Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:09:59 -0700, Jason wrote: > I mentioned the number of pages for a reason. Several people stated that > the advocates of creation science have no evidence. Dr. Gish's book has > 391 pages and M. Lubenow's book has 295 pages. My point was that there > is EVIDENCE discussed on those pages--they are NOT blank pages. People > should read the books if they want to examine their evidence. Err... no. The fact there's something on those pages doesn't make it evidence. One could type the works of Shakespeare on the pages, it would be content, but it would not be evidence of creation. To qualify as evidence, it would have to explain how creation works, in a testable and falsifiable manner, provide the tests, show the results of the tests being consisted with the predictions of the mechanism and so forth. You've supposedly read the books - do they actually offer evidence , or just the usual pointless hand-waving nonsense? -- “Fish to Gish” is one example of a complex-to-simple transition. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:45:01 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Once again, you are assuming a fact that is not so. Gish and Lubenow did >> not offer any evidence for creation in their books. > > Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false information? Can't comment on Lubenow, but if one of the books is by Gish, it is virtually guaranteed to be one big lie from cover to cover. -- Look, Chickie. It’s your Bible, your rules; YOU go to hell. - Marty Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:59:23 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false information? >> > >> The evidence says they are. > > I disagree. There are at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees You know, that's a big part of your problem - you let someone else do your thinking for you. "They have degrees, so they must be right, I should believe them." It's bullshit. Either what they say - their claims and the support for them - holds up, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it makes no difference if they have 90 PhDs or 90,000, they are still spewing crap. Have you examined the evidence? No, you haven't. I know that, because you persist in asking questions which are so basic that you could not examine the evidence without already knowing the answers. Hell, you even think Gish won a bunch of debates, which demonstrates you have not actually looked at what those debates covered, what claims were made and what support was offered for the claims. Why would you let someone else do your thinking for you? Aside from the fact that they're doing a very bad job of it, you were given a brain... why let it atrophy instead of using it? -- Bible? Yes, it’s right over there next to Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? -- Yes, but guessing such counterintuitive facts as the world is round is pretty far-fetched. - Michael Hardy (A fundie) Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:04:04 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote in alt.atheism >Jason wrote: >> In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> >>>>> You have never seen a human? >>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>> When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. >>>> When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some >>>> animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in. >>> 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. They lost that >> perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are the one >> that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 questions? >> jason >> >> > >Holy shit are you stupid. You keep using a dubious, contradictory, >absurd collection of writings from backwoods, ignorant, >wipe-their-asses-with-corn-cobs, inbreeding fools as proof of something. > Get serious. 'Jason' is the smart one amongst his littermates. -- 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 Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:42:40 -0700, Jason wrote: > Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they > teach course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one > college teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question > marks) Do they try to claim that witchcraft is a valid alternative to science? Do they attempt to discredit science? Do they argue that, despite a complete lack of evidence for the claims of witchcraft, it should be taught on equal footing with science, or that science should be limited in its being taught? Oh, no, they don't. Nobody gives a crap if someone wants to discuss witchcraft or Christianity in, say, a comparative mythology class or the like. When it's being used as a foundation to attack science, though, it's no longer being dealt with as religion, but as anti-science - and yes, you can be damn certain, if they did that, there would be many people very pissed off about it. Now, did you have something intelligent to say on the matter? -- ‘Evidence’ is a dirty word if you don’t have any. - Hector Plasmic Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f40svh$4vg$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f40469$3b5$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> 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? > > > >> "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. > Is this your method of not answering my question? If you don't know the > answer to my question, just say so. If you do know the answer, please > provide it. Follow the damn links he provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:53:34 -0700, gudloos wrote: >> They actually teach withcraft classes at Columbia. Here is the proof: >> (ignore the question marks.) > > The evidence you provide shows clearly that they do not teach > witchcraft classes. You are a fool. He really is just fundamentally stupid, isn't he? I don't think he's even actively dishonest, really, he's just too barking stupid to know better. I'd have suggested ignorance, rather than stupidity, but he's been provided with endless information refuting pretty much every point he's ever made, and still just doesn't get it... so it's not a lack of information, but an inability to cope with information - i.e. stupid. -- Nothing is wrong with you that reincarnation can’t cure. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180964838.431806.41...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how > > > did that hydrogen come to be? > > > Hydrogen consists of a single proton and a single electron. > > > Protons consist of three quarks, one down and two up. > > > Thus the hydrogen atom consists of four elementary particles. That's > > it. Okay, granted, there's also the binding energies: binding energy > > makes up the bulk of the proton's mass. In fact, these four > > elementary particles are all charged so their mass, conceivably comes > > from their self-interaction. Some people argue that elementary > > particles are strings and their mass actually comes from their > > vibrations, but this is only a model that seems likely to reproduce > > the masses of the elementary particles; it's unlikely that string > > theory is an accurate way to describe what is happening in three > > dimensional space. (String theory requires ten dimensions of space: > > the other seven "dimensions" probably represent parameters that we > > haven't identified yet.) > > > For what it is worth, you can check out the following links. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > That is excellent information. The next question is: How did the hydrogen > atom come to be? You obviously didn't understand. Obviously quarks and electrons came out of the big bang. > You have probably figured out that I am trying to go back into the history > of the universe to the time period where all of the elements came into be. > If you want to cut to the chase and answer that question--go for it. > > A related question is: Do you believe that there was a time in the history > of the universe where none of the elements existed? It is attractive to think of the big bang starting from a singularity because that would imply that the big bang was the beginning of time, space, matter and energy. But perhaps there was a universe that existed _before_ the big bang. How would we know? You religionists think that scientists don't have an open mind. We do. In fact, religionists don't have an open mind precisely because they think they have one answer that explains everything (ie "God did it") when in reality it explains nothing (because you god doesn't even exist). I think it's amazing what we've been able to explain by taking God out of the equation: with no god, everything starts to make sense where as before we had mysteries that we thought we could never hope to solve. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180940789.748564.275...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@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? Follow the damn link. "At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons-of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe." Did you get that? We've been trying to explain things in simple terms: if you really want to understand then go back to school! Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Ralph 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. > > He has no defensible positions. He parrots the lines of his lying preachers in hopes that he can fool someone into believing that he has an intellect. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <gmU8i.18616$923.16690@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtllal@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> refute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >>> anyone else >>>>>>>>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >>>>>>> Denton or >>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at >>> the ICR >>>>>>>>>>>>> college. >>>>>>>>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to >>> be wrong >>>>>>>>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from >>> non-life. >>>>>>>>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> requires you to lie? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something >>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>> this: We >>>>>>>>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >>>>> there would >>>>>>>>>>>>> not be living cells. >>>>>>>>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. >>> The fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >>> you have >>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a >>> lot about >>>>>>>>>>>> you, none of it good. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical >>> reactions come >>>>>>>>> to be? >>>>>>>>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how >>> chemical >>>>>>>>>> reactions work? >>>>>>>>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the >>> experiments, >>>>>>>>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came >>>>>>>>> to be? >>>>>>>> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a >>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the >>>>>>>> past. >>>>>>>> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >>>>>>>> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already >>> know that >>>>>>>>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I >>> am asking >>>>>>>>> you how those chemcials came to be? >>>>>>>> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >>>>>>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? >>>>>>> You >>>>>>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was >>>>>>> taught >>>>>>> that steller refers to a star or stars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one >>>>>> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have >>>>>> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of >>>>>> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass >>>>>> gets >>>>>> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is >>>>>> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova >>>>>> (IIRC). >>>>>> >>>>>> Tokay >>>>> This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. >>>>> How did those stars come to be? >>>>> >>>> You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology >>>> textbooks. >>> Someone else stated that the Big Bang played a role related to the >>> chemical reactions that you mentioned, would you agree? >> The Big Bang played a part in everything, if you wish to get technical. It >> even played a role in the creation of gods, yours included. > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be? > > Isn't it obvious? It evolved from non-life! Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180941316.908953.184...