Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:38:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071638350001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f422j1$jqd$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: .... >> 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 > >If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your >choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science >to agree with you. I expect you to continue to defend the lies of Gish. A real Christian would learn about the things he teaches, but you cannot, you cannot admit that your doctrines are false. Go read the Parable of the Talents. I'm sure you'll refuse to recognize yourself in the wicked servant. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406071734020001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <2l5963lfkm7e62b2qqk7fc6tn67ki4re6e@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up >with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. >When I asked for answers, many of the people found reasons to not answer >the questions. Read the other posts in this thread. You reject the evidence and offer a story that is contrary to the evidence. Your ignorance of science causes you to tell lies. You bring mockery to the religion that you claim to believe in. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071734020001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <2l5963lfkm7e62b2qqk7fc6tn67ki4re6e@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up > with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. > When I asked for answers, many of the people found reasons to not answer > the questions. Read the other posts in this thread. So you have evidence that god created all? Please present this evidence. The 'evolutionists' have much more evidence to support their theory than fundamentalist Christians have to support theirs. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071604430001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <2l5963lfkm7e62b2qqk7fc6tn67ki4re6e@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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. The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. When I asked for answers, many of the people found reasons to not answer the questions. Read the other posts in this thread. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:22:02 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris 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. Oh come on... Jason has his answers. To every single step of the process, the answer is "God dunnit". You don't actually expect him to go forth and learn something, do you? -- FUCK OFF YOU INCONSIDERATE PIECE OF SHIT...YOUR DAY OF JUDGEMENT WILL COME FOR YOU!!!!!! - Steven Ricketts Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071411560001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <3tZ8i.15630$FN5.15250@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071245080001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <ecU8i.18609$923.7746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >Free >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> >> >> >> >> ><1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how >> >> >> >> >> >> >it >> >> > happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) >> >> >> >> >> >come >> >> > to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of >> >> >> >> >> chemical >> >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had different >> >> >> >> >> ones. >> >> >> >> >> It's >> >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or >> >> >> >> artificial >> >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. >> >> >> >> Chemical >> >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> present. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How did all of those things come to be? >> >> >> >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. >> >> > >> >> > Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical precursors >> >> > come >> >> > to be? >> >> >> >> The heavy elements were created in supernovae. Can you read? I'm >> >> beginning >> >> to believe that your entire defense of your position is from personal >> >> incredulity, which is an indefensible position. >> > >> > Now we are making progress--you claim that the heavy elements were >> > created >> > in supernovae. Explain how that happened? >> >> To you??????? A task more difficult than creating the universe. I have a >> book in my library, "Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis", that only scratches >> the surface. It is 594 pages( I know you're big on pages) of mathematical >> formulas and explanations. If you want to borrow it sometime I'll be more >> than happy to lend it to you. Or you can go to your local library and >> check-out a copy. Yes Jason, I know the basics of how that happened but I >> sure don't plan on explaining to someone as dishonest as you. Say Jason, >> tell me again how Jesus holds together the nucleus of an atom. > > Is this your method of not answering my question? I am trying to go back > into the history of the solar system to the time period where the elements > came into be. I would like to know how those elements came into be. A > related question is: > Do you believe there was a time in the history of the universe when there > were no elements? Jason, there are many things in the universe that are older than the solar system. Do you even have a clue as to what you are attempting to say. I would also say I answered your question, as dishonest as it was, as fully as I intend to. Let me translate that for you: You are too stupid to understand what I would say and I don't have the hours it would take to explain it to you. Take heed, however, that if the need ever arose I could tell you most of what you are looking for, I'm just tired of messing with someone as disingenuous as you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1180996743.221572.106500@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Would you be upset if public high schools taught courses related to the history of witchcraft--what about the history of creationism? > > > > > 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 Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <8s4963pd4sredl8p52pecjgrmqj07q8i1l@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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. I accept many of the aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. As I have told you, I believe that God created mankind; some plants; some animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution kicked in. Evolution is mostly about how animals and plants are able to change--esp. via mutations. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071745120001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180998573.169225.7850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Did you notice how many advocates of evolution are finding ways to avoid > answering my simple questions? It appears that the advocates of evolution > have a difficult time answering questions related to the history of the > universe. As of yet, I have received an answer to this question: > How did the energy mass that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be? Actually Jason, your simple questions have been answered. The problem is that you are so simple that you can't understand they have been answered. Now Jason, I'm going to call you a liar because I have answered that question several times. Since you have been called a liar it would behoove you to show that you aren't a liar or slink off into Christian wonderland where you belong. Say Jason, did you answer my question on god assembling the material universe? I don't recall seeing that reply. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071638350001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f422j1$jqd$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1180951607.644648.239520@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 4 Jun., 01:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>> On 4 Jun., 01:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>> In article <RoF8i.15298$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 > > If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your > choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science > to agree with you. Can't do it, I see. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <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. Jason, you can't even present evidence that your god exists, much less evidence that he created anything. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1180998573.169225.7850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Did you notice how many advocates of evolution are finding ways to avoid answering my simple questions? It appears that the advocates of evolution have a difficult time answering questions related to the history of the universe. As of yet, I have received an answer to this question: How did the energy mass that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:26:57 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Gish is a con man. It's not great that he is allowed to teach his lies >> anywhere. Churches should feel shame that they let him teach such >> nonsense. > > He has debated hundreds of science professors and won most of those > debates. Actually, he has never won a single one of them. Ever. > He easily won the the debate that I attended. The main reason > is because the professor from the state college lost his temper and made > a fool of himself. Indeed. That's kind of the point. You need to really look at the crap Gish has spewed, the lies he's put forth, the gross misrepresentations. It is all very carefully crafted to make it nigh-on impossible to refute him _in the time alloted_. This makes it appear like he's won, when in fact he hasn't. It's sleight-of-hand at best. > professor stopped clapping for him after he made a fool of himself. I > learned from a professor that a taught public speaking class that when > someone that is in a debate starts name calling, it means that person > lost the debate. Not at all. It simply means they're pissed off. The question is whether they are _justifiably_ pissed off. When Gish is in the mix, the answer is almost certainly yes; the man is such a dishonest piece of scum, if he were to say "Hello" I, for one, wouldn't accept it as valid without three peer-reviewed references to back it up. >That's the reason I don't get upset when people call me > names--it means that I won the debate. No, it means people are pissed off at you for your persistent displays of stupidity. The fact that you've caused virtually every one of your opponents to lose all respect for you doesn't mean you won, it means they simply think you're an idiot. -- What you fail to realize is that even you guys will be in for it, when everything the Illuminatit wants is in place. - Ken Young (Fundamentalist Christian, obviously) Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071721110001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > How did the elements come into be? Been answered before by myself and others. Too bad that your memory is so short and selective. > > Was there a time in the history of the solar system where the elements did > not exist? There was a long, long time where the solar system didn't exist. As I have said several times, are you sure what you are asking? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:16:00 -0700, Jason wrote: >> What do they learn from these 'debates'? That is takes longer to refute a >> lie than it does to speak it? Do a search on "Bullfrog" Gish for an idea as >> to the character of your hero. > > I respect Dr. Gish and the other staff members that work at ICR. Sarah and > I actually took a tour through their museum. You respect him? What for - his lying, his misrepresentations or his deceptions? No, seriously; the man is known far and wide as intellectually bankrupt, having no interest in truth whatsoever - so what aspect of this willful and intentional creation of an entire institution of dishonesty do you find respect worthy? -- Someone needs to come up with the deity equivalent of a nicotine patch Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071551070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. The stars came to be by gravitational attraction made possible by the distribution of matter in the universe. Now, who made god? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. To that I simply say, bullshit! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071553170001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? And I answered that many posts ago. You need to be careful whom you accuse of not answering your posts. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:57:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in alt.atheism >In article <1180862637.657471.263860@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 3, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sink...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch [] >> > > Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your >> > > opinion about things that you are ignorant of. >> > >> > Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the >> > professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an >> > advocate of evolution? >> >> Considering the "expertise" of those who advocate creationism, it >> would be one less reason NOT to hire him on, wouldn't it? >> >> Martin > >Martin, >You are making an assumption. He may or may not have had more expertise >than other professors. Advocating creationism demonstrates he was terminally ignorant and unqualified for the position. If he didn't advocate creationism he could still be terminally ignorant and unqualified for the position. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:07:24 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >snip >> >> That is not good enough since I could say: Yes, we have living cells but I >> believe that it's because God created living cells. >> >> You will have to do better than that. > >So will you. Prove your god exists and then we'll talk. One first must have a coherant and concise definition of the effectively undefined g-o-d letter string. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:32:20 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:55:30 -0700, George Chen ><georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > - Refer: <1180940130.734812.145150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >>On Jun 4, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> > Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >>> > hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >>> >>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >>> that steller refers to a star or stars. >> >>It does. That's why he shouldn't have to understand what he means. >> >>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion > >Note that the village idiot said "steller". >This is a reference to an extinct sea cow. >Steller fusion is two extinct sea cows mating. That would be a neat trick. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071353280001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Let me help you a little Jason, Bullfrog Gish doesn't think the universe is over 10,000 years old so we know he doesn't use the dates that were given above. One other thing Jason, as little as your retention level is, you need to keep all of your books for reference. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:36:57 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> > >> Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened. > > Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know? Don't know about Lubenow... but we need not read Gish's work to discount it; all we need is a knowledge of Gish from past experience. I put it to you this way: if a congenital liar publishes a book, is it necessary to read the book to be reasonably certain it, too, is full of lies? No, it's not. The same book, written by someone presumed to be at least vaguely honest would possibly be worth reading... but not when it's written by Gish, he simply has too many years of consistent, unfailing, ever-present dishonesty to justify any effort whatsoever on reading anything put forth by him. Don't believe me? Here's a link about Gish's standards of evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html You simply cannot trust a single thing Gish says or writes. -- I had two margaritta’s, and was eyeing the women like a deer eyes oncoming headlights. - David Rice Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:19:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in alt.atheism >In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: [] >> Jason, Jason, my dear. >> If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive >> Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. >> If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve such >> an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect animal >> machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. >> If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. >> If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any >> case. >> You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and >> you know it. >> Bramble > >Bramble, >You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve >were perfect and they were made in the image of God. Pig ignorant, a liar, hypocritical, blaming others for their own scheduled failures, incompetant, savage, egotistical, cowardly, weak and a whole bunch of other negative descriptors. Yep, that's "God" alright. >They lost that perfection after they sinned. There was no sin, nor were they 'perfect.' How about going elsewhere with your vapid bronze age ignorance and bullshit? [] -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
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.