Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun., 18:31, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@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. He might do that, and the Pope might marry Meg Ryan. My money is on Benny and Meg. > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: ><...>My goal is >to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and related >atomic materials came to be. One person mentioned that an exploding star >or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. If that is true, >how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. We >can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am asking >the questions. Then let us deal with it directly. Is that fair? Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" Three points of discussion follow: 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't currently have an answer to that question." 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves a god? 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune from further questioning, and if so, why? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071241560001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <ieU8i.18611$923.7605@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > It's called the Big BANG but it was actually a Big Expansion. Actually most elements, other than hydrogen and helium, came from the explosion of first generation stars. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question? I answered your damn question, several times. > My goal is > to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and related > atomic materials came to be. That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a question. > One person mentioned that an exploding star > or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. That was me. > If that is true, > how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't know it. > We > can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am asking > the questions. > Jason Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all of the material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, you thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you didn't know how to play the game. We know where the material from the universe originated, we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists and we'll concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the universe by using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble themselves at the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071245080001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <ecU8i.18609$923.7746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Now we are making progress--you claim that the heavy elements were created > in supernovae. Explain how that happened? To you??????? A task more difficult than creating the universe. I have a book in my library, "Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis", that only scratches the surface. It is 594 pages( I know you're big on pages) of mathematical formulas and explanations. If you want to borrow it sometime I'll be more than happy to lend it to you. Or you can go to your local library and check-out a copy. Yes Jason, I know the basics of how that happened but I sure don't plan on explaining to someone as dishonest as you. Say Jason, tell me again how Jesus holds together the nucleus of an atom. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180951607.644648.239520@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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=3D > > > 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=3D > > > >: > > > > > >> > > >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com= > >, F=3D > > > 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.impul= > se.n=3D > > > et>: > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.c= > om>, > > > > > > 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.imp= > ulse=3D > > > .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 th= > ey k=3D > > > eep > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > >> > apes and > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo= > , th=3D > > > ey > > > > > > kept the > > > > > >> > > >>> gorilla > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to e= > scap=3D > > > e or > > > > > >> > throw fecal > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have cre= > ated=3D > > > and > > > > > > designed > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than human= > s so=3D > > > as > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> not to > > > > > >> > > >>> confuse > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Jason > > > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quent= > in? > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>> 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=3D > > > ween > > > > > >> > mankind and > > > > > >> > > >>>>> animals. > > > > > >> > > >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. > > > > > > > >> > > >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worshi= > ps G=3D > > > od > > > > > >> > > >>>>> and > > > > > >> > > >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all hu= > mans > > > > > > 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=3D > > > ing. > > > > > > > >> > > >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some > > > > > >> > > >> scientific > > > > > >> > > >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign lan= > guag=3D > > > e=3D2E 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 peopl= > e BY > > > > > >> > > > TALKING. > > > > > > > >> > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sound= > s=2E W=3D > > > e are > > > > > >> > > communicating by internet. No sound? > > > > > > > >> > > > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feede= > r ou=3D > > > 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. Af= > ter =3D > > > she > > > > > > refilled > > > > > >> > > > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Do= > gs l=3D > > > et > > > > > >> > > > their > > > > > >> > > > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign l= > angu=3D > > > age. > > > > > > Do you > > > > > >> > > > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a= > 12 =3D > > > year > > > > > >> > > > old > > > > > >> > > > child? > > > > > > > >> > > Hardly. But that is not the question. > > > > > > > >> > > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the s= > olut=3D > > > ion > > > > > >> > > > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a l= > ow I=3D > > > Q=3D2E > > > > > >> > > > 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 co= > uld > > > > > >> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirem= > ent > > > > > >> 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 o= > ut f=3D > > > or > > > > > > me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. Now the= > re is > > > > > life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin from non-= > life. > > > > > Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the distribut= > ion =3D > > > and > > > > > diversity of life on earth. > > > > > > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.- Skjul tekst = > i an=3D > > > f=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn > > > > > How could it not? > > > > You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened.- Sk= > jul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > I do not know. I do know that life did not always exist on this > planet. It had to come from some place. Even the Bible describes it > as coming from non-life. I also know that there is evidence > supporting one possible way that it happened - you know, the evidence > that you keep ignoring every time it is posted. Do you have any > evidence that life did not arise through natural processes, evidence > that you will actually provide? Of course you don't. Thanks for clearly stating that you "do not know". The advocates of creation science do believe that life evolved from non-life. The advocates of creation science are of the opinion that God created life from non-life. The advocates of creation science have fossil evidence that supports creation science. If you want to read about that evidence, I suggest that you read either of these books: "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071303540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <gmU8i.18616$923.16690@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to > be? It wasn't material, it was energy. I have already answered your 'ultimate question which you should have asked first. By not doing so you have only exposed your ignorance of the subject. Is anyone else here smelling a troll? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180939743.784669.4390@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Are you refering to the Big Bang? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071306050001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <AkU8i.18615$923.11246@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > Is this your method of not answering my question? If so, it did not work. > I'll ask the question again: > > How did those stars come to be? And I'll tell you again, get a book and educate yourself. Now, who made god? Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <gmU8i.18616$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtl...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0306072037260...