Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 5, 2007

In article <f43q8l$2mv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> 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?

I stated that one of the difference between mankind and apes is a

difference in DNA. Do you disagree with that statement?

June 5, 2007

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

news:Jason-0506071232550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net:

> In article <012b63tujucr4kb7leki9b6pspv2djo9ek@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>

>> 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".

>

> Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily

> basis.

Those are evidence that two people wrote a contract or a will.

The Bible is evidence that some human writer wrote a book. The Bible is

not evidence that any of the stories in the Bible are actually true. For

that, you need to look outside the Bible.

> Historians and Archeologists use written evidence such as

> infomation that was written on cave walls.

>

That is evidence that somebody drew pictures on a cave wall. It's not

evidence that the Great Spirit Brought Many Fat Reindeer To Ugg This

Winter.

--

Fred Stone

aa# 1369

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to

lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that

seemed like posturing."

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

June 5, 2007

In article <f43pip$1v3$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> 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."

I am not an expert on DNA--that was my point. Are you an expert on DNA?

June 5, 2007

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

news:Jason-0506071217330001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net:

> In article <f43nh2$vee$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the

>> >>> history of the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how

>> >>> the mass of energy (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to

>> >>> be. If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people

>> >>> are trying there best to find reasons to avoid answering this

>> >>> question. One person was honest enough to say that he did not

>> >>> know the answer. Jason

>> >> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system?

>> >

>> > source: Webster's Dictionary:

>> > solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies

>> > that are held together by its attraction and revolve around it;

>> > also a similar system centered on another star.

>>

>> Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how

>> meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar

>> system than the Big Bang" is.

>>

>> The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since

>> the big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar

>> system formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.)

>>

>> Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was

>> no "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang.

>

> Do you have evidence that "time started at the big bang"?

>

Yes.

--

Fred Stone

aa# 1369

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to

lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that

seemed like posturing."

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

June 5, 2007

In article <1181026361.858964.10040@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 8:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180998573.169225.7...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jun 5, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1180939743.784669.4...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Jun 4, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > In article <xmJ8i.18103$px2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> >

> > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > > > > > >news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > > > > > > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch

> > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > > > > > >> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > > > > > >> >In article

> >

> > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > > > > > >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > >> ...

> >

> > > > > > > >> >> How could it not?

> >

> > > > > > > >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it

> > happened.

> >

> > > > > > > >> Through natural chemical processes.

> >

> > > > > > > >> What other method has evidence to support it?

> >

> > > > > > > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes)

> > come to be?

> >

> > > > > > > Through supernovae's.

> >

> > > > > > How did supernovaes come to be?

> >

> > > > > They were stars that exploded because the strength of their fusion

> > > > > reactions came to exceed the gravitational force that was holding them

> > > > > together.

> >

> > > > Are you refering to the Big Bang?

> >

> > > No, I'm refering to supernovas.

> >

> > > Tell you what: go back to college, take some science courses and come

> > > back when you know some science and can actually talk to us about

> > > these matters.

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Did you notice how many advocates of evolution are finding ways to avoid

> > answering my simple questions?

>

> No, I haven't. I have noticed you refusing to answer any of my or

> their questions by saying 1) I don't like taking tests 2) I didn't

> "download" the article 3) my memory isn't that good 4) I didn't keep

> my chemistry text 5) I gave away Dr. Gish's book and 6) I don't know

> any genetics.

>

> > It appears that the advocates of evolution

> > have a difficult time answering questions related to the history of the

> > universe.

>

> You're lying again. Some people are refusing to answer questions

> about the origin of the universe because it has nothing to do with the

> theory of biological evolution. Well, it doesn't. The fact is that,

> in the beginning, there was no chemistry or biology, only physics.

> Later, when heavier elements formed we had chemistry but only when

> life formed did we have biology. It is only at that point that

> biological evolution began.

>

> > As of yet, I have received an answer to this question:

> > How did the energy mass that expanded (during the Big Bang) come to be?

>

> True. You have received an answer many times as of yet. And yet you

> still ask the same question over and over. Are you not familiar with

> the idea of mass-energy conversion? Then go back to school and learn

> some science. Seriously. It is never too late. Do you want to go to

> your grave an ignorant man who never knew anything about how the world

> worked? I wouldn't have thought so.

>

> Martin

Martin,

You have mentioned the importance of evidence in many of your posts.

Several months ago, scientists sent a rocket to collect gas samples on a

comet. I don't remember the details of that story. That was to collect

EVIDENCE. On the other hand, you claim that scientists know the answer to

this question:

How did the energy mass that expanded during the Big Bang come to be?

Scientists may have theories or ideas about the answer to that question,

but do they have evidence? I doubt it.

If I asked about the chemical composition of the energy mass that expanded

during the Big Bang, scientists may have some theories or ideas about the

answer to that question, but do they have evidence? I doubt it.

Do you believe that once scientists have a consensus about the answers to

the above questions, that settles it.

It would not settle it for me. You want me to produce evidence that God

created life on this earth, but appear to have a different standard about

the evidence related to the answers to the above questions.

Jason

June 5, 2007

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >>

>> >> snip

>> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so

>> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft

>> >>

>> >> And this is being taught where, exactly?

