Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071339260001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180952041.428271.92580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 4 Jun., 02:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > On 3 Jun., 22:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > > <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > > > >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >snip >> >> > >> > > > I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology >> > > > professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. >> > > > He >> > > > taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his >> > > > students. He did have a special session each quarter where he >> > > > taught the >> > > > basics of creation science. None of his students were required to >> > > > attend >> > > > and none of the students that attended the special session were >> > > > required >> > > > to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did >> > > > not >> > > > discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a > conversation with >> > > > him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have >> > > > been >> > > > allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had > worked in >> > > > a state university. >> > >> > > Not if the school acted properly. If he tried to teach it, the >> > > proper >> > > action would be to dismiss him if he insisted on continuing such >> > > behavior. Did you think you had a point? >> > >> > My point was that a biology professor that is an advocate of creation >> > science can teach evolution theory as well as a biology professor that >> > is >> > an advocate of evolution. The special session was probably approved by >> > the >> > college administrators. It was a Christian college. I attended the >> > college >> > in 1971 to 1972. Back in those days, the vast majority of the students >> > and >> > professors were Christians. I doubt that they would now allow a >> > professor >> > to have a special session to teach creation science. >> >> The question was not about "special sessions" but about actual classes >> taught as science. That should not be allowed. You do like to >> obfuscate. >> >> I now present proof >> > that they teach witchcraft classes at Columbia. What's your opinion >> > about >> > witchcraft classes? >> > (ignore the question marks). >> >> I have already responded to the nonsense below. It proves that you >> are wrong. They did not teach witchcraft. They taught about it. >> >> >> snip and please have the decency to not post it again. > > Do you believe that it would be acceptable for a high school or state > college to be able to teach a class entitled, "The History of the Creation > Science" Probably, but it would be such a short class that it wouldn't hurt anything. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180939395.279993.139530@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0306071830200...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > > > >> >> creationist "arguments"? > > > > > >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > > > > > >> >> Martin > > > > > >> >Martin, > > > >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > > > >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else > > > >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or > > > >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR > > > >> >college. > > > > > >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > > > >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > > > > > >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > > > > > >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > > > >> requires you to lie? > > > > > >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We > > > >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would > > > >> >not be living cells. > > > > > >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > > > >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have > > > >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > > > >> you, none of it good. > > > > > >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come > > to be? > > > > > I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. > > > > > Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical > > > reactions work? > > > > I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, > > we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? > > Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that > > chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking > > you how those chemcials came to be? > > And we've told you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment > Water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) are > naturally occuring elements that can be found anywhere in the > universe. > > Martin Yes, I am sure that you are correct. I am asking how those "naturally occurring elements" came to be. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <f40svh$4vg$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f40469$3b5$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>> <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>>>>> Martin, > >>>>>>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > >>>>>>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or > > anyone else > >>>>>>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > >>>>> Denton or > >>>>>>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at > > the ICR > >>>>>>>>>>> college. > >>>>>>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > >>>>>>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > >>>>>>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > >>>>>>>>>> requires you to lie? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like > >>>>> this: We > >>>>>>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > >>> there would > >>>>>>>>>>> not be living cells. > >>>>>>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > >>>>>>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when > > you have > >>>>>>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > >>>>>>>>>> you, none of it good. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > > reactions come > >>>>>>> to be? > >>>>>>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how > > chemical > >>>>>>>> reactions work? > >>>>>>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > > experiments, > >>>>>>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? > >>>>>> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free > >>>>>> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. > >>>>>> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these > >>>>>> molecules was part of a well-understood process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that > >>>>>>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I > > am asking > >>>>>>> you how those chemcials came to be? > >>>>>> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than > >>>>>> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > >>>>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You > >>>>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught > >>>>> that steller refers to a star or stars. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one > >>>> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have > >>>> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of > >>>> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. > >>>> > >>>> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets > >>>> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is > >>>> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova (IIRC). > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>> This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. > >>> How did those stars come to be? > >>> > >>> > >> "Clumping" of hydrogen by gravity, not equally distributed, pressure > >> starts to build, temperature goes up, fusion starts. You have a star. > >> > >> This is not chemistry, though. Physics. "Kernphysik" in german. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how > > did that hydrogen come to be? > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > Start there. Read on. Don't stop. Don't ask questions your high school > teacher should have told you. Really, if a kid asks me this I will > explain. As good as I can. But an adult can be expected to look for > himself if he wants to know. At least on such matters. > > I am not jumping through loops. If there is something in these articles > that you don't understand and can't find out by google or wikipedia, > come back with these questions. But don't ask questions for which the > answer can be found by a simple google search. > > Tokay Is this your method of not answering my question? If you don't know the answer to my question, just say so. If you do know the answer, please provide it. We can't keep going back into the history of the universe if we get bogged down in issues such as criticisms of my questions or asking me for the definitions of terms. We all know that it's easy for anyone to define a term by making use of a dictionary or visiting Wikipedia. Jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp52h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> > >> <...> >> >> > >> >> I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no >> >> reason, unless you give me one. >> > >> >The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian >> >Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites >> >that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google >> >search. >> > >> I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's >> "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. Does Gish >> and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian >> Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and lasted 10 - >> 20 million years? >> >> http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html > >I don't know the dates that Dr. Gish used in his book. I donate my old >books to a used book store. > Please read my question again. Part of it was, what do you believe? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180964838.431806.41230@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how > > did that hydrogen come to be? > > Hydrogen consists of a single proton and a single electron. > > Protons consist of three quarks, one down and two up. > > Thus the hydrogen atom consists of four elementary particles. That's > it. Okay, granted, there's also the binding energies: binding energy > makes up the bulk of the proton's mass. In fact, these four > elementary particles are all charged so their mass, conceivably comes > from their self-interaction. Some people argue that elementary > particles are strings and their mass actually comes from their > vibrations, but this is only a model that seems likely to reproduce > the masses of the elementary particles; it's unlikely that string > theory is an accurate way to describe what is happening in three > dimensional space. (String theory requires ten dimensions of space: > the other seven "dimensions" probably represent parameters that we > haven't identified yet.) > > For what it is worth, you can check out the following links. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > Martin Martin, That is excellent information. The next question is: How did the hydrogen atom come to be? You have probably figured out that I am trying to go back into the history of the universe to the time period where all of the elements came into be. If you want to cut to the chase and answer that question--go for it. A related question is: Do you believe that there was a time in the history of the universe where none of the elements existed? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 1:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180950707.483234.143...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 4 Jun., 01:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180909764.150176.122...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 4 Jun., 01:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > snip > > > > > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure si= > > nce > > > > > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right?- = > > Skju=3D > > > > l tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > Probably, but one would hope that the school would not be accredited, > > > > since it obviously is not teaching what it pretends to be teaching, > > > > i=3D2Ee. science. > > > > Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they teach > > > course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one college > > > teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question marks) > > > > I googled witchcraft professors and found this: > > > And you got examples of legitimate courses that did not teach that > > magic was real, that witches really had the magical powers claimed for > > them. In other words the courses were legitimate and cannot be > > compared to teaching creation science as if it were legitmate. Are > > you truly so stupid that you think teaching about something is the > > same as advocating it? > > Do you think that it would be acceptable for a state college or public > high schools to teach a class entitled "The History of Creationism Yes, of course. It might be taught as part of a combination with the History of Astrology and the History of Palm-Reading. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180939173.520170.314230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <pa7663tokub9lapejjglc4p0hquo5fp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:12:56 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0306071312560...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > >> ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too > > > >> >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" > > > >> >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that > > > >> >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs > > > >> >> into tons of trouble. > > > >> >> So, no. He is out. > > > > > >> >> Tokay > > > > > >> >Tokay, > > > >> >He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could > > > >> >get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't > > > >> >discriminate against the advocates of creation science. > > > > > >> Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you > > > >> can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of > > > >> 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are > > > >> thinking of have are not real colleges. > > > > > >> >Discrimination is > > > >> >suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this > > > >> >newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to > > > >> >discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by > > > >> >not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college > > > >> >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of > > > >> >evolution? > > > > > >> Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal > > > >> discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his > > > >> religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. > > > > > >I attended a Christian college for two years. > > > > > A real college that was associated with a Christian denomination like > > > SMU or Notre Dame or a Bible College that has no use for science like > > > Bob Jones? > > > > > >One of the biology > > > >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He > > > >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his > > > >students. > > > > > Good for him. > > > > > > He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the > > > >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend > > > >and none of the students that attended the special session were required > > > >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not > > > >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with > > > >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been > > > >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in > > > >a state university. > > > > > Because special creation is contrary to the evidence. Do you want other > > > lies taught in college as well? How does astrology fit into your > > > curriculum? Maybe you want dowsing taught? Would witchcraft fit in? > > > Magic? > > > > Believe it or not, they probably teach courses like that at some colleges. > > Thank you for admitting that creationism belongs in the same category > as astrology and witchcraft. > > Martin Martin, That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft but is also acceptable to discriminate against a professor that is an advocate of creation science by not granting him tenure. If he had been an advocate of evolution or withcraft--he probably would have been granted tenure. "Beam me up Scotty, there is no intellegent life in state colleges". Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180952041.428271.92580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 4 Jun., 02:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 3 Jun., 22:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >snip > > > > > > > I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology > > > > professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He > > > > taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his > > > > students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the > > > > basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend > > > > and none of the students that attended the special session were required > > > > to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not > > > > discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with > > > > him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been > > > > allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in > > > > a state university. > > > > > Not if the school acted properly. If he tried to teach it, the proper > > > action would be to dismiss him if he insisted on continuing such > > > behavior. Did you think you had a point? > > > > My point was that a biology professor that is an advocate of creation > > science can teach evolution theory as well as a biology professor that is > > an advocate of evolution. The special session was probably approved by the > > college administrators. It was a Christian college. I attended the college > > in 1971 to 1972. Back in those days, the vast majority of the students and > > professors were Christians. I doubt that they would now allow a professor > > to have a special session to teach creation science. > > The question was not about "special sessions" but about actual classes > taught as science. That should not be allowed. You do like to > obfuscate. > > I now present proof > > that they teach witchcraft classes at Columbia. What's your opinion about > > witchcraft classes? > > (ignore the question marks). > > I have already responded to the nonsense below. It proves that you > are wrong. They did not teach witchcraft. They taught about it. > > > snip and please have the decency to not post it again. Do you believe that it would be acceptable for a high school or state college to be able to teach a class entitled, "The History of the Creation Science" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180950707.483234.143580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 4 Jun., 01:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180909764.150176.122...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 4 Jun., 01:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > snip > > > > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure si= > nce > > > > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right?- = > Skju=3D > > > l tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > Probably, but one would hope that the school would not be accredited, > > > since it obviously is not teaching what it pretends to be teaching, > > > i=3D2Ee. science. > > > > Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they teach > > course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one college > > teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question marks) > > > > I googled witchcraft professors and found this: > > > And you got examples of legitimate courses that did not teach that > magic was real, that witches really had the magical powers claimed for > them. In other words the courses were legitimate and cannot be > compared to teaching creation science as if it were legitmate. Are > you truly so stupid that you think teaching about something is the > same as advocating it? Do you think that it would be acceptable for a state college or public high schools to teach a class entitled "The History of Creationism" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180939638.055315.145220@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rku...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0306071902110...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > >> > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > > > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > > > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > > > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > > > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be > > > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to > > develop a two > > > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from > > > >> >> >our > > > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > > > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook > > did not > > > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > > > > > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > > > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > > > > > >> > Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > > > >> > Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > > > > > >> Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't discuss a > > > >> subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other > > side. IN > > > >> this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is > > attempting to > > > >> refute. > > > > > >> In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. > > If the > > > >> fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please > > > >> present the evidence that the fossils support creation. > > > > > >I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question > > > >since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a copy of > > > >that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's > > > >book if he wants an answer. I > > > >Jason > > > > > If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence > > > to support creation. > > > > I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. > > Present some. Go right now to a library or a book store and find the > book. I'm in Taiwan so I can only find legitimate books on the > subject. > > Martin Martin, Visit the ICR website and type this term into their search engine: Cambrian Explosion If that does not work, google Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Gish discussed that subject in his book. You could order Dr. Gish's book from the ICR website. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180965414.666161.117810@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If you want > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you will have > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option would be to > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" into their > > > >search engine. > > > >jason > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no > > > reason, unless you give me one. > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google > > search. > > How is that evidence for creation? > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been > proposed. > > Martin Martin, Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Gish and ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. The question was about Dr. Gish's evidence. jason Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft And this is being taught where, exactly? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp52h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > <...> > >> > > >> I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no > >> reason, unless you give me one. > > > >The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian > >Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites > >that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google > >search. > > > I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's > "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. Does Gish > and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian > Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and lasted 10 - > 20 million years? > > http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html I don't know the dates that Dr. Gish used in his book. I donate my old books to a used book store. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071342250001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180950707.483234.143580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 4 Jun., 01:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180909764.150176.122...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > On 4 Jun., 01:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, >> > >> > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: >> snip >> >> > > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure >> > > > si= >> nce >> > > > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that >> > > > right?- = >> Skju=3D >> > > l tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - >> > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - >> > >> > > Probably, but one would hope that the school would not be accredited, >> > > since it obviously is not teaching what it pretends to be teaching, >> > > i=3D2Ee. science. >> > >> > Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they >> > teach >> > course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one college >> > teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question marks) >> > >> > I googled witchcraft professors and found this: >> >> >> And you got examples of legitimate courses that did not teach that >> magic was real, that witches really had the magical powers claimed for >> them. In other words the courses were legitimate and cannot be >> compared to teaching creation science as if it were legitmate. Are >> you truly so stupid that you think teaching about something is the >> same as advocating it? > > Do you think that it would be acceptable for a state college or public > high schools to teach a class entitled "The History of Creationism" Just as long as it wasn't mandatory, why the hell not? I took a course on horror film when I was in college. Still pissed off I only got a B+. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180939665.792715.87540@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnr...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-0306071721290...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was > > > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The > > > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The > > > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the > > > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be > > > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to > > develop a two > > > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter > > from our > > > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > > > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook > > did not > > > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > > > > > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation: > > > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > > > > > >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not > > > >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > > > > > >> I've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that > > > >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that > > > >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything > > > >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather > > > >> than the scientists. > > > > > >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else > > > >that has a Ph.D degree. > > > > > The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my > > > experience of them. > > > > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > Why? > > Martin That's the one that rediculed the Christians for deciding not to murder an old man that was on a life boat. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180951733.520186.146120@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 4 Jun., 01:55, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180908743.707884.147...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 4 Jun., 00:26, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <ba8663tn66fnvj274pchevj2ue693ks...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:11:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-0306071411580...@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqf...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > > > >> <...> > > > > > > > >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology > > > > > >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation scie= > nce.=3D > > > He > > > > > >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to h= > is > > > > > >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he t= > augh=3D > > > t the > > > > > >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required = > to a=3D > > > ttend > > > > > >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were= > req=3D > > > uired > > > > > >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors d= > id n=3D > > > ot > > > > > >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conver= > sati=3D > > > on with > > > > > >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would hav= > e be=3D > > > en > > > > > >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had= > wor=3D > > > ked in > > > > > >> >a state university. > > > > > >> >Jason > > > > > > > >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the locati= > on of > > > > > >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific > > > > > >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institu= > te f=3D > > > or > > > > > >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one= > of > > > > > >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism."" > > > > > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish > > > > > >>http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html > > > > > > > >That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the loc= > al s=3D > > > tate > > > > > >college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the de= > bate=3D > > > in > > > > > >the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots = > of > > > > > >Christians attended the debate. > > > > > >Jason > > > > > > > Gish is a con man. It's not great that he is allowed to teach his l= > ies > > > > > anywhere. Churches should feel shame that they let him teach such > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > > He has debated hundreds of science professors and won most of those > > > > debates. He easily won the the debate that I attended. The main reaso= > n is > > > > because the professor from the state college lost his temper and made= > a > > > > fool of himself. Even the students that came to support their profess= > or > > > > stopped clapping for him after he made a fool of himself. I learned f= > rom a > > > > professor that a taught public speaking class that when someone that = > is in > > > > a debate starts name calling, it means that person lost the debate. T= > hat's > > > > the reason I don't get upset when people call me names--it means that= > I > > > > won the debate. Someone told me that Dr. Gish lost the debate that he > > > > attended. The reason was that the professor had attended a previous d= > ebate > > > > and was prepared to respond to every issue that Dr. Gish mentioned in= > the > > > > debate. That professor that won the debate never lost his temper or > > > > started name calling. > > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > Whether he won the debate or not, Gish was wrong. Science is not > > > determined by debating skills, nor is it determined by the opinions of > > > the people attending debates. > > > > I agree.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > What do you agree with? Science is not determined by debating skills, nor is it determined by the opinions of the people attending debates. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <3tZ8i.15630$FN5.15250@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Is this your method of not answering my question? I am trying to go back into the history of the solar system to the time period where the elements came into be. I would like to know how those elements came into be. A related question is: Do you believe there was a time in the history of the universe when there were no elements? 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.