Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> These are some of the differences: >>>>> the use of fire >>>>> burying the dead >>>>> the ability to communicate by talking >>>>> differences in DNA >>>>> differences in IQ >>>>> the ability to worship >>>> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as >>>> explained >>>> here: >>>> >>>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf >>> Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books >>> or articles about genes. >> Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with >> chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either that or >> god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect. > > I don't know enough about genes to make a comment. But yet you managed to make such a comment when you said "differences in DNA." Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072231020001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071604430001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1180992626.074107.83430@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob >> > T." >> > <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 4, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > >news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > > > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, >> >> > > > "Ralph" >> >> > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > > >>news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > > >> > In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1cr...@4ax.com>, Free >> >> > > >> > Lunch >> >> > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > >> >> <Jason-0306072032550...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >> >> >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>, >> >> > > >> >> >Free >> >> > > >> >> >Lunch >> >> > > >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >> >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, >> >> > > >> >> >> >Free >> >> > > >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> > > >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > <Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> > > >> >> >> >> ><avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>, >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Free >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> > > >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>, >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Free >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.atheism >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > >> >> > <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> > > >> > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >to >> > me how >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >it >> >> > > >> >> >happened. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical >> > processes) >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >come >> >> > > >> >> >to be? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> chock >> > full of >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> chemical >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had >> > different >> >> > > >> > ones. It's >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of >> >> > > >> >> >> >> natural >> >> > > >> >> >> >> or >> >> > > >> >> >> >> artificial >> >> > > >> >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent >> >> > > >> >> >> >> manners. >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Chemical >> >> > > >> >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same >> > conditions >> >> > > >> >> >> >> are >> >> > > >> >> >> >> present. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >How did all of those things come to be? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of >> >> > > >> >> >> chemistry. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical >> >> > > >> >> >precursors >> >> > > >> > come to be? >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions? >> >> > >> >> > > >> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is >> >> > > >> stating >> >> > > >> that >> >> > > >> you don't know how to ask a question. >> >> > >> >> > > > Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question? >> >> > >> >> > > I answered your damn question, several times. >> >> > >> >> > > > My goal is >> >> > > > to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and >> >> > > > related >> >> > > > atomic materials came to be. >> >> > >> >> > > That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a >> >> > > question. >> >> > >> >> > > > One person mentioned that an exploding star >> >> > > > or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals. >> >> > >> >> > > That was me. >> >> > >> >> > > > If that is true, >> >> > > > how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > be. >> >> > >> >> > > Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't >> >> > > know >> >> > > it. >> >> > >> >> > > > We >> >> > > > can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I >> > am asking >> >> > > > the questions. >> >> > > > Jason >> >> > >> >> > > Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all >> >> > > of >> >> > > the >> >> > > material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, >> >> > > you >> >> > > thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you >> >> > > didn't >> > know how >> >> > > to play the game. We know where the material from the universe >> >> > > originated, >> >> > > we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists >> > and we'll >> >> > > concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the >> >> > > universe by >> >> > > using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble >> >> > > themselves at >> >> > > the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason? >> >> > >> >> > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that >> >> > evolution >> >> > theory had all the answers. My main interest is related to >> >> > abiogenesis. >> >> > I >> >> > know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to >> >> > be >> >> > but >> >> > my college biology professor (in 1971) was not able to tell us how >> >> > the >> >> > elements came into be. Several years ago, someone stated in a >> >> > magazine >> >> > article that the Big Bang was how the solar system came into be. >> >> > That >> >> > was >> >> > helpful until I realized there were still unanswered questions such >> >> > as: >> >> > How did that mass (that expanded) come into be? If evolutionists can >> >> > not >> >> > answer those questions, it means to me that the theory has no >> >> > validity. >> >> > However, if evolutionists are able to provide answers (and not >> >> > guesses), >> >> > the theory does have validity. >> >> >> >> This has been explained to you many times before: evolution has >> >> nothing to do with the solar system or the Big Bang. Perhaps what you >> >> mean to ask is "How do atheists explain the Big Bang." I'm afraid >> >> that in order to _really_ understand the Big Bang you need to have a >> >> grasp of advanced mathematics - the same thing that it takes to >> >> _really_ understand subatomic physics. >> >> >> >> - Bob T. >> > >> > Bob, >> > That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of >> > the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of >> > energy >> > (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be. >> > If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying >> > there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person >> > was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer. >> > Jason >> >> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system? > > source: Webster's Dictionary: > solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are > held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar > system centered on another star. > > Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is > How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? No Jason, I have answered your question many posts ago. My question to you came about because of this statement that you made above:" I was wanting to go even further back into the history of the solar system than the Big Bang." You have made this statement several times and I've asked you about it and you conveniently ignored it. If you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself, then go right ahead. I will tell you that the solar system had no history before the big bang. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072209140001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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". As I told you earlier, you of all people, need to keep your books. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072338020001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. His statement is spot on, you scientific wizard. The sum total of the universe appears to be zero. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072309560001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <so29i.22321$KC4.10571@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071721110001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > >> > How did the elements come into be? >> >> Been answered before by myself and others. Too bad that your memory is so >> short and selective. >> > >> > Was there a time in the history of the solar system where the elements >> > did >> > not exist? >> >> There was a long, long time where the solar system didn't exist. As I >> have >> said several times, are you sure what you are asking? > > Yes, I saw some of those answers. The next question is: > > How did the energy that expanded during Big Bang come to be? And that has been answered for you, personally by me and I think by others. You are dishonest Jason, and appear to be proud of it. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180951091.949854.152650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 4 Jun., 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180907895.450122.123...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 3 Jun., 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180863203.738843.244...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, 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.impulse.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 they keep > the apes= >>>> and >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they > kept the = >>>> gori=3D >>>>>> lla >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or > throw f= >>>> ecal >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and > designed >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as > not to c= >>>> onfu=3D >>>>>> se >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. >>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? >>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas > use fi= >>>> re?-=3D >>>>>> Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - >>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - >>>>>> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No >>>>>> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely >>>>>> meaningless. >>>>> These are some of the differences: >>>>> the use of fire >>>>> burying the dead >>>>> the ability to communicate by talking >>>>> differences in DNA > > > > >>>> The DNA in dogs is not the same as that in cats. Does that mean that >>>> dogs are not animals or is it cats? I cannot wait for your answer. >>> The DNA is one of the reason that dogs are different than cats. >> And the various types of apes have differences in their DNA, yet they >> are all animals including man. By the way I am not surprised that you >> didn't answer the question. Such silly evasions as the above are what >> one expects from you. > > I clearly answered your question. You may not have been satisfied with my > answer but I did answer your question. No, you didn't. Otherwise your answer would have been either "dogs are not animals" or "cats are not animals." So which is it? You claimed that humans are not animals due to a difference in DNA. It was pointed out that there's a difference in DNA between these two. So which one is not an animal? If you claim they are both animals even though the DNA is different, then how does "differences in DNA" make apes animals and humans not? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072330540001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181006858.981877.105770@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 4:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180964838.431806.41...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 4, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > > If I understand you correctly, stars are made out of hydrogen. If > so, how >> > > > did that hydrogen come to be? >> > >> > > Hydrogen consists of a single proton and a single electron. >> > >> > > Protons consist of three quarks, one down and two up. >> > >> > > Thus the hydrogen atom consists of four elementary particles. That's >> > > it. Okay, granted, there's also the binding energies: binding energy >> > > makes up the bulk of the proton's mass. In fact, these four >> > > elementary particles are all charged so their mass, conceivably comes >> > > from their self-interaction. Some people argue that elementary >> > > particles are strings and their mass actually comes from their >> > > vibrations, but this is only a model that seems likely to reproduce >> > > the masses of the elementary particles; it's unlikely that string >> > > theory is an accurate way to describe what is happening in three >> > > dimensional space. (String theory requires ten dimensions of space: >> > > the other seven "dimensions" probably represent parameters that we >> > > haven't identified yet.) >> > >> > > For what it is worth, you can check out the following links. >> > >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang >> >> > That is excellent information. The next question is: How did the >> > hydrogen >> > atom come to be? >> >> You obviously didn't understand. Obviously quarks and electrons came >> out of the big bang. >> >> > You have probably figured out that I am trying to go back into the >> > history >> > of the universe to the time period where all of the elements came into >> > be. >> > If you want to cut to the chase and answer that question--go for it. >> > >> > A related question is: Do you believe that there was a time in the >> > history >> > of the universe where none of the elements existed? >> >> It is attractive to think of the big bang starting from a singularity >> because that would imply that the big bang was the beginning of time, >> space, matter and energy. But perhaps there was a universe that >> existed _before_ the big bang. How would we know? >> >> You religionists think that scientists don't have an open mind. We >> do. In fact, religionists don't have an open mind precisely because >> they think they have one answer that explains everything (ie "God did >> it") when in reality it explains nothing (because you god doesn't even >> exist). I think it's amazing what we've been able to explain by >> taking God out of the equation: with no god, everything starts to make >> sense where as before we had mysteries that we thought we could never >> hope to solve. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > You keep mentioning that you have evidence to support your theory. I asked > this question to several people: How did the matter that expanded during > the Big Bang come to be? The truth is that you do not have evidence to > indicate how that energy came to be. You can not tell me anything other > than guesses. That is the reason that I don't believe science has all the > answers. It's easy for me to deal with these issues because I know that > God was behind it. I don't know how he did it but I know that he did it. > The 90 people that have Ph.D degrees are just as intelligent as you are. > They are as well educated as you are. My point is that they have wondered > about these issues and they knew that the most realistic conclusion to > explain the answers to these sorts of questions is that there was an > intelligent designer involved. Someone told me in a post that mankind and > all life forms came about by chance--I believe he had genes in mind when > he made that statement. I disagreed with him and told him that it was part > of God's plan and design. Those 90 people would probably agree with me. > Perhaps you are correct--there may have been another universe prior to > this universe. Even if there was another universe, God was involved. > Jason Your god doesn't exist except in your fertile imagination. Please see over 800 scientists named Steve who agree with us: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp. If you wish to argue numbers there are hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world who agree with the theory of evolution. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072334330001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? Who knows????? I've told you this many times before, you lying Christian. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <d89963leapd4btjj055e3v0j25vu435...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <2l5963lfkm7e62b2qqk7fc6tn67ki4r...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> >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 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. You don't "know" that God created the universe, you "believe" that. You are welcome to your religious beliefs, but there is no evidence that God created the Big Bang. It might have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Vishnu, or aliens from another universe... or just a natural phenomenon. You believe what you believe because your parents, who knew nothing of the Big Bang, taught it to you when you were a child. Many other children were raised to believe in Hindu creation myths - when they learn about the Big Bang, they "know" that Vishnu or Shiva or Brahma is responsible. Their "belief" is no more and no less logical than your own. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years ago > that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it took > place. So your holy bible lied about it happening around 4000 years ago? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <yuF8i.15375$JQ3.5714@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071213090001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years ago >>> that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it took >>> place. >> I'm glad you believe that Jason. Since the world of science says that there >> is no evidence of a global flood perhaps you can explain why you think there >> was. > > Hello, > Dr. Henry Morris (the founder of ICR) wrote a book entitled, "The Bible > Has The Answers" (394 pages). The book was first published in 1971. A > second edition, enlarged by 50 percent, was published in 1976. Dr. Morris > discussed all of the evidence related to the flood in that book. The > evidence discussed in that book is why I think there was a global flood. But yet you ignore the part of the bible that claims it happened around 4000 years ago. Quote
Guest Hollis Brown Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 2:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180939638.055315.145...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 10:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rku...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-0306071902110...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > >>news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > >> > In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago > and was > > > > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, > "Evolution: The > > > > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, > "Evolution: The > > > > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish > discusses the > > > > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. > It would be > > > > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to > > > develop a two > > > > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one > chapter from > > > > >> >> >our > > > > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of > > > > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook > > > did not > > > > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book. > > > > > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is > "Creation: > > > > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this? > > > > > >> > Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know > whether or not > > > > >> > Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence? > > > > > >> Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't > discuss a > > > > >> subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other > > > side. IN > > > > >> this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is > > > attempting to > > > > >> refute. > > > > > >> In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. > > > If the > > > > >> fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please > > > > >> present the evidence that the fossils support creation. > > > > > >I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question > > > > >since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a > copy of > > > > >that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's > > > > >book if he wants an answer. I > > > > >Jason > > > > > If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence > > > > to support creation. > > > > I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. > > > Present some. Go right now to a library or a book store and find the > > book. I'm in Taiwan so I can only find legitimate books on the > > subject. > > > Martin > > Martin, > Visit the ICR website and type this term into their search engine: > Cambrian Explosion > If that does not work, google Cambrian Explosion. > Dr. Gish discussed that subject in his book. You could order Dr. Gish's > book from the ICR website. Why on earth would Martin (or anyone else) do that? Apparently, the book was so bad that even you, a Gish supporter, discarded it and cannot remember what it contained. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. HB Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > 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? How did the god, who supposedly made these chemicals "come to be," come to be? If you can't answer that question, then how do you know there is a god to have made them "come to be"? Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. That's still not evidence. I don't think you understand the concept of "evidence". Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:04:25 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. No it doesn't. It's just like saying "it's magic". Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In alt.atheism On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:38:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. Then we don't worry how the universe came to be. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed > several other Christians and myself. What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to not comprehend? I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <3lp663t8l8ljme8ik55btn55j3k8rkut0c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence >> to support creation. > > I disagree. He has lots of evidence in that book. No, he only claims to have a lot of evidence that does NOT (according to him) support evolution or that disproves evolution. That does NOT support creationism by default. Your stance is like saying that if I'm not in Australia then I must be in Africa and then proving that I'm nowhere in Australia based on the IP I'm posting from. That IP wouldn't prove where I actually am physically at and even if it DID prove I wasn't in Australia, there'd be 5 other continents I could be in other than Africa. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 5, 5:51 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. I include you among the frustrated, not the assholes, Tokay. The "assholes" I was thinking of are the guys who make snide comments about Jason instead of replying directly to his posts. - Bob T. > > [snip] > > Tokay > > -- > > Hear the meaning within the word. > > William Shakespeare- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 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. > > Actually, it "solves" ALL problems. It is useless, though. It is saying "I don't know". Worse, it is saying "I don't know and I don`t want to know". 