Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 No. Sorry, Jason. No. Fossils show evolution. NOT "goddidit". > and evidence from various legends that have been passed > down from generation to generation. Which is "anectdotal". And not evidence. Ad nauseam. 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. Anecdotal "evidence". Ad nauseam. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life. "Spell it out, explain how a nuclear reactor works." "Spell it out, explain how relativity works." "Spell it out, explain how a pentium computer chip works." "Spell it out, explain how a brain works." (um, never mind. You'd have to have one first.) Clue-time: just because we can't explain HOW something works/happens that doesn't mean it didn't. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 > > We can see that you don't. You say "goddidit" and leave it there. You don't even want to know. Well, we do. And "goddidit" doesn't solve it. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f42173$tj0$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when >>> there were no elements? >>> >>> >> Solar system? No. >> >> Tokay > > Please explain your answer. Simple. The solar system formed from a gas cloud. That cloud was made of various elements. Thus there was no time period in the history of the solar system when there were no elements. And if you needed THAT simple detail spelled out for you, you are really one of the stupidest people I've seen yet. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Bob T. 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. Don't let him think that you actually try to "debate" him. What we did at the start was try to explain things to him. Debate? No. he has no arguments, so how can he debate? And yes, it is frustrating. As for the "assholes", if you want to take a look at the rest of this huge thread (forget it. Too long. Spare yourself the trouble) you can see how we became that way. We tried endlessly. [snip] Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072304250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Whew! So much certainty, so little evidence. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10464@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3095@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16746@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1crln7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Free >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How could it not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> happened. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through natural chemical processes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What other method has evidence to support it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>> to be? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes and the world before life would have had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>> ones. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or >>>>>>>>>>>> artificial >>>>>>>>>>>> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. >>>>>>>>>>>> Chemical >>>>>>>>>>>> reactions always occur in the same way when the same >>>>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> present. >>>>>>>>>>> How did all of those things come to be? >>>>>>>>>> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of >>>>>>>>>> chemistry. >>>>>>>>> Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical >>>>>>>>> precursors >>>>>>> come to be? >>>>>>>> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions? >>>>>> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is >>>>>> stating >>>>>> that >>>>>> you don't know how to ask a question. >>>>> Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question? >>>> I answered your damn question, several times. >>>> >>>>> My goal is >>>>> to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and >>>>> related >>>>> atomic materials came to be. >>>> That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a question. >>>> >>>> >>>>> One person mentioned that an exploding star >>>>> or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. >>>> That was me. >>>> >>>>> If that is true, >>>>> how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be. >>>> Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't know it. >>>> >>>>> We >>>>> can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am >>>>> asking >>>>> the questions. >>>>> Jason >>>> Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all of the >>>> material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, you >>>> thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you didn't know >>>> how >>>> to play the game. We know where the material from the universe >>>> originated, >>>> we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists and >>>> we'll >>>> concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the universe >>>> by >>>> using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble themselves at >>>> the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason? >>> I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution >>> theory had all the answers. >> Please give me a cite for your comment. The only person I can see who might >> have thought that, was you. > > That may be true. I surmised from various posts that people had no respect > or regard for creation science and that evolution was a far superior > theory. Not really. It is a theory. The only one in fact, since "creation science" is not a 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. Ad nauseam: That is not theory of evolution. No matter what the basket cases at ICR say. 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 Again, read about "M-theory". It is an "idea" actually rather than a theory, but has the same merits as "goddidit". This is complicated stuff. A few people on this planet understand the maths behind it. I don't. Ask them if you want answers to that. > >> >>> My main interest is related to abiogenesis. >> If that is your interest then you are woefully inadequate in the research >> and results from abiogenesis. Evolution theory works with or without >> abiogenesis, as I explained to you many posts back. >> >>> I >>> know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be but >>> my college biology professor (in 1971) was not able to tell us how the >>> elements came into be. >> Evidently you know precious little about how life came to be, from a >> creation point of view. Did the quarks and electrons assemble themselves at >> the command from god? Yes or no will suffice. > > I don't know how God did it. Which means you don't know. What DO you know? Based on evidence? > > >> >>> Several years ago, someone stated in a magazine >>> article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. That was >>> helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such as: >>> How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists can not >>> answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no validity. >>> However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not guesses), >>> the theory does have validity. >>> Jason >> Again, evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis. >> Jason, the equations of general relativity predict the big bang and show >> composition of the matter that would result from the big bang. This was >> before the big bang theory was formulated. What the equations don't show is >> the sound of god's voice assembling the big bang. Amazing, isn't it. > > I guess he didn't understand that sentence. E=MC Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072252390001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Do you even understand what comprises the TOE? The big bang isn't a part of the TOE. If you want to say that cosmologists don't understand the universe before Planck time, them you are right. Of course after 10^-43 second they have evidence of what happened. There are several speculations as to what happened to start the big bang, none of which are developed enough to be considered as evidence. Of course if you wish to think that some god, who can't even make an earth correctly, started it all, please do so but quit disparaging science. You are intelligent enough to do that. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 cactus wrote: > Ralph wrote: >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306072032550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57sv5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-0306071957140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cgitl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How could it not? >>>>>>>>>>> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it >>> happened. >>>>>>>>>> Through natural chemical processes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What other method has evidence to support it? >>>>>>>>> How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come >>> to be? >>>>>>>> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of >>>>>>>> chemical >>>>>>>> processes and the world before life would have had different >>>>>>>> ones. It's >>>>>>>> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >>>>>>> I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or >>>>>> artificial >>>>>> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical >>>>>> reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are >>>>>> present. >>>>> How did all of those things come to be? >>>> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of chemistry. >>> Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical precursors >>> come to be? >> >> The heavy elements were created in supernovae. Can you read? I'm >> beginning to believe that your entire defense of your position is from >> personal incredulity, which is an indefensible position. >> > He has no defensible positions. He parrots the lines of his lying > preachers in hopes that he can fool someone into believing that he has > an intellect. And the best part.... He doesn't even know their arguments. We could those "arguments" apart with ease. But he doesn't even know them. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072308340001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Yes, all gods were created by man. The superstitious past was a fertile ground for the creation of gods. As we learned more about our environment( gods don't cause thunder and lightning) we quit creating gods. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f42ah8$1nv$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f422j1$jqd$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1180951607.644648.239520@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4 Jun., 01:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4 Jun., 01:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <RoF8i.15298$JQ3.14...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>>>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:Jason-0306071236540001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>>>> In article <1180864433.482133.263...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com= >>>>>>> , M=3D >>>>>>>> artin >>>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino= >>>>>> Gris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>,= >>>>>> Free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse= >>>>>> .net=3D >>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com= >>>>>>> , F=3D >>>>>>>> ree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impul= >>>>>> se.n=3D >>>>>>>> et>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.c= >>>>>> om>, >>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.imp= >>>>>> ulse=3D >>>>>>>> .net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that th= >>>>>> ey k=3D >>>>>>>> eep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> apes and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo= >>>>>> , th=3D >>>>>>>> ey >>>>>>>>>>> kept the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gorilla >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to e= >>>>>> scap=3D >>>>>>>> e or >>>>>>>>>>>>> throw fecal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have cre= >>>>>> ated=3D >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than human= >>>>>> s so=3D >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quent= >>>>>> in? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gorillas >>>>>>>>>>>>> use fire? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans >>>>>>>>>>> learned to tame >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire and other animals did not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference= >>>>>> bet=3D >>>>>>>> ween >>>>>>>>>>>>> mankind and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worshi= >>>>>> ps G=3D >>>>>>>> od >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all hu= >>>>>> mans >>>>>>>>>>> worship God. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another trivial difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another major difference: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by = >>>>>> talk=3D >>>>>>>> ing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign lan= >>>>>> guag=3D >>>>>>>> e=3D2E So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited= >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was your point again? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tokay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that they can not have converations with peopl= >>>>>> e BY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TALKING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sound= >>>>>> s=2E W=3D >>>>>>>> e are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicating by internet. No sound? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feede= >>>>>> r ou=3D >>>>>>>> tside >>>>>>>>>>>>> her window. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on= >>>>>> her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. Af= >>>>>> ter =3D >>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>>>> refilled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Do= >>>>>> gs l=3D >>>>>>>> et >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign l= >>>>>> angu=3D >>>>>>>> age. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a= >>>>>> 12 =3D >>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly. But that is not the question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the s= >>>>>> olut=3D >>>>>>>> ion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a l= >>>>>> ow I=3D >>>>>>>> Q=3D2E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jason >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have provided three separate reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than = >>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape co= >>>>>> uld >>>>>>>>>>>> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirem= >>>>>> ent >>>>>>>>>>>> for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting. >>>>>>>>>>>> You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you? >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>>>>>> You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it o= >>>>>> ut f=3D >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. >>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>> It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. Now the= >>>>>> re is >>>>>>>>>> life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin from non-= >>>>>> life. >>>>>>>>>> Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the distribut= >>>>>> ion =3D >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> diversity of life on earth. >>>>>>>>> Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.- Skjul tekst = >>>>>> i an=3D >>>>>>>> f=3DF8rselstegn - >>>>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn >>>>>>>> How could it not? >>>>>>> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it > happened.- Sk= >>>>>> jul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not know. I do know that life did not always exist on this >>>>>> planet. It had to come from some place. Even the Bible describes it >>>>>> as coming from non-life. I also know that there is evidence >>>>>> supporting one possible way that it happened - you know, the evidence >>>>>> that you keep ignoring every time it is posted. Do you have any >>>>>> evidence that life did not arise through natural processes, evidence >>>>>> that you will actually provide? Of course you don't. >>>>> Thanks for clearly stating that you "do not know". The advocates of >>>>> creation science do believe that life evolved from non-life. The advocates >>>>> of creation science are of the opinion that God created life from >>>>> non-life. The advocates of creation science have fossil evidence that >>>>> supports creation science. >>>> WHICH ONE? We gave you countless examples. Now you give one. And DON'T >>>> refer to a book. Or a homepage. Or whatever. DO it. If there is, it >>>> can't be hard. I haven't found any. And I did search. YOU type it in >>>> here. I did. Now you do it. WHAT is this "evidence"? Where are those >>>> fossils? I looked. I did not find it. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you want to read about that evidence, I >>>>> suggest that you read either of these books: >>>>> "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >>>>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >>>> No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of >>>> any kind. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your >>> choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science >>> to agree with you. >>> >>> >> lol >> >> You don't even know what is in that books. You said so. So, while other >> "proponents of creation science" might have a point (they don't), you >> have not. You don't even know their arguments. >> >> Tokay > > I read "Evolution: The Fossils Say No" about 10 years ago and no longer > have a copy of that book. I never read "Bones of Contention". > > So, you read the first one but can't state the arguments in there. You haven't read the second one but claim it contains evidence. It doesn't. I don't have to believe that. I know that. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506070038020001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Ahh...the bible. Now there is a source of reliable information :-)))))))). Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Sorry.... I just laughed so hard my neighbors are banging on the doors. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:22:02 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f40469$3b5$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or >>> anyone else >>>>>>>>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. >>>>>>> Denton or >>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at >>> the ICR >>>>>>>>>>>>> college. >>>>>>>>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >>>>>>>>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >>>>>>>>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >>>>>>>>>>>> requires you to lie? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like >>>>>>> this: We >>>>>>>>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, >>>>> there would >>>>>>>>>>>>> not be living cells. >>>>>>>>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when >>> you have >>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >>>>>>>>>>>> you, none of it good. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical >>> reactions come >>>>>>>>> to be? >>>>>>>>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how >>> chemical >>>>>>>>>> reactions work? >>>>>>>>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the >>> experiments, >>>>>>>>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? >>>>>>>> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free >>>>>>>> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. >>>>>>>> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these >>>>>>>> molecules was part of a well-understood process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >>>>>>>>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I >>> am asking >>>>>>>>> you how those chemcials came to be? >>>>>>>> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >>>>>>>> hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >>>>>>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >>>>>>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >>>>>>> that steller refers to a star or stars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one >>>>>> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have >>>>>> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of >>>>>> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets >>>>>> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is >>>>>> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova (IIRC). >>>>>> >>>>>> Tokay >>>>> This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book. >>>>> How did those stars come to be? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> "Clumping" of hydrogen by gravity, not equally distributed, pressure >>>> starts to build, temperature goes up, fusion starts. You have a star. >>>> >>>> This is not chemistry, though. Physics. "Kernphysik" in german. >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If so, how >>> did that hydrogen come to be? >>> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang >> >> Start there. Read on. Don't stop. Don't ask questions your high school >> teacher should have told you. Really, if a kid asks me this I will >> explain. As good as I can. But an adult can be expected to look for >> himself if he wants to know. At least on such matters. >> >> I am not jumping through loops. If there is something in these articles >> that you don't understand and can't find out by google or wikipedia, >> come back with these questions. But don't ask questions for which the >> answer can be found by a simple google search. > > Oh come on... Jason has his answers. To every single step of the > process, the answer is "God dunnit". You don't actually expect him to go > forth and learn something, do you? > Yes. I know. I am just making fun of him. I want to see what idiotic thing he does next. ;-) Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of >>> the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of energy >>> (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be. >>> If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying >>> there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person >>> was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer. >>> Jason >> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system? > > source: Webster's Dictionary: > solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are > held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar > system centered on another star. Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar system than the Big Bang" is. The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since the big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar system formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.) Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was no "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang. > Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is > How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? We don't know. But if you claim that it came to be because of god then "How did god come to be?" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? We answered that. The truth is that you do not have evidence to > indicate how that energy came to be. E=MC Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > Can i play along? E=MC Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > I had to learn how to do Punnett Squares to pass the biology lab class. I > hated that those Punnett Squares. I would never read a book on a subject > that was related to that subject. I.e. just because you hated a particular topic, that makes all of science false, eh? That's about par for the course for your supposed logic. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:36:57 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>> "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >>>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >>>> >>> Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened. >> Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know? > > Don't know about Lubenow... but we need not read Gish's work to discount > it; all we need is a knowledge of Gish from past experience. > > I put it to you this way: if a congenital liar publishes a book, is it > necessary to read the book to be reasonably certain it, too, is full of > lies? No, it's not. The same book, written by someone presumed to be at > least vaguely honest would possibly be worth reading... but not when it's > written by Gish, he simply has too many years of consistent, unfailing, > ever-present dishonesty to justify any effort whatsoever on reading > anything put forth by him. > > Don't believe me? Here's a link about Gish's standards of evidence: > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html > > > You simply cannot trust a single thing Gish says or writes. > Imagine any scientist doing that. His career would be over. His credibility nonexistent.... Wait, thats what happend! Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:09:59 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> I mentioned the number of pages for a reason. Several people stated that >> the advocates of creation science have no evidence. Dr. Gish's book has >> 391 pages and M. Lubenow's book has 295 pages. My point was that there >> is EVIDENCE discussed on those pages--they are NOT blank pages. People >> should read the books if they want to examine their evidence. > > Err... no. The fact there's something on those pages doesn't make it > evidence. One could type the works of Shakespeare on the pages, it would > be content, but it would not be evidence of creation. > > To qualify as evidence, it would have to explain how creation works, in a > testable and falsifiable manner, provide the tests, show the results of > the tests being consisted with the predictions of the mechanism and so > forth. > > You've supposedly read the books - do they actually offer evidence , or > just the usual pointless hand-waving nonsense? > He read one, but does no longer have it. He didn't read the other. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > On Jun 5, 4:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: >>> <...> >>>>> I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have no >>>>> reason, unless you give me one. >>>> The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the "Cambrian >>>> Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots of sites >>>> that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own google >>>> search. >>> I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's >>> "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. Does Gish >>> and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian >>> Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and lasted 10 - >>> 20 million years? >>> http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html >> I don't know the dates that Dr. Gish used in his book. I donate my old >> books to a used book store. > > With any luck Dr. Gish's book was thrown out by them for being > worthless. > > Martin > Oh, paper can be recycled. Or used as toilet paper in times of need. Or both. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406071736210001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180996743.221572.106500@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4 jun, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180908177.745993.278...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> >> The study of withcraft has some historical interest. Also, we can >> study the documents from the trials, and try to found if there was any >> reason to blame the symptoms as a diabolical possession of the girls. >> My opinion is that withcraft is not a real fenomenom, but a way to >> trick people to get some money from them. This monetary aspect of the >> witchcraft is the only diabolical part of the issue. >> But the trials of witches were mostly fake charges, specially when the >> accussed were convicted of diabolical possession. This occasional >> trials of witchcraft were devices for propping up authority over the >> people, but inspiring them fear. This shameless lies about diabolical >> possessions were used to scare and submit people into servitude. >> Bramble > > Would you be upset if public high schools taught courses related to the > history of witchcraft--what about the history of creationism? What "history" of creationism? Creationism: God did it. That's all, folks. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. Prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > 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. So does making shit up, but that's not science. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed > down from generation to generation. Please prove that fossil evidence and stories show that your god exists. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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.