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <d5076317avbqq57vlf3n32jnickckso...@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >I have never researched the > > > > >life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR > > > > >newsletter about Mr. Gould. > > > > > They probably distorted something about him. Nothing he ever said had > > > > anything to do with creationism. Except the occasional snort. > > > > I seem to recall that he was mentioned because he refused to debate Dr. > > > Gish. I believe the reason was because he was afraid that he might lose > > > the debate but his reason was that he did not want to do anything to > > > promote creation science. > > > Or perhaps he just had better things to do. > > I don't know his real reason. He stated the reason was because he did not > want to do anything that would promote creation science. When I attended a > creation science versus evolution debate, I noticed that they had a book > table set up at the entrance. They were selling ICR books and ICR Video > Tapes. Most of the people that attended were Christians. Only a small > number of people clapped when the professor from the local college made an > excellent point but thousands of people clapped when Dr. Gish made a great > point. It must be frustrating to be winning a debate and yet people are clapping whenever some idiot opens his mouth. Thanks for clarifying why nobody would want to engage in such a futile exercise. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:22:01 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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? > How did god come to be? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180999893.484563.277...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 4:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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. > > > You should read the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang, or consult some > > other reference. Nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang, or > > even if is it meaningful to talk about "before" the beginning of the > > universe. It could be that there was another universe before ours > > that ended when ours began. It could be that there are any number of > > universes. Or, perhaps, the universe was created by a Creator. We > > have no scientific evidence one way or the other, because there seems > > to be no theoretical way to know anything that happened before the Big > > Bang. > > > What we do know a lot about, is what has happened since the Big Bang. > > Your questions about where the chemicals and elements that eventually > > became part of Earth and thence part of life on Earth have been > > answered. In a general way, we understand every step that led from > > the Big Bang to our lives today. We don't know every detail of how it > > happened, and we never will because so much of it happened so long > > ago. We do have a clear record of human ancestry going back to single- > > celled creatures. > > > - Bob T. > > Bob, > Thanks for your excellent answer. Please read the other posts and note how > they failed to answer my questions. To be honest, you can be rather frustrating to debate with and some people are reacting to that. Others are just assholes. > Are you saying that evolutionists and experts in related fields do not > have any theories or ideas about how the mass of energy that expanded > during the Big Bang came to be? What are your opinions on this subject. I really have no opinions. The best I can hope to do is kind of sort of understand what the people who _do_ understand the Big Bang are talking about. As I said, it's like sub-atomic particle physics - unless you are know advanced math, you can't understand the equations. In any case, I am not particularly interested in physics - I have a strong amateur interest in natural history and evolution. I can explain how vision evolved in layman's terms, but I cannot explain the Big Bang. - Bob T. > Jason > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180939638.055315.145...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rku...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence > > > > to support creation. > > > > I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. > > > Present some. Go right now to a library or a book store and find the > > book. I'm in Taiwan so I can only find legitimate books on the > > subject. > Visit the ICR website and type this term into their search engine: > Cambrian Explosion > If that does not work, google Cambrian Explosion. > Dr. Gish discussed that subject in his book. You could order Dr. Gish's > book from the ICR website. The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). THIS IS MERELY AN ASSERTION. This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all. ANOTHER ASSERTION. Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. THIS IS A LIE. EVOLUTION OCCURS IN VIRUSES AND BACTERIA. FOR HIGHER LIFE FORMS THE PROCESS IS SLOWER BECAUSE A SINGLE GENERATION COULD BE AS MUCH AS TWENTY TO THIRTY YEARS. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, IT IS. and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. THERE ARE. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and - apparently - unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT TRUE. SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS (SPECIFICALLY FLIES). THEN THERE'S THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. EVOLUTION IS ABOUT DIVERSITY AND NOT "ONE CREATURE TURNING INTO ANOTHER". THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CAT TO BECOME A DOG OR VICE VERSA. "MICRO EVOLUTION" _IS_ EVOLUTION. YOU CAN'T WALK A MILE WITHOUT TAKING ONE STEP AT A TIME. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A NEW SPECIES HAS BEEN PRODUCED WHENEVER YOU HAVE OFFSPRING THAT CANNOT INTERBREED WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF WHAT HAD BEEN THE SAME SPECIES. THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED WITH FLIES. A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: .. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 DOES MORRIS NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORD "EXCEPTION". The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. AND YET WE HAVE. Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. FALSE. WE ARE ALL TRANSITIONAL FORMS. NONE OF US ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS OUR FATHERS AND NO FATHER EXACTLY THE SAME AS ANY OF HIS SONS. EVOLUTION IS ABOUT GRADUAL CHANGES OVER TIME. Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3 IT IS. BOTH CARBON DATING AND STRATA INDICATE THAT ANCIENT FOSSILS ARE SIMPLER CREATURES AND THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT MORE COMPLEX CREATURES CAME LATER. Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils - after all, there are billions of non- transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. FALSE. WE SEE FISH WITH LUNGS AND WHALES WITH LEGS. WE EVEN SEE VESTIGAL FORMS ON LIVING CREATURES: SNAKES HAVE SMALL LEGS THEY DON'T USE, CHICKENS HAVE WINGS BUT THEY DON'T FLY AND, YES, HUMANS HAVE TAIL BONES. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4 THIS IS NO SURPRISE WITH, SAY, INSECTS FOR WHICH HARDLY EVER FOSSILS ARE EVER FOUND. (MOST INSECT "FOSSILS" WERE ACTUALLY FORMED WHEN AN INSECT GOT TRAPPED IN TREE SAP, AN EXTREMELY RARE OCCURENCE APPARENTLY.) FOR HUMAN BEINGS, THE FOSSIL RECORDS GO BACK ONE, TWO, THREE, EVEN SEVEN MILLION YEARS. THE DESCENT OF MAN IS VERY CLEARLY RECORDED IN THE FOSSIL RECORDS AND IT WOULD BE DISHONEST TO SAY THAT THIS RECORD WAS "INCOMPLETE". The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non- life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO FIND FOSSILS OF ANCIENT DNA? DNA WILL DEGRADE IN A MATTER OF YEARS. WE CAN ONLY HAVE FOSSILS OF CREATURES THAT HAD BONES AND / OR SHELLS. YOU'D THINK HE WOULD KNOW THAT. to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. THIS IS A LIE. HOMO HABILIS AND HOMO ERECTUS ARE INTERMEDIATE FORMS. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus ) With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERM "AT FIRST GLANCE"? THIS OBJECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_RNA_world_hypothesis: "RNA is believed to have once been capable of independent life. Further, while nucleotides were not found in Miller-Urey's origins of life experiments, they were found by others' simulations, notably those of Joan Oro." ) Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6 FALSE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Oro: One of his most important contributions was the prebiotic synthesis of the nucleotide adenine (a key component of nucleic acids) from hydrogen cyanide.) Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." ANOTHER LIE. Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so! WHERE IS HIS EVIDENCE? Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7 ANOTHER LIE. SUBSEQUENT EXPERIMENTS HAVE PRODUCED BILIPID MEMBRANES, PROTEINS AND RNA NUCLEOTIDES. ALL THE BASIC CHEMICALS NECESSARY FOR LIFE HAVE BEEN SYNTHESIZED IN LABORATORIES. Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. ANOTHER LIE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity ) Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8 HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_Explosion#Timing_of_the_Cambrian_Explosion ). AS I HAVE SAID, RAPID EVOLUTION DUE TO A CATASTROPHIC EXTINCTION IS A WELL OBSERVED AND EXPLAINED PHENOMENON. Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate - that is, the first fish- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9 ANOTHER LIE. JUST BECAUSE HARD SHELL CREATURES APPEARED FIRST DOES NOT MEAN THAT VERTIBRATES EVOLVED FROM HARD SHELL CREATURES. YOU CANNOT FIND THE FOSSILS OF THE ANCESTORS OF INVERTIBRATES BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD BONES. Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. REPEATING A LIE DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! ANOTHER LIE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge#Evolutionary_theory ) It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10 So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations? MINOR FLUCTUATIONS, COMBINED WITH SUDDEN CHANGES DUE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS, ACCOUNT FOR EVOLUTION. Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees - fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner - new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11 FALSE. THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS CLEAR TRANSITIONS FROM SIMPLER TO MORE COMPLEX STRUCTURES. As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn. THE FOSSIL RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE HUMAN BRAIN OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus ) All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. 12 SO HE IS NOW ADMITTING THAT THE EVIDENCE FOR COMMON DESCENT _DOES_ EXIST. Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. HOW CAN HE SAY THIS WHEN MAN AND GORILLA ARE 97% GENETICALLY IDENTICAL? Lewin notes that: The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13 Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically: Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14 NOTICE "we have no direct access to the processes of evolution". THE FOSSIL RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE BUT WE CAN'T TRACE _HOW_ EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE BECAUSE THE FOSSILS ARE PRESERVED BONES AND NOT PRESERVED DNA. Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, HE KEEPS REPEATING THIS LIE HOPING YOU WILL BELIEVE IT. it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. THIS IS A LIE BASED ON A FALSE SUPPOSITION. FOSSIL, GENETIC, GEOLOGICAL AND ANATOMICAL EVIDENCE ALL SUPPORT EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION IS PART OF SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION CAN ONLY BE FALSE IF ALL OF SCIENCE IS FALSE IN WHICH CASE WE WOULDN'T BE USING A COMPUTER RIGHT NOW. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. HE HASN'T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, LET ALONE EVIDENCE _FOR_ CREATION. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. CREATIONISM IS NOT PREDICTIVE. Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation. CREATIONISM DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ANY ANIMAL WOULD BECOME EXTINCT. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO CREATE AN ANIMAL THAT WOULD BECOME EXTINCT. PRESUMABLY ALL ANIMALS EXCEPT MAN WERE PERFECT AND MAN ONLY FELL (ACCORDING TO THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE) BECAUSE ADAM ATE THE APPLE. WHY WOULD OTHER ANIMALS GO EXTINCT IF GOD CREATED THEM TO BE PERFECT? EXTINCTIONS, WHENEVER THEY ARE SHOWN TO OCCUR, ARE EVIDENCE OF THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION: THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME SPECIES WERE NOT FIT TO SURVIVE. The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument is valid. THIS IS ANOTHER UNFOUNDED ASSERTION. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution. FALSE. THERE'S NO REASON FOR 97% OF THE GENES IN MEN AND GORILLAS TO BE THE SAME. THE FOSSIL RECORD INDICATES THAT GORILLAS AND MEN HAD COMMON ANCESTORS AND THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION. The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/ chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders? YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT GOD CREATED GORILLAS AND CHIMPANZEES TO BE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE MEN IN ORDER TO CONFUSE PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION. PRESUMABLY YOUR GOD WANTS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. IMAGINE THAT! Similarities - whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else - are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. ANOTHER ASSERTION. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these ANOTHER LIE. if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process? WHAT "GAPS"? THE FOSSIL RECORD DENONSTRATING MAN'S DESCENT IS REMARKABLY COMPLETE NOW. NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT A "MISSING LINK" ANYMORE. HENRY MORRIS HAS ALL THE CREDIBILITY OF SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES IN A FLAT EARTH. The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. FALSE. CHIMPANZEES CAN BE TAUGHT SIGN LANGUAGE. GORILLAS IN ZOOS WILL WATCH TV: THEY SEEM TO LIKE SOAP OPERAS. HERE WE SEE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF HUMANS ON EARTH ARE BARELY MORE INTELLIGENT THAN GORILLAS. Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, ANOTHER LIE. recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. FOSSILS, GENETICS, GEOLOGY AND ANATOMY ARE _INDEPENDENT_ PROOFS OF EVOLUTION WHICH TOGETHER FORM A BIG PICTURE WHICH CANNOT BE INTELLIGENTLY DENIED. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs." The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15 HENRY MORRIS ISN'T SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A DUCKBILLED PLATYPUS DESCENDED FROM A DUCK, IS HE? NOTE THAT THE PLATYPUS, THE KANGAROO AND THE KOALA ARE ALL FROM AUSTRALIA: EVOLUTION PREDICTS THAT THEY WOULD BE GENETICALLY SIMILAR AND, LO AND BEHOLD, THEY ARE! There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17 It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, PERHAPS HE CAN TELL US WHAT THE USE OF THE HUMAN APENDIX IS OR, BETTER YET, THE TAIL BONE. so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model. WHY WOULD ANIMALS "DETERIORATE" WHEN IT WAS MAN WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DISOBEYED GOD BY EATING FROM THE TREE OF LIFE? WHY WERE ANIMALS PUNISHED? AND HOW EXACTLY IS THE OBSERVATION OF NEW DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF CATS, DIGS AND BIRDS "DETERIORATION" AS OPPOSED TO DIVERSIFICATION? The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. FOSSILS, GENETIC EVIDENCE, GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND ANATOMICAL EVIDENCE ALL SUPPORT EVOLUTION. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. HE IS A LIAR. (NOTE THAT HE PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY NO CITATION HERE TO SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION.) A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy - also known as the second law of thermodynamics - stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. FALSE. OPEN SYSTEMS RECIEVE ENERGY FROM OUTSIDE AND THIS ALLOWS ENTROPY TO DECREASE IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems - in fact, in all systems, without exception. EVEN IN CLOSED SYSTEMS IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A LOCAL DECREASE IN ENTROPY. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found - not even a tiny one. 1) THAT MACROSCOPIC OBJECTS ALWAYS OBEY THE SECOND LAW PROVES THAT EITHER GOD DOESN'T OR THAT HE HAS NO EFFECT ON PHYSICAL LAWS AND IS THUS COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DO THE THINGS CREATIONISTS CLAIM HE CAN DO. 2) ELEMENTARY PARTICLES DO NOT, IN FACT, OBEY THE SECOND LAW BUT RATHER SIMPLY OBEY CONSERVATION LAWS. HE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 UNLIKE THE FIRST LAW, THE SECOND LAW SPECIFIES A DIRECTION OF TIME. ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, IN FACT, ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ARROW OF TIME. IT IS ONLY MACROSCOPIC THINGS (INCLUDING OURSELVES) WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE SECOND LAW. The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists - that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. IT IS NICE TO SEE HIM ACKNOWLEDGE THIS TOO: THERE IS NO GOD INVOLVED. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. THIS IS AN ASSERTION. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. PHOTOSYNTHESIS IS A WELL OBSERVED PHENOMENON. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/photosynthesis.) The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. HEAT ALSO FLOWS OUT. THE EARTH MAINTAINS ITS TEMPERATURE WITH A CERTAIN RANGE (BARRING ICE AGES AND GLOBAL WARMING.) IN ANY CASE, THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION SO MUCH AS AGAINST METABOLISM: WITHOUT AN INFLUX OF ENERGY, INDIVIDUAL LIFE FORMS CANNOT SURVIVE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism ) All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. FALSE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism ) Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). FALSE. A MAN WAS BORN IN THE PHILIPPINES WITH SIX FINGERS ON EACH HAND AND HAS SINCE PASSED THIS MUTATION ON TO HIS SON. THIS MUTATION WAS NEITHER DISORGANIZING NOR HARMFUL. Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. AND YET EVOLUTION HAS OCCURED. WITHOUT THE ORDER-GENERATING PROCESS OF METABOLISM WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE LIFE: METABOLISM WAS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS TO EVOLVE IN SIMPLE BACTERIA. >From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. CITATIONS PLEASE! The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution is Religion - Not Science THIS IS A RIDICULOUS LIE. EVOLUTION IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. CREATIONISM ISN''T. In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long- accepted criteria of a scientific theory. FALSE ASSERTION BASED ON INCORRECT SUPPOSITION: THERE ARE, IN FACT, DIFFERENT THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN EACH OF THE STEPS INVOLVED. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; THIS IS A LIE HE HAS OFTEN REPEATED: REPEATING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. THIS IS ANOTHER LIE. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. THIS IS A RIDICULOUS LIE. I WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH THIS AMATEUR AND I COULD HARDLY BE CALLED AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD. WHAT DOES THAT MAKE HIM? Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS PREFER NOT TO WASTE TIME WITH PEOPLE WHO LACK THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN QUESTION, LET ALONE THAT OF THE THEORIES THEMSELVES. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20 The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? BECAUSE IT IS A PACK OF LIES, AS HENRY MORRIS HAS SO THOROUGHLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS ARTICLE. The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. FALSE. EVOLUTION IS NOT RELIGIOUS DOGMA. EVOLUTION WAS PROPOSED AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO DESCRIBE THE OBSERVED WORLD. FOSSIL, ANATOMICAL, GEOLOGICAL AND GENETIC EVIDENCE HAVE SINCE SHOWN IT TO BE TRUE. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. IT SO HAPPENS THAT A CREATOR DOESN'T EXIST AND EVOLUTION _DOES_ OCCUR. THIS WOULD BE TRUE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE EXISTED A THOEORY EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION IS LIKE BELIEVING THAT THE SUN WILL RISE TOMORROW: IT REQUIRES NO FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY LAID OUT FOR ALL TO SEE: THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMITEES HELD IN SECRET TO DECIDE WHAT THE OFFICIAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION WOULD BE. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism - the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND HUMANISM IS THAT ONE REQUIRES BELIEF IN GOD AND THE OTHER DOESN'T: AS GOD HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY SHOWN TO BE NON-EXISTANT BY EVERY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT THAT HAS EVER BEEN PERFORMED, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT RELIGION IS BASED ON FALSE SUPPOSITIONS. Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! FALSE. THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD IS NOT RELIGION. CAN YOU SEE THE FALLACY IN ARGUING THAT ALL RELIGION IS FALSE AND THEREFORE CONCLUDING THAT GOD EXISTS? Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22 WE CAN AND HAVE PROVEN THE CHRISTIAN GOD TO BE BASED ON SUMERIAN MYTHOLOGY. THEREFORE YOUR GOD IS JUST A MYTH. QED. Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. BELIEF DOES NOT REQUIRE ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY BUT RELIGIOUS FAITH DOES. FAITH IS THE END OF REASON. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23 _SCIENCE_ REJECTS THE SUPERNATURAL BY DEFINITION: IT IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH _NATURAL_ PHENOMENA. THE FACT THAT SCIENCE CAN BE USED TO DESCRIBE HOW THE WORLD WORKS TO SUCH PREDICTIVE ACCURACY PROVES THAT NOTHING SUPERNATURAL EXISTS, LET ALONE YOUR GOD. A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24 INDEED. It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! CITATION PLEASE! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full- fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 UNLIKE CHRISTIANITY, EVOLUTION CAN EXPLAIN WHERE MORALITY COMES FROM. HOW COULD MORALITY COME FROM A CREATOR WHO WAS WILLING TO KILL ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE SUPPOSED "GREAT FLOOD"? HOW IS YOUR IMAGINED CREATOR MORAL? HOW CAN MORALITY COME FROM SOMETHING SO IMMORAL? Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26 IT'S TRUE THAT NATURAL SELECTION CAN BE APPLIED TO SOCIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN ADDITION TO BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. THIS JUST PINTS TO THE STRENGTH OF THE THEORY! They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. NO, THEY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE. CREATIONISTS HAVE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION _DESPITE_ THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS _NO_ EVIDENCE _FOR_ CREATIONISM. THE FACT THAT HE HASN'T PROVIDED ANY AS IS NOW, IN FACT, USING A SPECIAL PLEADING ARGUMENT BASED ON RELIGION PROVES THIS TO BE THE CASE. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27 THIS IS LAUGHABLE. (See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm: "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation." - St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)) The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, EXCEPT THE FOSSIL RECORD, COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, COMPARATIVE GENETICS AND THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN OBSERVED SPECIES IN THE AREAS IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND. so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SAYS EVOLUTION IS FALSE AND CREATIONISM IS TRUE. An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28 BUT WE CANNOT DENY THE FACT EVOLUTION _DID_ COME ABOUT: THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT IS OVERWHELMING AND IT ISN'T GOING AWAY. A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. UNLIKE THEISTS, SCIENTISTS _ARE_ HONEST. IT IS PART OF THEIR NATURE. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal - without demonstration - to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29 THIS IS A REFUTATION OF THE WAY THAT EVOLUTION IS TAUGHT AND NOT OF THE THEORY ITSELF. STUDENTS SHOULD GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES. DON'T YOU AGREE? Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREATIONISM SO, BY THIS STANDARD, IT SHOULD NEVER BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. WHEN YOU GO TO CHURCH, ARE YOU GIVEN EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS OR ARE YOU JUST ASKED TO BELIEVE? ON THE CONTRARY, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn. 20:29) IS WHAT YOU ARE TOLD! As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. 30 THEN CLEARLY ATHEISM IS THE WAY TO GO. Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. SCIENTISTS ARE PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE CREATIONIST'S TIRADES. THESE TIRADES SEEM TO GO DOWN WELL AMONGST THOSE WHO ARE PART OF "a common crowd or an uneducated congregation". (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31 WITH FOSSIL, GENETIC, GEOLOGICAL AND ANATOMICAL EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE, WHO NEEDS AN ABUNDANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE? AND YET THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE DOES EXISTS, VERSUS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent! The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33 Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution- centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35 That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism. HE HAS SUBMITTED NO EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, LET ALONE ANY EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. THANK YOU FOR WASTING A COUPLE OF HOURS OF MY LIFE. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f42ah8$1nv$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f422j1$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. > > > > > > lol > > You don't even know what is in that books. You said so. So, while other > "proponents of creation science" might have a point (they don't), you > have not. You don't even know their arguments. > > Tokay I read "Evolution: The Fossils Say No" about 10 years ago and no longer have a copy of that book. I never read "Bones of Contention". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1180999893.484563.277220@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 4:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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. > > You should read the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang, or consult some > other reference. Nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang, or > even if is it meaningful to talk about "before" the beginning of the > universe. It could be that there was another universe before ours > that ended when ours began. It could be that there are any number of > universes. Or, perhaps, the universe was created by a Creator. We > have no scientific evidence one way or the other, because there seems > to be no theoretical way to know anything that happened before the Big > Bang. > > What we do know a lot about, is what has happened since the Big Bang. > Your questions about where the chemicals and elements that eventually > became part of Earth and thence part of life on Earth have been > answered. In a general way, we understand every step that led from > the Big Bang to our lives today. We don't know every detail of how it > happened, and we never will because so much of it happened so long > ago. We do have a clear record of human ancestry going back to single- > celled creatures. > > - Bob T. Bob, Thanks for your excellent answer. Please read the other posts and note how they failed to answer my questions. Are you saying that evolutionists and experts in related fields do not have any theories or ideas about how the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang came to be? What are your opinions on this subject. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? source: Webster's Dictionary: solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar system centered on another star. Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If > you want > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you > will have > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option would be to > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" into their > > > > >search engine. > > > > >jason > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no > > > > reason, unless you give me one. > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google > > > search. > > > How is that evidence for creation? > > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been > > proposed. > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Gish and > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. No. They don't. I've checked. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@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. With any luck Dr. Gish's book was thrown out by them for being worthless. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10464@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3095@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1crln7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >Free > >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Free > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article > >> >> > <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >how > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it > >> >> >> >happened. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >processes) > >> >> >> >> >> >> >come > >> >> >> >to be? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full > >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> chemical > >> >> >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had > >> >> >> >> >> >> different > >> >> > ones. It's > >> >> >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or > >> >> >> >> >> artificial > >> >> >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. > >> >> >> >> >> Chemical > >> >> >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same > >> >> >> >> >> conditions > >> >> >> >> >> are > >> >> >> >> >> present. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >How did all of those things come to be? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of > >> >> >> >> chemistry. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical > >> >> >> >precursors > >> >> > come to be? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions? > >> >> > >> >> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is > >> >> stating > >> >> that > >> >> you don't know how to ask a question. > >> > > >> > Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question? > >> > >> I answered your damn question, several times. > >> > >> > My goal is > >> > to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and > >> > related > >> > atomic materials came to be. > >> > >> That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a question. > >> > >> > >> > One person mentioned that an exploding star > >> > or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. > >> > >> That was me. > >> > >> > If that is true, > >> > how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. > >> > >> Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't know it. > >> > >> > We > >> > can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am > >> > asking > >> > the questions. > >> > Jason > >> > >> Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all of the > >> material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, you > >> thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you didn't know > >> how > >> to play the game. We know where the material from the universe > >> originated, > >> we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists and > >> we'll > >> concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the universe > >> by > >> using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble themselves at > >> the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason? > > > > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution > > theory had all the answers. > > Please give me a cite for your comment. The only person I can see who might > have thought that, was you. That may be true. I surmised from various posts that people had no respect or regard for creation science and that evolution was a far superior theory. I already knew that the advocates of creation science already knew how the solar system and life on this planet came to be. I wondered if the advocates of evolution could or could not have answers for those same question. As of yet, they have answered some of the questions. However, once we made it back to the time period that preceded the Big Bang, most people started to avoid answering my quesitons > > > > My main interest is related to abiogenesis. > > If that is your interest then you are woefully inadequate in the research > and results from abiogenesis. Evolution theory works with or without > abiogenesis, as I explained to you many posts back. > > > 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. > > Evidently you know precious little about how life came to be, from a > creation point of view. Did the quarks and electrons assemble themselves at > the command from god? Yes or no will suffice. I don't know how God did it. > > > > Several years ago, someone stated in a magazine > > article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. That was > > helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such as: > > How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists can not > > answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no validity. > > However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not guesses), > > the theory does have validity. > > Jason > > Again, evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis. > Jason, the equations of general relativity predict the big bang and show > composition of the matter that would result from the big bang. This was > before the big bang theory was formulated. What the equations don't show is > the sound of god's voice assembling the big bang. Amazing, isn't it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <M629i.22311$KC4.13428@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Other people have told me the same thing. Please tell me how the energy that expanded during the Big Bang came to be. Since you claim that evolution is the superior theory, you should be able to easily answer this question. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180939665.792715.87...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnr...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0306071721290...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago > and was > > > > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, > "Evolution: The > > > > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, > "Evolution: The > > > > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish > discusses the > > > > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. > It would be > > > > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to > > > develop a two > > > > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter > > > from our > > > > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > > > > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook > > > did not > > > > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > > > > > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is > "Creation: > > > > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > > > > > >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know > whether or not > > > > >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > > > > > >> I've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that > > > > >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that > > > > >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything > > > > >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars > rather > > > > >> than the scientists. > > > > > >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else > > > > >that has a Ph.D degree. > > > > > The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my > > > > experience of them. > > > > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > > > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > > Why? > That's the one that rediculed the Christians for deciding not to murder an > old man that was on a life boat. Dr. Gish ridiculed Christians for deciding not to murder an old man that was on a life boat? Then why do you respect him? That was my question. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 4:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Science is not determined by debating skills, nor is it determined by the > opinions of the people attending debates. No, it is determined by EVIDENCE. And creationism has NONE. Martin 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.