session to teach creation science. The question was not about "special sessions" but about actual classes taught as science. That should not be allowed. You do like to obfuscate. I now present proof > that they teach witchcraft classes at Columbia. What's your opinion about > witchcraft classes? > (ignore the question marks). I have already responded to the nonsense below. It proves that you are wrong. They did not teach witchcraft. They taught about it. snip and please have the decency to not post it again. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Start there. Read on. Don't stop. Don't ask questions your high school teacher should have told you. Really, if a kid asks me this I will explain. As good as I can. But an adult can be expected to look for himself if he wants to know. At least on such matters. I am not jumping through loops. If there is something in these articles that you don't understand and can't find out by google or wikipedia, come back with these questions. But don't ask questions for which the answer can be found by a simple google search. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 cactus wrote: > Jason wrote: >> 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. >> >> > He's right not to because creationists do not debate fairly in open > forums. They pack the hall with their own vociferous supporters, they > produce outrageous lies that preclude response in the time available, > they distort science so that the person debating them has to take all > their time explaining how they are wrong. It's just not worth it. The > creationists will be in court or some other forum at some point, and > it's best to debate on genuinely neutral ground. > > IOW they are dishonest, they fight dirty, and they will use the forum to > assert credibility that they lack. Best to keep them in the shadows and > under rocks where they belong. What they do would actually be quite funny. If it wasn't so sad and pathetic. They stand there, provide no proof for their claim, the scientists (the proper ones) try to explain. Show them that what they claim is evidence is actually and utterly wrong. THEN they go on saying "See? There is a scientific debate over the matter". There is no such thing. This is not a debate. If it was then every time a pupil asks a stupid question, you have to teach that question to every other pupil there is. Pathetic. Disgusting. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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? The heavy elements were created in supernovae. Can you read? I'm beginning to believe that your entire defense of your position is from personal incredulity, which is an indefensible position. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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? Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is stating that you don't know how to ask a question. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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: >> > >> >> 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. Now just which big explosion was that, Jason? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0306071955530001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2.160@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> > >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> > >> > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to >> > be? >> >> Through supernovae's. > > How did supernovaes come to be? Stars ran out of gas(pun intended) :-))). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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? This is getting boring, Jason. You are showing yourself to be a dishonest debater, much like your hero, "Bullfrog" Gish. To cut to the chase Jason, who made god? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtllal@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >>> Lunch >> >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >>>>> Lunch >> >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>>>>>> In article >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> ... >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can >> >> >>>>>>>> refute >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin >> >> >>>>>>> Martin, >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree >> >> >>>>>>> is not >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or > anyone else >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >> >> > Denton or >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at > the ICR >> >> >>>>>>> college. >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to > be wrong >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > non-life. >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship >> >> >>>>>> that >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something >> >> >>>>>>> like >> >> > this: We >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >> >there would >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. > The fact >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when > you have >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a > lot about >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > reactions come >> >> >>> to be? >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how > chemical >> >> >>>> reactions work? >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > experiments, >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came >> >> >>> to be? >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a >> >> >> free >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the >> >> >> past. >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already > know that >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I > am asking >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex >> >> >> than >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> >> > >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? >> >> > You >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was >> >> > taught >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. >> >> >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass >> >> gets >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova >> >> (IIRC). >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. >> >How did those stars come to be? >> > >> You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology >> textbooks. > > Someone else stated that the Big Bang played a role related to the > chemical reactions that you mentioned, would you agree? The Big Bang played a part in everything, if you wish to get technical. It even played a role in the creation of gods, yours included. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0306072046430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <0lu663pg2iop4rbao2fl538a1c0rhnru3q@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:34:21 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306072034220001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <9mt6635s170bthiq1e7nlj0kqsukukcnjp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:43 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306072003430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> ><1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here > can refute >> >> >> >> >> >> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's > degree is not >> >> >> >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >> >anyone else >> >> >> >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; >> >> >> >> >> >M. >> >> >Denton or >> >> >> >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach >> >> >> >> >> >at >> >the ICR >> >> >> >> >> >college. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to > be wrong >> >> >> >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > non-life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you > worship that >> >> >> >> >> requires you to lie? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something >> >> >> >> >> >like >> >> >this: We >> >> >> >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >> >there would >> >> >> >> >> >not be living cells. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. > The fact >> >> >> >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >> >you have >> >> >> >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a > lot about >> >> >> >> >> you, none of it good. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > reactions come >> >> >> >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how > chemical >> >> >> >> reactions work? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > experiments, >> >> >> >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came >> >> >> >to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a >> >> >> free >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the >> >> >> past. >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already > know that >> >> >> >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I > am asking >> >> >> >you how those chemcials came to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex >> >> >> than >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >> >> > >> >> >How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >> >> >mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was >> >> >taught >> >> >that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >> >> >> Yes, all atoms more complex than hydrogen arose as a result of fusion >> >> within stars. >> > >> >How did the stars come to be? >> > >> The beginning of the universe as we know it is a cosmic expansion called >> the Big Bang. The name was originally offered to mock the hypothesis, >> but the name stuck and the opponent who was doing the mocking has turned >> out to be wrong. > > How large was the mass that exploded? About the size of your brain, extremely small. In the first place the 'mass' was energy. In the second place it wasn't an explosion as you would know it. In the third place, you need to quit being dishonest and start debating or admit that you can't. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how > did that hydrogen come to be? Hydrogen consists of a single proton and a single electron. Protons consist of three quarks, one down and two up. Thus the hydrogen atom consists of four elementary particles. That's it. Okay, granted, there's also the binding energies: binding energy makes up the bulk of the proton's mass. In fact, these four elementary particles are all charged so their mass, conceivably comes from their self-interaction. Some people argue that elementary particles are strings and their mass actually comes from their vibrations, but this is only a model that seems likely to reproduce the masses of the elementary particles; it's unlikely that string theory is an accurate way to describe what is happening in three dimensional space. (String theory requires ten dimensions of space: the other seven "dimensions" probably represent parameters that we haven't identified yet.) For what it is worth, you can check out the following links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 12:51 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <aao6639456a097rsoe5vgeic57t6nhn...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:42:08 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0306071842090...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>> 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... > >>>>>>> In article <1180863203.738843.244...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>> gudl...@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. > > Abiogenesis, dear stupid child, is not part of evolutionary theory. > There are no scientific theories on the subject, Actually, there are. The RNA World hypothesis seems to be the most popular and there IS evidence supporting it. (Technically I guess it isn't yet considered a theory if it is still called a hypothesis but once a hypothesis is supported by evidence is can rightly be called a theory.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >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. How is that evidence for creation? Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been proposed. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 2:55 pm, George Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. I think you meant "he doesn't have to explain..." > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It's important to me. It has been claimed by secular academia that > creationists are notscientists. The90scientiststhat are advocates of > creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in the two > books discussed in my post. Those 90 "scientists" are frauds. You can't be a scientist and believe in anything supernatural. That isn't the same as admitting that you don't have all the answers... yet. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >How did all of those things come to be? > How did god come to be? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > <...> >> > >> 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. > I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. Does Gish and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and lasted 10 - 20 million years? http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0306071827060001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5ch3c3F2tu10kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> sni >> > >> > They actually teach withcraft classes at Columbia. Here is the proof: >> >> Wrong - It's a history class - It's not a class on how to do witchcraft. > > Would you have any problems with state colleges that taught classes > related to the history of creation science? I personally think creation science is not a science in any sense of the word and consequently shouldn't be taught as such. However, that won't stop some stupid kid from taking the course. Honestly though, I couldn't care less. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years ago > that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it took > place. You might want to keep in mind the fact that there's no evidence a global flood ever took place. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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.