Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 1:52 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <M629i.22311$KC4.13...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. Please understand the different theories involved Big bang (energy to matter) Stellar evolution (matter to stars/elements) Abiogenesis = RNA World Hypothesis (elements to life = "chemical evolution") Biological evolution as explained by natural selection Biological evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. As I said in my previous post, the universe may be a closed system which is part of a larger universe: the fact that it is closed means there would be no way to interact with anything beyond the known universe but that doesn't mean nothing exists beyond the known universe. It may not be possible to explain everything about the big bang without knowing something about the universe beyond. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics points to the big bang as the "first cause", the beginning of everything, because it would be a time of zero entropy and you would expect entropy to decrease as you go back in time until entropy goes down to nothing. Interestingly enough the second law of thermodynamics does imply that there was either a beginning of time or at least a time when entropy was no vanishingly small that it couldn't have been any smaller. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 2:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. It would if such a god actually existed. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. You've just proven that primitive people everywhere have a vivid imagination. Do you mind me cutting and pasting this paragraph the next time I need to prove in just a few lines that God doesn't exist? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 2:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181006858.981877.105...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > You keep mentioning that you have evidence to support your theory. 1) It's not uniquely MY theory. I'm not making things up. 2) You are convoluting the big bang, stellar evolution, abiogenesis and biological evolution. You need about four theories: I recommend inflationary theory, general relativity, the RNA world hypothesis and natural selection, respectively. These theories need to be treated separately: each of them is supported by evidence, however, and they do provide as a complete an explanation of how we (including the universe as a whole) came to be as anybody could reasonably want. 3) Biological evolution, specifically, is supported by the fossil records, comparative genetics, comparative anatomy and geography/ biodiversity. I've posted evidence for abiogenesis several times based on the RNA world hypothesis. > I asked > this question to several people: How did the matter that expanded during > the Big Bang come to be? And several people have answered. Are you not familiar with mass- energy conversion? When an x-ray decays into an electron and a positron, where does the electron and positron come from? People have speculated that the total energy of the universe is zero because we are in a negative gravitational potential well (ie the universe itself) and that, hence, we could have started from zero energy. This has been pointed out to you several times by several different people. What makes you think your question hasn't been answered? Do you expect us to say "God did it"? I'm sorry, Jason, but your god doesn't exist. > The truth is that you do not have evidence to > indicate how that energy came to be. Um, Jason, we have something called Quantum Field Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory "Quantum field theory (QFT) provides a theoretical framework, widely used in particle physics and condensed matter physics, in which to formulate consistent quantum theories of many-particle systems, especially in situations where particles may be created and destroyed." See, Jason? I'm not making _anything_ up. I just happen to be educated. > You can not tell me anything other > than guesses. That's a lie. You know my educational background. You also know that I'm not lying to you. When I say that there's evidence it is because there is evidence: you would know that if you had bothered to follow all our links. > That is the reason that I don't believe science has all the > answers. No, you said you wouldn't believe in evolution no matter what: it isn't that you think evolution is wrong; it's that you believe that creationism is right. And you believe creationism is right because your preacher told you you had to believe that in order to get to heaven. Hint: your preacher is not a scientist. Nor is creationism science. > 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. And yet God doesn't exist. You proved that yourself: even Native Americans believed in gods. People make "shit" up. > The 90 people that have Ph.D degrees are just as intelligent as you are. Obviously not. > They are as well educated as you are. Again, obviously not. > 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. Funny thing is Jason that for hundreds of years we in science have been working without the assumption of an all powerful creator and we've come up with explanations for just about every question you could possibly ask: seriously, the questions that real scientists get involved in are no doubt beyond your ability to even understand. After hundreds of years, it has become quite clear that your god doesn't exist: quantum mechanical measurements can be performed to an accuracy of 1 in 10^10. This is how small the "God of the gaps" has now become, Jason! > 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. Whatever. You admitted to knowing nothing about genetics. > Those 90 people would probably agree with me. If you paid them enough, I am sure they will tell you exactly what you want to hear. That is precisely why they are not real scientists: real scientists are not frauds who get paid to say what Gish and Morris want them to say. > Perhaps you are correct--there may have been another universe prior to > this universe. I said "perhaps there was a universe that existed _before_ the big bang". Do you understand the meaning of the word "perhaps"? It means I'm right until somebody proves me wrong. > Even if there was another universe, God was involved. Your god doesn't exist. Not in this universe nor in anything that _might_ exist beyond it. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the > natural laws Trust me. There's no conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 2:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f59963p01ggf5k4hjlolu3nllm7a37f...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > 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. Thank you for admitting that creation science is not science and that there is no evidence supporting it. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Really? You're still responding to Kelsey though. Whose posts are you skipping? Michael Gray's? stoneys? Their posts are a bit short: they fancy themselves as comedians. It's a _BIT_ dishonest of you to claim that we're avoiding your questions. We're actually frustrated because it's consistantly a one way stream: we answer your questions but you consistently come up with excuses why you can't answer ours. Why don't you just admit you don't know any science and leave it at that? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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? I've checked the IRC website. Do Morris and Gish have any reason NOT to present their supposed evidence on their website? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 3:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181024481.679231.231...