Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 5:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Last week, people kept saying that evolution > theory had all the answers. Clearly it does. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <d89963leapd4btjj055e3v0j25vu435eaf@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >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. > > > > Well, we will never have an answer to the next question "but why is > that?". > > How does putting God in the theory, solve this problem? After all, the > logical question is, "But why God?" If you have read the other posts, you will know that the advocates of evolution don't really know how the energy that expanded during the Big Bang came to be. They either refuse to answer or are honest enough to say that they don't know the answer. Putting an intelligent designer (God) into the theory solves lots of problems. For example, I know how the energy that exploded came to be. God also casued the expansion to take place. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 6:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <r8n863lalluo3h174mfmffu1lk1ej08...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > ><...>My goal is > > >to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and related > > >atomic materials came to be. One person mentioned that an exploding star > > >or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. If that is true, > > >how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. We > > >can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am asking > > >the questions. > > > Then let us deal with it directly. Is that fair? > > > Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can > > be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" > > > Three points of discussion follow: > > > 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't > > currently have an answer to that question." > > > 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves > > a god? > > > 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune > > from further questioning, and if so, why? > > Jim, > You are very intelligent to figure out my motives. Last week, various > people told me that evolution theory had answers for how the world came to > be and how life came to be. I decided to put them to the test. I already > know how the advocates of creation science explain the answers to my > questions but I honestly don't know how the advocates of evolution answer > these sorts of questions. As you surmised, my end goal it to go back into > the history of the universe where the elements came into be. A related > question was: Was there a time period in the history of the universe where > elements never existed. > > If you have noticed, several people are already finding reasons to NOT > provide answers. Jason, you are a lying prick! We've answered your questions time and time again. You have NEVER answered ANY of our questions. Instead, you have ADMITTED that you know nothing about evolution, genetics, cosmology or chemistry. If creationists have "answered all your questions" then why do you remain so bloody ignorant?! Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <2ra963tlfdpeerookdfam9m6d3hpmv30oi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0406071611550001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. > > > Yet you have not a shred of evidence to support your supposition. > > Learn. Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations. Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had legends that were passed down from generation to generation about God or Gods. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <so29i.22321$KC4.10571@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406071721110001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > How did the elements come into be? > > Been answered before by myself and others. Too bad that your memory is so > short and selective. > > > > Was there a time in the history of the solar system where the elements did > > not exist? > > There was a long, long time where the solar system didn't exist. As I have > said several times, are you sure what you are asking? Yes, I saw some of those answers. The next question is: How did the energy that expanded during Big Bang come to be? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 6:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I believe that God created life on this planet. I > don't know how he done it or even the year that he done it. You ask for > evidence: the evidence is in some of the sources above. Legends about God > are in the cultures of MANY different groups of people--from many ancient > cultures. Those legends are not always identical but they have one thing > that is common to most of those legends. It's about God or Gods. You can > choose to ignore that evidence, but I choose to accept it as proof that > God created the earth and life on this earth. Jason, your god doesn't exist. Accept that and free your mind to the truth! > The reasons the legends are > not the same is mainly because people (as they passed the legends from > parents to children) added stuff or took out stuff. That can even happen > when a rumor starts in a company. By the time the rumor gets to the 10th > person, it's very different than the rumor that was passed to the first > person. There are even legends about a huge flood in some of those ancient > records. http://www.flood-myth.com/ There are six surviving versions of the Ancient Near East flood story including the Genesis version. One of these versions, written centuries before Genesis, is called the Epic of Atrahasis and clearly describes the flood as a river flood. Later story tellers changed "river" to "sea" and thus changed the local river flood into an ocean deluge. The ambiguous word for hills was mistranslated as mountains. There were several such mistakes or mistranslations during transmission of Noah's flood story. Noah's father Lamech was king of the Sumerian city-state Shuruppak, a commercial center on the Euphrates River in what is now Iraq. Noah also became king of Shuruppak. The ark was a commercial river barge for hauling cargo on the Euphrates River. The river barge hauled wine, beer, stone, lumber, textiles, oil, and livestock which was less than 280 head of cattle, sheep, goats, and other domesticated animals. There were no kangaroos, giraffes, elephants, lions, etc. on Noah's cattle barge. About 2900 BC a freak thunderstorm caused the Euphrates River to rise 15 cubits (22 feet) and it overflowed the levees. By the time Noah recognized that the levees were about to be breached, it was too late to evacuate his livestock to highground. He therefore boarded the nearby river barge to ride out the storm. He had to cut the mooring lines to prevent barge from heeling over in the rising river. The runaway barge floated down the Euphrates River into the Persian Gulf where it grounded in an estuary at the mouth of the river. This is discussed and described in detail in the Noah's Ark book. Maps in the book show the route taken by Noah's river barge. Noah was a wealthy land owner and a merchant or trade official for the Shuruppak government before becoming king. The flood of 2900 BC did not destroy Shuruppak. There were thousands of survivors of the flood and Noah met some of them after the barge grounded. Some of the things they talked about are quoted in