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 <1181025050.390273.34810@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 7:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f422j1$jqd$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> If you want to read about that evidence, I >>>>> suggest that you read either of these books: >>>>> "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >>>>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >>>> No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of >>>> any kind. >>> If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your >>> choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science >>> to agree with you. >> Agree to admit that their books contain no evidence? I don't expect >> them to do that: they are fundamentally dishonest! >> >> Martin > > Martin, > You are correct. We would never admit it and I doubt that you would admit > that Stephen Gould's books contain no evidence. > > I would like your comments about this article that I found on the internet. > > The Light-Distance Problem > by David F. Coppedge > > Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how > light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. > People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to > discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and > seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously > requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a > result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the > rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. Well. The problem remains. If the universe is less than 10.000 years old as claimed by some (if not all) creationists, then how did light from stars reach us? This is not a question of relativity or mathematics. Or even physics. Light has a speed. Which is absolute. It takes a certain time to travel. If a star is a million light years away, but the universe is only 10.000 years old, the light would not have reached us yet. I.e. we would not see this star. So, physics and astrophysics tell us that the hypothesis that the universe is 10.000 years old is false. QED. Or, if it is, that light was placed "under way" 10.000 years ago. Which is very silly. > > For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have > written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for > dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of > the Bible. "A strategy". Oh cool. Lets see.... > > A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical > creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not > getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have > established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find > it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of > the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance > problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. > Ah. In order to not give an answer, we change the subject. Nice! > According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions > from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny > region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles > going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each > part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the > problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all > parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the > cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If > no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of > temperature? And the new subject is: Problems the Big Bang theory has. Mind that the original question was not answered. It is a rather hard question for the creationists to answer. In fact, they can't. So they changed the subject. And yes. Big Bang theory is not without flaws. Surprise, surprise. > > The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular > cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in > 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued > by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), > the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with > a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the > expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise > balance between the acceleration rate and density. One idea to explain this is the "M-theory". I guess you haven't looked at it? (It's not a "theory" in the scientific sense. But an idea) > > Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of > problems. Ah. Yes. Of course. So are you going to explain the question at the beginning? We will work on our problems. Find a solution. How about you? Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should > begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is > limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to > be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by > numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. Ah. So you explain it by "goddidit". Wasn't that where we came in? > > David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion > Laboratory. > (The views expressed are his own.) I should hope so. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:28:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > I don't know his real reason. He stated the reason was because he did not > want to do anything that would promote creation science. When I attended a > creation science versus evolution debate, I noticed that they had a book > table set up at the entrance. They were selling ICR books and ICR Video > Tapes. Most of the people that attended were Christians. Only a small > number of people clapped when the professor from the local college made an > excellent point but thousands of people clapped when Dr. Gish made a great > point. Gish: "The Bible tells us the earth is about 6,000 years old." Audience: <clapping and cheering> Opposition: "Well, actually, we can examine the contents of various strata and date those. By aligning these with other such strata so that the overlapping periods match up, we can create a timeline which runs back essentially as far as we like. Now, when we apply radiometric analysis to this, we discover that the timeline in fact extends to about 4.5 billion years, with a margin of error of some 200 million years at that distance. These findings are supported by multiple, distinct techniques, each of which converge on a similar if not identical value, thus giving us strong reason to accept them as valid." Audience: "mmm... huh? What'd he say?" One of the big problems with these debates is that the audience is primarily composed of people who, based on available evidence, never graduated grade six. -- “May the Cosmic Star Goat have mercy on his reprobate soul.” Shelby S. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <1181025050.390273.34810@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 7:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f422j1$jqd$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > If you want to read about that evidence, I > > > > suggest that you read either of these books: > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > > > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > > > > > No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of > > > any kind. > > > > If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your > > choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science > > to agree with you. > > Agree to admit that their books contain no evidence? I don't expect > them to do that: they are fundamentally dishonest! > > Martin Martin, You are correct. We would never admit it and I doubt that you would admit that Stephen Gould's books contain no evidence. I would like your comments about this article that I found on the internet. The Light-Distance Problem by David F. Coppedge Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of the Bible. A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of temperature? The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise balance between the acceleration rate and density. Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (The views expressed are his own.) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f43ncm$hr9$00$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 Tokay, I can't even remember what I had for dinner on May 5 so please don't expect me to remember the details of books that I read about 10 years ago. Can you tell me the details of everything you read in your high school English textbook? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <GNd9i.18691$px2.12698@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0406072209140001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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". > > As I told you earlier, you of all people, need to keep your books. I agree. I wish that I still had my college chemistry text book. 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.