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > 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. You should. There is more to learn in this world beyond what can be found in your Bible. Martin Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? > > Columbia But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 00:32, 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. That is a lie. Are you afraid of an honest discussion; is that why you tell lies constantly? Furthermore why lie about what all of us have read; what is the point of it? snip of more of the same. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 01:38, 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: > > > In article <1180951607.644648.239...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: snip .. > > > 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.- More importantly, we do not expect you to actually provide any evidence, nor do we expect you to stop lying. The only question is whether or not you are conscious of what you are doing, i.e. are you insane? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 02:36, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180996743.221572.106...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4 jun, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > The study of withcraft has some historical interest. Also, we can > > study the documents from the trials, and try to found if there was any > > reason to blame the symptoms as a diabolical possession of the girls. > > My opinion is that withcraft is not a real fenomenom, but a way to > > trick people to get some money from them. This monetary aspect of the > > witchcraft is the only diabolical part of the issue. > > But the trials of witches were mostly fake charges, specially when the > > accussed were convicted of diabolical possession. This occasional > > trials of witchcraft were devices for propping up authority over the > > people, but inspiring them fear. This shameless lies about diabolical > > possessions were used to scare and submit people into servitude. > > Bramble > > Would you be upset if public high schools taught courses related to the > history of witchcraft--what about the history of creationism? Why are you still asking that question? How many times does it have to be answered before you will admit it? What exactly is your problem with honesty? snip Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 02:45, 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, it has been noticed that you continue to tell silly lies such as the above. We have read the answers, so it is rather silly of you to deny that they were answered. >It appears that the advocates of evolution > have a difficult time answering questions related to the history of the > universe. As of yet, I have received an answer to this question: > How did the energy mass that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 03:10, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:04:04 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> > wrote in alt.atheism > > > > > > >Jason wrote: > >> In article <1180717090.777257.145...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >> bramble <leopoldo.perd...@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. Oh come now! They would not be able to learn how to breathe. > > -Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic's Dictionary- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: I said: >> 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. What makes you believe Genesis is correct? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: I said: >> 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. God of the gaps. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 03:20, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. He continues to ask the same question about the "witchcraft classes", and has never once bothered to respond to me or others who have pointed out that witchcraft as fact is not being taught. If he is not doing this delibrately, he has an extremely serious mental problem, since he seems unable to even see answers that are inconvenient for him. > > -- > Nothing is wrong with you that reincarnation can't cure. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:54:55 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <j2d963teubu5nqcelrtiebcs74obad5m1q@4ax.com> >On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:32:20 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:55:30 -0700, George Chen >><georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <1180940130.734812.145150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >>>On Jun 4, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> >>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> > Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >>>> > hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >>>> >>>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >>>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >>>> that steller refers to a star or stars. >>> >>>It does. That's why he shouldn't have to understand what he means. >>> >>>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion >> >>Note that the village idiot said "steller". >>This is a reference to an extinct sea cow. >>Steller fusion is two extinct sea cows mating. > >That would be a neat trick. I "bags" the film rights, ok? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:20:35 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <3cqej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[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. Or very, very stubborn. -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 09:38, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181024481.679231.231...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. Reality is just a nuisance, right? Is that why you pretend that nobody has answered your questions? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun., 09:43, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > It would if such a god actually existed. > > Martin It all came out of the ass of a snake. I don't know where the snake came from; I don't worry about such things. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Well.... it "solves" the problem. But I can "solve" the problem as well, and without a god. Listen, carefully. It has the SAME legitimation as your "God". Exactly the same. Here it comes.... ....wait for it.... "Because" So. Problem solved. Any gods in there? No. Does it answer any questions? Well, yes. Does it help? No. Does it allow for any predictions? No. Same as "goddidit". So, is your "solution" any different than the one I offered? No, it is not. What you "know" is bullshit. You might find it interesting to look up "Bullshit" in Wikipedia. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jim07D7 wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > I said: > >>> 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. > > God of the gaps. And on the run. First, he was in the gaps of biology, we chased him away. Then he was in the gaps in abiogenesis, we chased him away. Now he is in the gaps of physics. He will be on the run there soon as well. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Hehe.... No. I don't need to. I just have to go where the evidence leads me. And, funny.... nothing leads to "god". Oh, sure. We can't answer all questions there are yet. Does that mean "goddidit"? Only in the same sense as "there be dragons" on old maps. That is the "god of the gaps". He no longer is in biology, and he will be on the run in all the other fields as well. Maybe not today, but soon. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare 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.