surviving versions of the flood story. Noah was no longer king and had to flee into exile. A dispute occurred between Noah and his sons. His family separated and he never saw his sons again. A map in the book shows where the sons went and the route they took to get there. Noah got angry with his sons after being seen naked. The reason why he got angry is explained in the book. The Noah's Ark book gives the exact location (within a few yards) of Noah's altar where he offered a sacrifice after the barge grounded. It is an archaeological site and has already been excavated by archaeologists. The book describes in detail how the ark was probably constructed using the technology of 2900 BC. It was much smaller and shaped differently than it is usually described. The numbers in Genesis 5 are deciphered in the book and compared with the numbers in the Sumerian King List. The numbers were mistranslated. Methuselah did not live to be 969 and Noah did not live to 950. Noah lived to be 83. Methuselah was 85 when he died a few months after the barge grounded. The barge did not ground on a mountain. The mountains of Ararat were mentioned in the original legend, but the ark did not ground there. How the mountains of Ararat got involved is discussed at length in the book. After the barge grounded, Noah, his wife, his daughter, and his boatman traveled to a island where they lived in exile. The island is a real island and is identified in chapter 5 of the Noah's Ark book. Noah was an interesting man and several new facts about him are discussed in the book. Skeptical view of the flood myth As skeptics have long been aware, there was no global flood in the last 5000 years, a boatload of animals did not ground on so-called Mount Ararat or on any mountain, and the world's animals are not descended from two or seven pairs of each species that lived during the third millennium BC. Nor is there any archaeological proof that a man survived a flood by being on a boat loaded with animals, food, and drinking water. The Noah's Ark book summarized here does not claim historicity for Noah or the ark story, but the book does claim that some of the story elements in the Ancient Near East flood were based on an actual river flood. This archaeologically attested flood of the Euphrates River has been radiocarbon dated to about 2900 BC. This flood left a few feet of yellow mud in the Sumerian city Shuruppak, the ruins of which have been found at Tel Fara about 125 miles southeast of Baghdad. Some but not all Sumerian cities also show signs of this river flood at the beginning of the Early Dynastic I period. According to the Sumerian King List, a legendary king named Ziusudra lived in Shuruppak at the time of the flood. There was also a flood myth about king Ziusudra which includes several story elements very similar to the Genesis flood myth. Shuruppak was also the flood hero's city according to the Epic of Gilgamesh. The flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh was adapted from an earlier myth, the Epic of Atrahasis which is also very similar to the Genesis flood myth. Six of these Ancient Near East flood myths contain numerous distinctive story elements that are very similar to the Genesis flood myth and indicate a literary affinity or dependency on a common body of myths about the flood hero Ziusudra and based on the Euphrates River flood of 2900 BC. Parts of the original myths were physically possible, but other parts were not possible. The possible parts can be treated as an ancient legend to which mythical material was added later. However, without contemporary artifacts, it is not possible to prove how much of the original legend was true and how much was fiction based on a real flood. In the Noah's Ark book, the original legend is reconstructed by piecing together fragments from the various surviving editions of the flood myth, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. This reconstruction is governed by the requirement that each story element in the legend be physically possible, technologically practical, consistent with archaeological facts, and plausible for 2900 BC. Some of the impossible story elements were mistranslations or misunderstandings, and these are corrected before including them in the reconstructed legend. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 6:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > You[r] stated the answer is...nobody knows. > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. Your god doesn't even exist so you know NOTHING. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 6:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <6yZ8i.15634$FN5.7...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > Now, who made god? > > If you don't know the answer--just say so---otherwise, provide an answer. He asked you a question. Now stop being a dishonest little prick and damn well answer him! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 7:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h9...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@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 doesn't exist. For the sake of argument though let's say God existed. Who then created God? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 7:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f42173$tj0$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > How did the elements come to > > > be? Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when > > > there were no elements? > > > Solar system? No. > > Please explain your answer. He shouldn't have to. Think about it: if the solar system exists then the sun exists and so do all the planets. They are all composed of elements. Notice how I have avoided here making any remarks regarding your lack of intelligence. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 7:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f422j1$jqd$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > If you want to read about that evidence, I > > > suggest that you read either of these books: > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > > > No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of > > any kind. > > 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. Agree to admit that their books contain no evidence? I don't expect them to do that: they are fundamentally dishonest! Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1181006858.981877.105770@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, You keep mentioning that you have evidence to support your theory. I asked this question to several people: How did the matter that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? The truth is that you do not have evidence to indicate how that energy came to be. You can not tell me anything other than guesses. That is the reason that I don't believe science has all the answers. It's easy for me to deal with these issues because I know that God was behind it. I don't know how he did it but I know that he did it. The 90 people that have Ph.D degrees are just as intelligent as you are. They are as well educated as you are. My point is that they have wondered about these issues and they knew that the most realistic conclusion to explain the answers to these sorts of questions is that there was an intelligent designer involved. Someone told me in a post that mankind and all life forms came about by chance--I believe he had genes in mind when he made that statement. I disagreed with him and told him that it was part of God's plan and design. Those 90 people would probably agree with me. Perhaps you are correct--there may have been another universe prior to this universe. Even if there was another universe, God was involved. