Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <lJZ8i.15638$FN5.3778@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message > news:1180984864.098972.68380@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <gmU8i.18616$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >news:Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > > In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtl...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > >> <Jason-0306072037260...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > >> ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free > >> > >> >> > Lunch > >> > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53m...@4ax.com>, Free > >> > >> >> >>> Lunch > >> > >> >> >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > >> >> >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, > >> > >> >> >>>>> Free > >> > >> >> >>>>> Lunch > >> > >> >> >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > >> >> >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> In article > >> > >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >>>>>> ... > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> can > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> refute > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Martin, > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> degree > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> is not > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> or > >> > > anyone else > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Ham; M. > >> > >> >> > Denton or > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> teach at > >> > > the ICR > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> college. > >> > >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown > >> > >> >> >>>>>> to > >> > > be wrong > >> > >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that > >> > >> >> >>>>>> fact. > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > >> > > non-life. > >> > >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you > >> > >> >> >>>>>> worship > >> > >> >> >>>>>> that > >> > >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> something > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> like > >> > >> >> > this: We > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> otherwise, > >> > >> >there would > >> > >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. > >> > >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have > >> > >> >> >>>>>> happened. > >> > > The fact > >> > >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction > >> > >> >> >>>>>> when > >> > > you have > >> > >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says > >> > >> >> >>>>>> a > >> > > lot about > >> > >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. > >> > >> > >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > >> > > reactions come > >> > >> >> >>> to be? > >> > >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High > >> > >> >> >>>> Chemistry. > >> > >> > >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea > >> > >> >> >>>> how > >> > > chemical > >> > >> >> >>>> reactions work? > >> > >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > >> > > experiments, > >> > >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals > >> > >> >> >>> came > >> > >> >> >>> to be? > >> > >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even > >> > >> >> >> a > >> > >> >> >> free > >> > >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in > >> > >> >> >> the > >> > >> >> >> past. > >> > >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into > >> > >> >> >> these > >> > >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. > >> > >> > >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you > >> > >> >> >>> already > >> > > know that > >> > >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take > >> > >> >> >>> place. I > >> > > am asking > >> > >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? > >> > >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more > >> > >> >> >> complex > >> > >> >> >> than > >> > >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > >> > >> > >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to > >> > >> >> > be? > >> > >> >> > You > >> > >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I > >> > >> >> > was > >> > >> >> > taught > >> > >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. > >> > >> > >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one > >> > >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to > >> > >> >> have > >> > >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots > >> > >> >> of > >> > >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. > >> > >> > >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the > >> > >> >> mass > >> > >> >> gets > >> > >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current > >> > >> >> theory is > >> > >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such > >> > >> >> nova > >> > >> >> (IIRC). > >> > >> > >> >> Tokay > >> > >> > >> >This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text > >> > >> >book. > >> > >> >How did those stars come to be? > >> > >> > >> You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology > >> > >> textbooks. > >> > >> > > Someone else stated that the Big Bang played a role related to the > >> > > chemical reactions that you mentioned, would you agree? > >> > >> > The Big Bang played a part in everything, if you wish to get technical. > >> > It > >> > even played a role in the creation of gods, yours included. > >> > >> How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to > >> be. > > > > I know the answer! The answer is... nobody knows. If you want to > > posit that "God did it", this is the place to do so. All of your > > other questions attempting to trace life's origins have already been > > answered in this very thread. The path of human ancestry is quite > > clear, going back through pre-human apes all the way back to single- > > celled organisms. The origins of life itself are less well known, but > > there is every reason to believe that it occurred naturally and lots > > of interesting speculation as to how it happened. We know how the > > Earth was formed, how our Sun was formed, and the overall history of > > our universe going back to (if I recall correctly) a fraction of a > > second after the Big Bang itself. > > > > You know, Jason, most of your questions about Cosmology can be easily > > looked up on the web. For example, if you really want to know how > > heavier elements were formed, start by searching for "stellar fusion", > > a term that has been supplied to you already. > > > > - Bob T. > > Jason, be sure to look for "stellar fusion" and not "steller fusion" as you > are prone to do occasionally. Yes--I have a spelling problem--so thanks for the reminder. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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 doubt that anybody told you that evolution theory had answers to how the world and 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. At this point in your reply you have not addressed any of my three points, above. >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. Evolution theory starts with life. You are asking questions about pre-life. > >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. At this point in your reply you have not addressed any of my three points, above. > >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. So, they would not be able to answer "But how did that come to be?" any better than those who rely on the fossil record. Right? So why aren't you questioning them, too? > >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. The scenario you suggest does not conflict with evolution theory. According to evolution theory, once in a while, on earth, some animals were transported to another place eg Galapagos. Evolution continued. THe same would be true of the scenario you suggest. The evolution theorists of the Star-Trek world you suggest would as easily accommodate the transport of specimens to another planet, as they would to another island on earth. > >Do you see my points? I believe that God created life on this planet. Why? > I >don't know how he done it or even the year that he done it. "Did" it, not "done" it. I don't want you to sound unschooled. >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 Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <sup863p7rvgqk6a6kl6hibcl95uoj7rmgh@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <1180940789.748564.275630@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George > >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 4, 11:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> > How did the stars come to be? > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > > >A mass expanded during the Big Bang. > > > >How did that mass come into be? > > > I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. > > Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can > be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" > > Three points of discussion follow: > > 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't > currently have an answer to that question." > > 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves > a god? > > 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune > from further questioning, and if so, why? I answered that in another post. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h90ao@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> 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? > >God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some >animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution took over. I >am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory was mainly >related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as a result >of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept >the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. >See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response. I have no need to put God in the theory, as a marker of our current limit of knowledge. You seem to need this. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <6yZ8i.15634$FN5.7632@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406071306050001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <AkU8i.18615$923.11246@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >>> Lunch > >> >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >>>>> Lunch > >> >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >>>>>>> In article > >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> ... > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can > >> >> >>>>>>>> refute > >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin > >> >> >>>>>>> Martin, > >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree > >> >> >>>>>>> is > >> >> >>>>>>> not > >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or > >> >> >>>>>>> anyone > >> >> >>>>>>> else > >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > >> >> > Denton or > >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at > >> >> >>>>>>> the > >> >> >>>>>>> ICR > >> >> >>>>>>> college. > >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be > >> >> >>>>>> wrong > >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > >> >> >>>>>>> non-life. > >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship > >> >> >>>>>> that > >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something > >> >> >>>>>>> like > >> >> > this: We > >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > >> > there would > >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. > >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. > >> >> >>>>>> The > >> >> >>>>>> fact > >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when > >> >> >>>>>> you > >> >> >>>>>> have > >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot > >> >> >>>>>> about > >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > >> >> >>>>> reactions > >> >> >>>>> come > >> >> >>> to be? > >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how > >> >> >>>> chemical > >> >> >>>> reactions work? > >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > >> >> >>> experiments, > >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came > >> >> >>> to > >> >> >>> be? > >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a > >> >> >> free > >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the > >> >> >> past. > >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these > >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already > >> >> >>> know > >> >> >>> that > >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I > >> >> >>> am > >> >> >>> asking > >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? > >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex > >> >> >> than > >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > >> >> > > >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? > >> >> > You > >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was > >> >> > taught > >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one > >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have > >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of > >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. > >> >> > >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass > >> >> gets > >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is > >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova > >> >> (IIRC). > >> >> > >> >> Tokay > >> > > >> > This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. > >> > How did those stars come to be? > >> > >> This is getting boring, Jason. You are showing yourself to be a dishonest > >> debater, much like your hero, "Bullfrog" Gish. To cut to the chase Jason, > >> who made god? > > > > Is this your method of not answering my question? If so, it did not work. > > I'll ask the question again: > > > > How did those stars come to be? > > And I'll tell you again, get a book and educate yourself. Now, who made god? If you don't know the answer--just say so---otherwise, provide an answer. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <uHZ8i.15637$FN5.3723@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406071259540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1180940935.656470.164080@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 4, 11:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <f3vsi4$3j1$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >>> In article > > <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> ... > >> > > >> > > >>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can > >> > > >>>> refute > >> > > >>>> creationist "arguments"? > >> > > >> > > >>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> > > >> > > >>>> Martin > >> > > >>> Martin, > >> > > >>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is > >> > > >>> not > >> > > >>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone > >> > > >>> else > >> > > >>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > > Denton or > >> > > >>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the > >> > > >>> ICR > >> > > >>> college. > >> > > >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be > >> > > >> wrong > >> > > >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > >> > > >> > > >>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > >> > > >>> non-life. > >> > > >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship > >> > > >> that > >> > > >> requires you to lie? > >> > > >> > > >>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something > > like this: We > >> > > >>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > > there would > >> > > >>> not be living cells. > >> > > >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The > >> > > >> fact > >> > > >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you > >> > > >> have > >> > > >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot > >> > > >> about > >> > > >> you, none of it good. > >> > > >> > > > How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions > >> > come to be? > >> > > >> > > For me to answer your question, define "chemicals". > >> > >> > a substance produced by a chemical process or used for producing a > >> > chemical effect. > >> > >> Define "chemical" > >> > >> You can't define a word in terms of itself: it's circular. > > > > I copied this from my dictionary: > > > > chemical--of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry. > > > > You could find a better definition at Wikipedia. > > > > Let's move forward--or should I say "backward in the history of the > > universe". > > > > What is the answer to my question? Let's stop getting bogged down with > > having to define various words. > > Do you play this little game with everyone? If you do as I said to do your > little game will end. By the way, Jason, who made god? You are trying to avoid answering my question. The question is: How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180992626.074107.83430@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > 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. Bob, That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of energy (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be. If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. God doesn't exist. That much we DO know. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180939743.784669.4...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> >> How could it not? > > > > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. > > > > > >> Through natural chemical processes. > > > > > >> What other method has evidence to support it? > > > > > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? > > > > > Through supernovae's. > > > > How did supernovaes come to be? > > > They were stars that exploded because the strength of their fusion > > reactions came to exceed the gravitational force that was holding them > > together. > Are you refering to the Big Bang? No, I'm refering to supernovas. Tell you what: go back to college, take some science courses and come back when you know some science and can actually talk to us about these matters. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h90ao@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> 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? God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution took over. I am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory was mainly related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as a result of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180940558.668099.169...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:19 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial > > > >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical > > > >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are > > > >> present. > > > > >How did all of those things come to be? > > > Chemical reactions can be understood from the first principles of > > quantum mechanics: electrons obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle and > > form orbitals around the atomic nucleus. These orbitals determine the > > chemical properties of the atom. It's that simple. > > How did the chemicals (involved in the chemical reactions) and the atoms > come to be? That is exactly the question that was answered, Jason, but unfortunately you lack any comprehension of what was said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_Exclusion_Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital We know exactly how atoms come to be and how they engage in chemical interactions. No god is involved. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:14:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071214230001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180939743.784669.4390@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 4, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >> >In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> > > >> ... >> > >> > > >> >> How could it not? >> > >> > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. >> > >> > > >> Through natural chemical processes. >> > >> > > >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> > >> > > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? >> > >> > > Through supernovae's. >> > >> > How did supernovaes come to be? >> >> They were stars that exploded because the strength of their fusion >> reactions came to exceed the gravitational force that was holding them >> together. >> >> Martin > >Are you refering to the Big Bang? No. You asked about supernovas. Please pay attention. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180940740.027769.180...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 11:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> >> <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >> >> >In article > > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> ... > > > > > >> >> >> >> How could it not? > > > > > >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it > > > happened. > > > > > >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. > > > > > >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? > > > > > >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come > > > to be? > > > > > >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of > chemical > > > > >> >> processes and the world before life would have had different > ones. It's > > > > >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. > > > > > >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? > > > > > >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial > > > > >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical > > > > >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are > > > > >> present. > > > > > >How did all of those things come to be? > > > > > Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. > > > > Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical precursors > come to be? > > > First prove to us that you even know what those terms mean. > > The chemical precursors that you mentioned came before or preceded the > development or creation of the chemicals that you mentioned. > > Are you trying to avoid answering my question? Also define "artificial" and "natural". Until you do then you are avoiding his question. The answer to the question implied by "George" is the same as the answer to the question you gave. Martin Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 3:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: <snip> > > > > 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. I have no objection to the idea that God created the universe via the Big Bang, and designed it in such a way that it would eventually produce living beings that were intelligent enough to develop a spirituality. It also seems reasonable to me that God might have been involved in the first stirrings of life on this planet. However, when you claim that humans are not animals or that we were created separately from other animals on Earth, you are just plain wrong. The genetic evidence is clear that our physical bodies are animals that are closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas. We have clear evidence of multiple kinds for the history of our descent, along with all other living things on Earth, from a common ancestor. There is no doubt that we are a product of evolution, just like beetles and redwood trees. The majority of Christians today believe that evolution is the origin of our physical animal beings. They believe that God arranged things so that the _eventual_ result of His creation of the universe is human beings who would worship Him. This makes sense to me - I don't believe in it, but it makes sense. It does _not_ make sense to believe that humans were created six thousand years ago, nor that the entire world drowned save Noah and his ark. The evidence for the fact of evolution is so overwhelming that if you believe God created us, it is 100% clear that evolution is the tool He used. You said earlier that you thought the Bible was the word of God, but that it was distorted by the mortal humans that wrote down what God revealed to them. You're on the right track here, but you need to extend this concept to your understanding of Genesis. Most Christians today believe that Genesis is an allegory, not the literal truth. Even if God explained exactly how He created the universe, the ancient tribespeople who heard Him could never have understood it. I imagine God telling them a story in terms they could understand. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:12:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071212560001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180951607.644648.239520@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 4 Jun., 01:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >> > You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened. >> >> I do not know. I do know that life did not always exist on this >> planet. It had to come from some place. Even the Bible describes it >> as coming from non-life. I also know that there is evidence >> supporting one possible way that it happened - you know, the evidence >> that you keep ignoring every time it is posted. Do you have any >> evidence that life did not arise through natural processes, evidence >> that you will actually provide? Of course you don't. > >Thanks for clearly stating that you "do not know". The advocates of >creation science do believe that life evolved from non-life. The advocates >of creation science are of the opinion that God created life from >non-life. The advocates of creation science have fossil evidence that >supports creation science. If you want to read about that evidence, I >suggest that you read either of these books: >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > Thank you for misrepresenting what was said. It's nice to know we can rely on you to lie again and again. If there were a God, He would strike you dead for the insults you hurl at Him and the lies you tell in His name. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? When have you EVER answered ANY of our questions, Jason? We are still waiting for evidence, ANY evidence, actually in favour of creationism. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ecU8i.18609$923.7...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0306072032550001@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? > > > The heavy elements were created in supernovae. Can you read? I'm beginning > > to believe that your entire defense of your position is from personal > > incredulity, which is an indefensible position. > > Now we are making progress--you claim that the heavy elements were created > in supernovae. Explain how that happened? Follow the damn link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:49:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071249250001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180951091.949854.152650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 4 Jun., 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180907895.450122.123...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, .... >> > > The DNA in dogs is not the same as that in cats. Does that mean that >> > > dogs are not animals or is it cats? I cannot wait for your answer. >> > >> > The DNA is one of the reason that dogs are different than cats. >> >> And the various types of apes have differences in their DNA, yet they >> are all animals including man. By the way I am not surprised that you >> didn't answer the question. Such silly evasions as the above are what >> one expects from you. > >I clearly answered your question. You may not have been satisfied with my >answer but I did answer your question. Your answer was wrong. The DNA is the same. It is the genes that are made of them that is different. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180939395.279993.139...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-0306071830200...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article > > <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > > > > >> >> creationist "arguments"? > > > > > >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > > > > > >> >> Martin > > > > > >> >Martin, > > > > >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > > > > >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else > > > > >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > Denton or > > > > >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR > > > > >> >college. > > > > > >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > > > > >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > > > > > >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > > > > > >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > > > > >> requires you to lie? > > > > > >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something > like this: We > > > > >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > there would > > > > >> >not be living cells. > > > > > >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > > > > >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have > > > > >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > > > > >> you, none of it good. > > > > > >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come > > > to be? > > > > > I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. > > > > > Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical > > > > reactions work? > > > > I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, > > > we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? > > > Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that > > > chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking > > > you how those chemcials came to be? > > > And we've told you. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment > > Water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) are > > naturally occuring elements that can be found anywhere in the > > universe. > Yes, I am sure that you are correct. I am asking how those "naturally > occurring elements" came to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis Are we done now? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so > > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft > > And this is being taught where, exactly? Columbia Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:48:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071548010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sup863p7rvgqk6a6kl6hibcl95uoj7rmgh@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <1180940789.748564.275630@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George >> >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 4, 11:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > How did the stars come to be? >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang >> > >> >A mass expanded during the Big Bang. >> > >> >How did that mass come into be? >> > >> I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. >> >> Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can >> be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" >> >> Three points of discussion follow: >> >> 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't >> currently have an answer to that question." >> >> 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves >> a god? >> >> 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune >> from further questioning, and if so, why? > >I answered that in another post. > Liar. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180940935.656470.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 11:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f3vsi4$3j1$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0306071754470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >>> In article > > <1180913480.690671.61...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> ... > > > > > >>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > > > > >>>> creationist "arguments"? > > > > > >>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > > > > > >>>> Martin > > > > >>> Martin, > > > > >>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > > > > >>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else > > > > >>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. > Denton or > > > > >>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR > > > > >>> college. > > > > >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > > > > >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > > > > > >>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > > > > >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > > > > >> requires you to lie? > > > > > >>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something > like this: We > > > > >>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > there would > > > > >>> not be living cells. > > > > >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > > > > >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have > > > > >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > > > > >> you, none of it good. > > > > > > How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions > > > come to be? > > > > > For me to answer your question, define "chemicals". > > > > a substance produced by a chemical process or used for producing a > > > chemical effect. > > > Define "chemical" > > > You can't define a word in terms of itself: it's circular. > > I copied this from my dictionary: > > chemical--of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry. > > You could find a better definition at Wikipedia. chem Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071545130001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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" .... >> > > 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. You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. You don't even have evidence that your god exists. >see my more detailed post to Jim related to our evidence. > You don't have any 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.