Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >I >know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be Could you summarize their explanation? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3095@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution theory had all the answers. My main interest is related to abiogenesis. I know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be but my college biology professor (in 1971) was not able to tell us how the elements came into be. Several years ago, someone stated in a magazine article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. That was helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such as: How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists can not answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no validity. However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not guesses), the theory does have validity. Jason Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1cr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-0306072032550...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >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? > > > >> >> 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? > > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution > theory had all the answers. My main interest is related to abiogenesis. I > know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be but > my college biology professor (in 1971) was not able to tell us how the > elements came into be. Several years ago, someone stated in a magazine > article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. That was > helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such as: > How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists can not > answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no validity. > However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not guesses), > the theory does have validity. This has been explained to you many times before: evolution has nothing to do with the solar system or the Big Bang. Perhaps what you mean to ask is "How do atheists explain the Big Bang." I'm afraid that in order to _really_ understand the Big Bang you need to have a grasp of advanced mathematics - the same thing that it takes to _really_ understand subatomic physics. - Bob T. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <tgZ8i.15626$FN5.1090@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. >> > > Thanks--great answer. See my other posts. How did the elements come to > be? Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when > there were no elements? > > Solar system? No. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Hannele Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Op Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:12:23 +0200 schreef Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net>: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> I >> know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be > > Could you summarize their explanation? Goddidit of course. -- Hannele aa #2221 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. > That is not true. I know. Liar. You do not - You just think you do. >God created the solar system and life. Prove it. > see my more detailed post to Jim related to our evidence. Legends are not evidence. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <r8n863lalluo3h174mfmffu1lk1ej08ate@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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? > > Jim, > You are very intelligent to figure out my motives. Last week, various > people told me that evolution theory had answers for how the world came to > be and how life came to be. Bang head on table NO WE DID NOT! THAT is not evolution.... Oh, bugger. I decided to put them to the test. I already > know how the advocates of creation science explain the answers to my > questions but I honestly don't know how the advocates of evolution answer > these sorts of questions. Which basically means you can't read. We did so without end. As you surmised, my end goal it to go back into > the history of the universe where the elements came into be. A related > question was: Was there a time period in the history of the universe where > elements never existed. Yes. "Never", who knows? But starting from the Big Bang, then yes. > > If you have noticed, several people are already finding reasons to NOT > provide answers. Because you don't read them. Repeatedly. > > It appears that evolution theory does not explain the answers to any of > the above questions. BECAUSE it is not evolutionary theory. They may provide "guesses" but you are intelligent to > know that guesses are very different than answers that are backed up with > evidence. Let me tell you something. Contrary to what the guys at ICR or related sites claim, there IS NO scientific debate whether or not "intelligent design" has its merits. > > Jim, you will have to eventually realize that if evolution does NOT have > the answers to the above questions, it could mean that evolution theory > has NO validity. Wrong. Above questions have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It could also mean that there was an intelligent > designer. No. If you can prove something wrong, that does not mean you prove automatically another "idea" correct. > > If there was an intelligent designer, it could explain the answers to my > questions. Yes? How so? > > Your last question was > > 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune > from further questioning, and if so, why? > > The answer is: The advocates of creation science would not be able to > provide answers (other than fossil evidence) about how God was able to do > it. They can't provide ANY answers. > > For the sake of discussion, let's say that a group of scientists from > America traveled on a huge space ship (like on Star Trek) to an > uninhabited planet that was similar to earth. They carried with them all > sorts of baby