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <Eq29i.22322$KC4.19843@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406071551070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <6yZ8i.15634$FN5.7632@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0406071306050001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <AkU8i.18615$923.11246@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> > Lunch > >> >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> >>> Lunch > >> >> >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> >>>>> Lunch > >> >> >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >>>>>>> In article > >> >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>> ... > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> refute > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Martin, > >> >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's > >> >> >> >>>>>>> degree > >> >> >> >>>>>>> is > >> >> >> >>>>>>> not > >> >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or > >> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone > >> >> >> >>>>>>> else > >> >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; > >> >> >> >>>>>>> M. > >> >> >> > Denton or > >> >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach > >> >> >> >>>>>>> at > >> >> >> >>>>>>> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>> ICR > >> >> >> >>>>>>> college. > >> >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to > >> >> >> >>>>>> be > >> >> >> >>>>>> wrong > >> >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from > >> >> >> >>>>>>> non-life. > >> >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you > >> >> >> >>>>>> worship > >> >> >> >>>>>> that > >> >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie? > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me > >> >> >> >>>>>>> something > >> >> >> >>>>>>> like > >> >> >> > this: We > >> >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, > >> >> > there would > >> >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells. > >> >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. > >> >> >> >>>>>> The > >> >> >> >>>>>> fact > >> >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction > >> >> >> >>>>>> when > >> >> >> >>>>>> you > >> >> >> >>>>>> have > >> >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a > >> >> >> >>>>>> lot > >> >> >> >>>>>> about > >> >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good. > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical > >> >> >> >>>>> reactions > >> >> >> >>>>> come > >> >> >> >>> to be? > >> >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High > >> >> >> >>>> Chemistry. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea > >> >> >> >>>> how > >> >> >> >>>> chemical > >> >> >> >>>> reactions work? > >> >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the > >> >> >> >>> experiments, > >> >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals > >> >> >> >>> came > >> >> >> >>> to > >> >> >> >>> be? > >> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a > >> >> >> >> free > >> >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the > >> >> >> >> past. > >> >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into > >> >> >> >> these > >> >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already > >> >> >> >>> know > >> >> >> >>> that > >> >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. > >> >> >> >>> I > >> >> >> >>> am > >> >> >> >>> asking > >> >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be? > >> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex > >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? > >> >> >> > You > >> >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I > >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> > taught > >> >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one > >> >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of > >> >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass > >> >> >> gets > >> >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova > >> >> >> (IIRC). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Tokay > >> >> > > >> >> > This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text > >> >> > book. > >> >> > How did those stars come to be? > >> >> > >> >> This is getting boring, Jason. You are showing yourself to be a > >> >> dishonest > >> >> debater, much like your hero, "Bullfrog" Gish. To cut to the chase > >> >> Jason, > >> >> who made god? > >> > > >> > Is this your method of not answering my question? If so, it did not > >> > work. > >> > I'll ask the question again: > >> > > >> > How did those stars come to be? > >> > >> And I'll tell you again, get a book and educate yourself. Now, who made > >> god? > > > > If you don't know the answer--just say so---otherwise, provide an answer. > > The stars came to be by gravitational attraction made possible by the > distribution of matter in the universe. Now, who made god? How did the 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, 8:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > How did the elements come into be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis > Was there a time in the history of the solar system where the elements did > not exist? No. Our sun is a second generation sun. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1180999530.600463.267390@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be? > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to zero. It > is possible to get something from nothing. > > Martin Martin, I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the natural laws but I don't remember which of the natural laws since I don't have the list in front of me. Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kope wrote: > i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win > the clash of civilization. If radical means cretinous, you're fucking radical alright. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 8:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Bullshit. > When I asked for answers, many of the people found reasons to not answer > the questions. Bullshit. They refused to answer questions that had already been answered. > Read the other posts in this thread. The question is why you are posting here at all when you are not reading what we have to tell you. You could be spending your time reading the talkorigins.org FAQ or consulting the wikipedia articles we directed you to. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f59963p01ggf5k4hjlolu3nllm7a37fq2h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <8s4963pd4sredl8p52pecjgrmqj07q8i1l@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >In article <eks863dj6jo4ue36ojb56berh6svidadf1@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp52h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> <...> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no > >> >> >> >> reason, unless you give me one. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the > >"Cambrian > >> >> >> >Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots > >of sites > >> >> >> >that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google > >> >> >> >search. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's > >> >> >> "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. Does Gish > >> >> >> and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian > >> >> >> Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and lasted 10 - > >> >> >> 20 million years? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html > >> >> > > >> >> >I don't know the dates that Dr. Gish used in his book. I donate my old > >> >> >books to a used book store. > >> >> > > >> >> Please read my question again. Part of it was, what do you believe? > >> > > >> >If that is the date that the experts are certain that it happened, I > >> >accept it but can not speak for Dr. Gish. > >> > > >> The same experts also say that evolution happened. Do you accept that, > >> too. > > > >I accept many of the aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept the > >aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. As > >I have told you, I believe that God created mankind; some plants; some > >animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution kicked in. > >Evolution is mostly about how animals and plants are able to change--esp. > >via mutations. > > > What makes you not accept that God could have created an early life > form that evolved to mankind, plants and animals? The first chapter of Genesis is the basis of creation science. It clearly states that God created mankind, plants and animals. It does not give a detailed list of the plants and animals. It's my guess that all of the plants and animals in the world today evolved from those original plants and animals that God created. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 8:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180998573.169225.7...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180939743.784669.4...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > >> >In article > > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > >> >> How could it not? > > > > > > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it > happened. > > > > > > > >> Through natural chemical processes. > > > > > > > >> What other method has evidence to support it? > > > > > > > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) > come to be? > > > > > > > Through supernovae's. > > > > > > How did supernovaes come to be? > > > > > They were stars that exploded because the strength of their fusion > > > > reactions came to exceed the gravitational force that was holding them > > > > together. > > > > Are you refering to the Big Bang? > > > No, I'm refering to supernovas. > > > Tell you what: go back to college, take some science courses and come > > back when you know some science and can actually talk to us about > > these matters. > > > Martin > > Did you notice how many advocates of evolution are finding ways to avoid > answering my simple questions? No, I haven't. I have noticed you refusing to answer any of my or their questions by saying 1) I don't like taking tests 2) I didn't "download" the article 3) my memory isn't that good 4) I didn't keep my chemistry text 5) I gave away Dr. Gish's book and 6) I don't know any genetics. > It appears that the advocates of evolution > have a difficult time answering questions related to the history of the > universe. You're lying again. Some people are refusing to answer questions about the origin of the universe because it has nothing to do with the theory of biological evolution. Well, it doesn't. The fact is that, in the beginning, there was no chemistry or biology, only physics. Later, when heavier elements formed we had chemistry but only when life formed did we have biology. It is only at that point that biological evolution began. > As of yet, I have received an answer to this question: > How did the energy mass that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be? True. You have received an answer many times as of yet. And yet you still ask the same question over and over. Are you not familiar with the idea of mass-energy conversion? Then go back to school and learn some science. Seriously. It is never too late. Do you want to go to your grave an ignorant man who never knew anything about how the world worked? I wouldn't have thought so. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1mpej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to the books that I have read related to creation science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed several other Christians and myself. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1181018742.599282.36690@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > 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. Bob, Thanks for telling me your opinions on this subject. I have read about some of the problems with the theory. Do you know anything about the problems that the experts are having with the Big Bang theory? Please note that I don't respond to the nutcases. I usually skip to the next post after reading the first sentence of a nutcase post. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1181022000.370051.68930@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in his book? Jasson Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 1:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <3tZ8i.15629$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. > > > 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 You are assuming there was a time peiod that preceeded the big bang. Consider it from the point of view of the second law of thermodynamics: the time when the big bang occured would have been a time of maximum order with everything that existed in a single place (a singularity). Entropy cannot be negative: thus if the second law of thermodynamics has always been true then the big bang was the beginning of time. This does not PROVE that the big bang was the beginning of time because it assumes that the second law of thermodynamics has always been true: it may have simply become true after the big bang. Do you see what I mean? It is actually quite reasonable to suppose that some things did happen before the big bang that led to the big bang: it could be, for example, that the whole universe is part of some bigger multiverse. How would we know unless there was interaction with the worlds beyond ours? There would be no point speculating if the universe were a closed system: it would be the same as our universe being all there was. In a closed universe, the big bang would be considered the "first cause" although some of the underlying physics may have already existed. The origin of these physical laws (with respect to whatever may exist beyond our universe) would be something that we couldn't determine and we would have to take them as given. > I don't know how God did it. Your god doesn't even exist. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1181024481.679231.231070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 7:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h9...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > J...@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 doesn't exist. For the sake of argument though let's say God > existed. Who then created God? > > Martin Martin, I don't know how God came to be. The Bible does not say how God came to be. I don't worry about subjects like that. Jason 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.