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >> ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> >> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >>> 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? > > >> >> >> _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. > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be. I know the answer! The answer is... nobody knows. If you want to posit that "God did it", this is the place to do so. All of your other questions attempting to trace life's origins have already been answered in this very thread. The path of human ancestry is quite clear, going back through pre-human apes all the way back to single- celled organisms. The origins of life itself are less well known, but there is every reason to believe that it occurred naturally and lots of interesting speculation as to how it happened. We know how the Earth was formed, how our Sun was formed, and the overall history of our universe going back to (if I recall correctly) a fraction of a second after the Big Bang itself. You know, Jason, most of your questions about Cosmology can be easily looked up on the web. For example, if you really want to know how heavier elements were formed, start by searching for "stellar fusion", a term that has been supplied to you already. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071259540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180940935.656470.164080@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I copied this from my dictionary: > > chemical--of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry. > > You could find a better definition at Wikipedia. > > Let's move forward--or should I say "backward in the history of the > universe". > > What is the answer to my question? Let's stop getting bogged down with > having to define various words. Do you play this little game with everyone? If you do as I said to do your little game will end. By the way, Jason, who made god? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180940558.668099.169230@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. How did the chemicals (involved in the chemical reactions) and the atoms come to be? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message news:1180984864.098972.68380@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <gmU8i.18616$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> >> >> >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >news:Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtl...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > >> <Jason-0306072037260...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > >> ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> > >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free >> > >> >> > Lunch >> > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> >> >>> 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? >> > >> >> >> _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. >> >> How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to >> be. > > I know the answer! The answer is... nobody knows. If you want to > posit that "God did it", this is the place to do so. All of your > other questions attempting to trace life's origins have already been > answered in this very thread. The path of human ancestry is quite > clear, going back through pre-human apes all the way back to single- > celled organisms. The origins of life itself are less well known, but > there is every reason to believe that it occurred naturally and lots > of interesting speculation as to how it happened. We know how the > Earth was formed, how our Sun was formed, and the overall history of > our universe going back to (if I recall correctly) a fraction of a > second after the Big Bang itself. > > You know, Jason, most of your questions about Cosmology can be easily > looked up on the web. For example, if you really want to know how > heavier elements were formed, start by searching for "stellar fusion", > a term that has been supplied to you already. > > - Bob T. Jason, be sure to look for "stellar fusion" and not "steller fusion" as you are prone to do occasionally. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <1180940789.748564.275630@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >A mass expanded during the Big Bang. > >How did that mass come into be? > I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" Three points of discussion follow: 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't currently have an answer to that question." 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves a god? 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune from further questioning, and if so, why? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <1180941097.537535.190930@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >How did the mass that expanded come into be? > I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" Three points of discussion follow: 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't currently have an answer to that question." 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves a god? 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune from further questioning, and if so, why? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <upU8i.18618$923.14039@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > >How did the mass of energy come into be? > I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" Three points of discussion follow: 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't currently have an answer to that question." 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves a god? 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune from further questioning, and if so, why? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071322020001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180940789.748564.275630@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > A mass expanded during the Big Bang. > > How did that mass come into be? This troll is beginning to sound like a broken record. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071328190001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180941316.908953.184860@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I don't know his real reason. He stated the reason was because he did not > want to do anything that would promote creation science. When I attended a > creation science versus evolution debate, I noticed that they had a book > table set up at the entrance. They were selling ICR books and ICR Video > Tapes. Most of the people that attended were Christians. Only a small > number of people clapped when the professor from the local college made an > excellent point but thousands of people clapped when Dr. Gish made a great > point. That is the problem with Christians, they think science is done by acclamation or by the number of pages in a book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180940740.027769.180960@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. The chemical precursors that you mentioned came before or preceded the development or creation of the chemicals that you mentioned. Are you trying to avoid answering my question? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question? My goal is to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and related atomic materials came to be. One person mentioned that an exploding star or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. If that is true, how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. We can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am asking the questions. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <ieU8i.18611$923.7605@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? It's called the Big BANG but it was actually a Big Expansion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <ecU8i.18609$923.7746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Now we are making progress--you claim that the heavy elements were created in supernovae. Explain how that happened? Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:23:58 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in alt.atheism >Jason wrote: >> In article <1180745678.345285.282140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 questions for >>>> evolutionists" >>>> >>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home >>>> >>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what >>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where >>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come >>>> from that the bang expanded into? >>> Where do you think your God came from? >> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get >> away with that? > >I would EXPECT them to do that. If a student can come up with a good >next question, he shows that he understood my question and took it a >step further. That rates an "A" (or a "1" here, or "15 points", >depending on what grade he is in.) Your point flew 20,000 metres above his bone ear spacers. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180951091.949854.152650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. I clearly answered your question. You may not have been satisfied with my answer but I did answer your question. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071346290001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180940352.512868.148770@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Visit the ICR website and type this term into their search engine: > Cambrian Explosion What about the Cambrian Explosion", other than it was an exciting time for life on earth. 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.