animals and the seeds of thousands of plants. They also > carried with them many life forms (eg reptiles) from earth. They also > carried with them hundreds of childen that would become the inhabitants of > that planet. The scientists spend about a year on that planet. They leave > behind about a dozen adults to teach the children and manage the planet. > The space ship travels back to the earth. About two hundred years later > (on that planet) there is a major flood that destroys all of the records > and data that was left behind by the astronauts. After about five thousand > years, there are about 100,0000 people on that planet. A person on that > planet (like Darwin) writes a book about how life came into be on that > planet. The theory is identical to the theory of evolution. However, there > are lots of unanwered questions such as the ones that I asked above. Yes. That is actually called panspermia. Another theory/idea. Apart from that, there would not be any fossils on this planet, would there? > > Do you see my point? Most of the answers they are seeking could not be > found anywhere on that planet. The best source for their answers would be > legends that were passed from fathers to children and so forth. In > addition, monuments and artifacts from the first generation of inhabitants > would be important. > You may want to goggle these terms: > the Elephantine Papyri > the genzer calendar > the hittite monuments from Boghazkoy > Standard of Ur (Ur was an ancient city) > religious texts form Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit > Nuzi tablets > Mari letters > Dead sea scrolls > the code of Hammurabi > the Mesha stone > > My point is simple: The evolutionists on that planet may develop an > excellent theory about things like natural selection and survival of the > fittest. However, the evolutionists on that planet should NOT attempt to > explain how life began on that planet since they will end up making > guesses that turn out to be not true. bang head on table again! > > Some evolutionists refuse to even discuss these issues. They refer the > advocates of creation science to experts in the field of abiogenesis. They > are smart enough to know that eventully the answers will be guesses that > are not backed up with evidence. Do you (or the dimwits you trust) have any evidence? No, you don't. We have. You just don't read it. > > Do you see my points? No, I don't. I believe that God created life on this planet. I > don't know how he done it or even the year that he done it. And you have no evidence to that effect. You ask for > evidence: the evidence is in some of the sources above. No, it is not. Legends about God > are in the cultures of MANY different groups of people--from many ancient > cultures. Differing quite a lot. Those legends are not always identical but they have one thing > that is common to most of those legends. It's about God or Gods. You can > choose to ignore that evidence, THAT is not evidence. but I choose to accept it as proof It is not proof. that > God created the earth and life on this earth. The reasons the legends are > not the same is mainly because people (as they passed the legends from > parents to children) added stuff or took out stuff. That can even happen > when a rumor starts in a company. By the time the rumor gets to the 10th > person, it's very different than the rumor that was passed to the first > person. There are even legends about a huge flood in some of those ancient > records. > Jason > > Oh, bugger. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3095@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution > theory had all the answers. No, we did not. Why do you keep mixing this up? My main interest is related to abiogenesis. I > know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be but > my college biology professor (in 1971) was not able to tell us how the > elements came into be. Did you ask him? Several years ago, someone stated in a magazine > article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. That was > helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such as: > How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists ARGH can not > answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no validity. > However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not guesses), > the theory does have validity. > Jason > > Oh bugger. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jim07D7 wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> I >> know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be > > Could you summarize their explanation? hehe... I can. "goddidit" Tokay P.S.: Which is just another way of saying "I don't know". -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. WHICH ONE? We gave you countless examples. Now you give one. And DON'T refer to a book. Or a homepage. Or whatever. DO it. If there is, it can't be hard. I haven't found any. And I did search. YOU type it in here. I did. Now you do it. WHAT is this "evidence"? Where are those fossils? I looked. I did not find it. 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 No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of any kind. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 stoney wrote: > 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. > > I know. You cannot imagine how glad I am that he lives in another country.... Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > E=mc Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f42173$tj0$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <tgZ8i.15626$FN5.1090@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "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. >>>> >>> Thanks--great answer. See my other posts. How did the elements come to >>> be? Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when >>> there were no elements? >>> >>> >> Solar system? No. >> >> Tokay > > Please explain your answer. > > You think you can understand the answer? Define "solar system". Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180984864.098972.68380@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. > see my more detailed post to Jim related to our evidence. > > We knew that you thought so. That is nothing new. But do you have any evidence? Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:28:48 GMT, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: - Refer: <rvp863t4i6q7ftfpi59f29kme7lvn2hpq3@4ax.com> >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? Good luck in getting the cowardly lie-on to respond coherently! -- Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 3 jun, 19:52, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180874480.306174.139...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2 jun, 20:04, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180776532.883015.87...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > Bramble, > Millions of parents are now home schooling their children or placing them > in Christian schools where they are free to learn about Christianity, > evolution and intellegent design. Millions of rich parents send their > children to college prep. schools. The end result is that the public > schools in many large cities are failures. I once had a boss that taught > school in the Harlem district. He told me that most of his students did > not want to learn and it was difficult to teach the children that did want > to learn. He told me they had fights at least once a week in that school. > I have read that children in American public schools now score much lower > than children from other countries in various subjects--esp. math and > science. I read that about half of the students that are taking > engineering classes in most of the American colleges are from countries > other than America. In other words, our schools are failing. The child > that won the national spelling contest was not educated at a public > school. He was educated in a home school. One of the reasons the public > schools are failing is because many Christian students and the children of > rich people are not in those public schools. I don't blame those parents > for giving up on the public schools. It's my guess that public school > students in the 1940's and 1950's scored higher than children from other > countries--even in math and science. > Jason Dear Jason. You cannot fool me telling this. In general, kids of certain middle to high economical level, as well as kids from religious families are rather well tamed kids. So the degree of order and aparent labor of the kids in those private schools are far higher that the lids of very lower class in great cities. The public schools are trying to keep these kids of marginal poor classes inside the classrooms. In fact, this simple task is very difficult to achieve. If most of the kids are kept inside the classrooms, this can be called a miracle. So, for religious people to keep these lower class kids in a disciplinarian grip, you have to create a sort of Nazi or Volshevick dictatorship. In fact you would have to enable a theocratic dictatorship to achieve it. But, living in a democracy as we are, it is very difficult for you to install this type Christian dictatorship. This is what I think. The case of home school kids helps to a degree this kids to have some form of achooling. Better than nothing. But to achieve hight degrees of intelligence, you need much more than than home schooling and much more than private schools. To have a real science education you need a lot more of intelligence than is available in private schools. In fact, the religious thought is a very difficult obstacle to the construction of a sound science analysis. If you one day conquer the state and install your wished Christian dictatorship, in a few decades, the US will loose the actual scientifical and technological leadership. You will metamorph into a Christian talivan country in less than 50 years. So you cannot blame the public schools, thinking that a Christian school would be much better in the poor neighborhoods of the great American cities. I am thinking now on the Christian achools of Ireland and the south of Europe. They achieved nothing on the science and technological front. I remember my own experience in an catholic orphanage. The begot hate in me against the idea of a god and a Christian faith. I dont remember anyone of the boys that were caged there, that were Christian after this horrible experience. And from where they got their inspiracion to be so cruel? From the OT. They were a bunch of real bastards. And the fanatical Evangelicals of today, remind me of my forlorn childhood. That made my blood pressure to rise sky soaring. Bramble Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? I did answer endlesss questions. You are not my son. He is allowed to ask endless questions. You are not. You are supposed to be a grownup. If you don't know the > answer to my question, just say so. You would not read it anyway. The way you did before. If you do know the answer, please > provide it. Why should I? You would not read it anyway. 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. If you can define what you are asking for, you show that you understand the question. What use is answering a question when you don't understand the question? We all know that it's easy for anyone to > define a term by making use of a dictionary or visiting Wikipedia. > Jason So far, all you did was ask questions that you could have easily answered by using google. Or an encyclopedia. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > E=mc Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Bob T. wrote: > 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. > Hey! I can read my Palm just fine... Well, in a good light. Display is a bit damaged. Tokay -- Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? Milhouse, "The Canine Mutiny" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <r8n863lalluo3h174mfmffu1lk1ej08ate@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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? Jim, You are very intelligent to figure out my motives. Last week, various people told me that evolution theory had answers for how the world came to be and how life came to be. I decided to put them to the test. I already know how the advocates of creation science explain the answers to my questions but I honestly don't know how the advocates of evolution answer these sorts of questions. As you surmised, my end goal it to go back into the history of the universe where the elements came into be. A related question was: Was there a time period in the history of the universe where elements never existed. If you have noticed, several people are already finding reasons to NOT provide answers. It appears that evolution theory does not explain the answers to any of the above questions. They may provide "guesses" but you are intelligent to know that guesses are very different than answers that are backed up with evidence. Jim, you will have to eventually realize that if evolution does NOT have the answers to the above questions, it could mean that evolution theory has NO validity. It could also mean that there was an intelligent designer. If there was an intelligent designer, it could explain the answers to my questions. Your last question was 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune from further questioning, and if so, why? The answer is: The advocates of creation science would not be able to provide answers (other than fossil evidence) about how God was able to do it. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a group of scientists from America traveled on a huge space ship (like on Star Trek) to an uninhabited planet that was similar to earth. They carried with them all sorts of baby animals and the seeds of thousands of plants. They also carried with them many life forms (eg reptiles) from earth. They also carried with them hundreds of childen that would become the inhabitants of that planet. The scientists spend about a year on that planet. They leave behind about a dozen adults to teach the children and manage the planet. The space ship travels back to the earth. About two hundred years later (on that planet) there is a major flood that destroys all of the records and data that was left behind by the astronauts. After about five thousand years, there are about 100,0000 people on that planet. A person on that planet (like Darwin) writes a book about how life came into be on that planet. The theory is identical to the theory of evolution. However, there are lots of unanwered questions such as the ones that I asked above. Do you see my point? Most of the answers they are seeking could not be found anywhere on that planet. The best source for their answers would be legends that were passed from fathers to children and so forth. In addition, monuments and artifacts from the first generation of inhabitants would be important. You may want to goggle these terms: the Elephantine Papyri the genzer calendar the hittite monuments from Boghazkoy Standard of Ur (Ur was an ancient city) religious texts form Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit Nuzi tablets Mari letters Dead sea scrolls the code of Hammurabi the Mesha stone My point is simple: The evolutionists on that planet may develop an excellent theory about things like natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, the evolutionists on that planet should NOT attempt to explain how life began on that planet since they will end up making guesses that turn out to be not true. Some evolutionists refuse to even discuss these issues. They refer the advocates of creation science to experts in the field of abiogenesis. They are smart enough to know that eventully the answers will be guesses that are not backed up with evidence. Do you see my points? I believe that God created life on this planet. I don't know how he done it or even the year that he done it. You ask for evidence: the evidence is in some of the sources above. Legends about God are in the cultures of MANY different groups of people--from many ancient cultures. Those legends are not always identical but they have one thing that is common to most of those legends. It's about God or Gods. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but I choose to accept it as proof that God created the earth and life on this earth. The reasons the legends are not the same is mainly because people (as they passed the legends from parents to children) added stuff or took out stuff. That can even happen when a rumor starts in a company. By the time the rumor gets to the 10th person, it's very different than the rumor that was passed to the first person. There are even legends about a huge flood in some of those ancient records. Jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <eks863dj6jo4ue36ojb56berh6svidadf1@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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? > >If that is the date that the experts are certain that it happened, I >accept it but can not speak for Dr. Gish. > The same experts also say that evolution happened. Do you accept that, too. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <tgZ8i.15626$FN5.1090@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. > Thanks--great answer. See my other posts. How did the elements come to be? Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when there were no elements? Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 jun, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > The study of withcraft has some historical interest. Also, we can study the documents from the trials, and try to found if there was any reason to blame the symptoms as a diabolical possession of the girls. My opinion is that withcraft is not a real fenomenom, but a way to trick people to get some money from them. This monetary aspect of the witchcraft is the only diabolical part of the issue. But the trials of witches were mostly fake charges, specially when the accussed were convicted of diabolical possession. This occasional trials of witchcraft were devices for propping up authority over the people, but inspiring them fear. This shameless lies about diabolical possessions were used to scare and submit people into servitude. Bramble > 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. I now present proof > that they teach witchcraft classes at Columbia. What's your opinion about > witchcraft classes? > (ignore the question marks). > > As a cultural studies major at Columbia, sophomore Erin Polley had always > been interested in women?s history, so after learning about an elective > class in witchcraft, she decided to sign up. > > Witchcraft in Colonial America, a one credit, two-day class offered on a > trial basis in March, examined witchcraft in 17th century America. The > course explored religious beliefs and gender issues while attempting to > establish an understanding for the culture of the society. > > Cultural Studies instructor Teresa Prados-Torreira created the class, > which attracted about 20 students, after seeing an interest in the topic > among students in her previous classes. > > I know that students are very interested in witchcraft,? Prados-Torreira > said. ?There are always students who are wanting to write papers on > witchcraft and Salem in my other classes.? > > Students first learned the history of witchcraft in context with colonial > America, such as the infamous witch trials in 17th-century Salem, Mass. > Polly said she learned about the witch movement in relation to the > political and economic background during that time in history in > Prados-Torreira?s class. > > I didn"t have much history of colonial America,? Polley said. So it was > interesting for me to learn another aspect of women?s history.? > > Students also watched excerpts from The Crucible, a film adapted from the > famous Arthur Miller play depicting the Salem witch trials of 1692. > > The Salem witch-hunts started after 12-year-old Abigail Williams and > 9-year-old Elizabeth Parris started demonstrating bizarre behavior, > including screaming and seizures, in January 1692. Within months, more > women and men were being accused of witchcraft, many of whom were > respected members of their community. > > Physicians believed the girls were under the spell of Satan and by the end > of February, warrants were issued for their arrests. Though Williams and > Parris were not executed, more than 20 people died as a result of the > trials. > > ?At that time women were considered irrational,? Polly said. ?The movie > helped get the point across and to see the differences between the book > and readings.? > > Prados-Torreira said it?s an important part of women?s history. > > ?It?s a good topic [to pursue] these days,? Prados-Torreira said. > > Salem State College, in Salem, Mass., developed classes in witchcraft > seven years ago after professors realized most students were misinformed > on that period of history. > > ?Being in the witchcraft capital of the world, a lot of students had a > misconception of what the trials were really about,? said Emerson Baker, > professor of the Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe at Salem > State College. ?So we developed the curriculum because there is > significant historical relevance.? > > There are many ways to look at witchcraft including race, gender, > political views, community conflict and of course women?s history, Baker > said. > > It's a historical device so scholars can look into and teach what they > want from it,? Baker said. > > The classes offered at Salem State are three-credit electives for graduate > students. Students are interested in enrolling and the class reaches its > capacity every semester, Baker said. > > At Wheaton College, a private interdenominational Christian institution in > Wheaton, Ill., the topic of Witchcraft is briefly taught in a few history > classes, but professors generally do not go into depth, said David Maas, > professor of history at Wheaton. > > From an actual class standpoint, it would be a very interesting and > legitimate topic for students,? Maas said. It"s a phenomenon that > historians and students are greatly interested in and should be explored.? > > Maas said the concept of a two-day, 15-hour class is very interesting, but > a class meeting over time provides more interaction for students. > > Either way, with the topic of witchcraft it would make for an interesting > class, Maas said. > > Polley agrees, and said the class offered at Columbia was worthwhile and > she was glad she enrolled. > > It was a great crash course in witchcraft,? Polley said. ?I feel like it > should have been a longer course, like a three credit, semester class > considering all the material to cover.? > > Freshman film major Katherine Wallace, from Salem, Mass., said she likes > the idea of a witchcraft class at Columbia and would sign up if it were > offered again. > > Personally I know a lot on witchcraft, it was taught extensively in high > school,? Wallace said. ?But I know a lot of people who have no clue and I > would encourage them to take the class, because it really is part of > history.? > > Liberal Education Department Chairwoman Lisa Brock agrees and hopes to > bring the class back in the spring. > > We may offer it again next spring, we may not,? Brock said. ?I hope we > can, we?ll have to wait and see.? > > I want to make clear that I don?t believe in witches,? Prados-Torreira > said. ?That?s the first thing I told my students on the first day.? Quote
Guest Kope Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win the clash of civilization. http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180984864.098972.68380@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > 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. You stated the answer is...nobody knows. That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. see my more detailed post to Jim related to our evidence. 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.