>> >

>> > Columbia

>>

>> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a

>> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA.

>>

>> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught?

>

>Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit

>the Columbia website to find out more details about the class.

>

What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the

history of witchcraft?

June 5, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506071217330001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <f43nh2$vee$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history

>> >>> of

>> >>> the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of

>> >>> energy

>> >>> (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be.

>> >>> If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying

>> >>> there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One

>> >>> person

>> >>> was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer.

>> >>> Jason

>> >> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system?

>> >

>> > source: Webster's Dictionary:

>> > solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that

>> > are

>> > held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar

>> > system centered on another star.

>>

>> Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how

>> meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar system

>> than the Big Bang" is.

>>

>> The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since the

>> big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar system

>> formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.)

>>

>> Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was no

>> "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang.

>

> Do you have evidence that "time started at the big bang"?

Yes, from the equations of general relativity. What we don't have as why the

arrow of time points in the direction that it does. We assume that time

always goes forward but there is nothing in general relativity or QM that

precludes time from going in any direction.

>> > Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is

>> > How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to

>> > be?

>>

>> We don't know. But if you claim that it came to be because of god then

>> "How did god come to be?"

>

> I don't know how God came to be.

Oh, I do. Man created him. It is difficult to read the Hebrew bible and not

realize that the god represented in it is really quite stupid and certainly

is a bumbling idiot. In addition he is vindictive and spiteful. In fact

Jason, he is so awful that the Docetist movement after the death of Jesus,

believed that Jesus was sent to protect them from the god of the OT. Yep,

quite a fellow, this god.

June 5, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506071244010001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1181028691.955306.172140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 5, 1:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> >

>> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> > >news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > > > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> > > >>news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > > >> > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,

>> > > >> > "Ralph"

>> > > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> > > >> >>news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > > >> >> > In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1cr...@4ax.com>,

> Free Lunch

>> > > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306072032550...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> > > >> >> >> >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>,

>> > > >> >> >> >Free

>> > > >> >> >> >Lunch

>> > > >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> > > >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> > > >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> > > >> >> >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>,

>> > > >> >> >> >> >Free

>> > > >> >> >> >> >Lunch

>> > > >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> > > >> >> >> >> >>

> <Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >In article

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>,

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Free

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> >

>> > <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article

> <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>,

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Free

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.atheism

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> >

>> > > > <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article

>> > > >> >> > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to me

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >how

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it

>> > > >> >> >> >happened.

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes.

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >processes)

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >come

>> > > >> >> >> >to be?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is

> chock full

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> of

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> chemical

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> different

>> > > >> >> > ones. It's

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened.

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of

> natural or

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> artificial

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent

> manners.

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Chemical

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> conditions

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> are

>> > > >> >> >> >> >> present.

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> >How did all of those things come to be?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of

>> > > >> >> >> >> chemistry.

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical

>> > > >> >> >> >precursors

>> > > >> >> > come to be?

>> >

>> > > >> >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it.

>> >

>> > > >> >> > Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions?

>> >

>> > > >> >> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is

>> > > >> >> stating

>> > > >> >> that

>> > > >> >> you don't know how to ask a question.

>> >

>> > > >> > Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question?

>> >

>> > > >> I answered your damn question, several times.

>> >

>> > > >> > My goal is

>> > > >> > to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and

>> > > >> > related

>> > > >> > atomic materials came to be.

>> >

>> > > >> That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a

> question.

>> >

>> > > >> > One person mentioned that an exploding star

>> > > >> > or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals.

>> >

>> > > >> That was me.

>> >

>> > > >> > If that is true,

>> > > >> > how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come

>> > > >> > to be.

>> >

>> > > >> Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't

>> > > >> know it.

>> >

>> > > >> > We

>> > > >> > can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I

>> > > >> > am

>> > > >> > asking

>> > > >> > the questions.

>> > > >> > Jason

>> >

>> > > >> Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all

>> > > >> of the

>> > > >> material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason,

>> > > >> you

>> > > >> thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you

> didn't know

>> > > >> how

>> > > >> to play the game. We know where the material from the universe

>> > > >> originated,

>> > > >> we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists

>> > > >> and

>> > > >> we'll

>> > > >> concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the

>> > > >> universe

>> > > >> by

>> > > >> using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble

> themselves at

>> > > >> the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason?

>> >

>> > > > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that

>> > > > evolution

>> > > > theory had all the answers.

>> >

>> > > Please give me a cite for your comment. The only person I can see

> who might

>> > > have thought that, was you.

>> >

>> > That may be true. I surmised from various posts that people had no

>> > respect

>> > or regard for creation science and that evolution was a far superior

>> > theory. I already knew that the advocates of creation science already

>> > knew

>> > how the solar system and life on this planet came to be. I wondered if

>> > the

>> > advocates of evolution could or could not have answers for those same

>> > question. As of yet, they have answered some of the questions. However,

>> > once we made it back to the time period that preceded the Big Bang,

>> > most

>> > people started to avoid answering my quesitons

>>

>> You are assuming there was a time peiod that preceeded the big bang.

>> Consider it from the point of view of the second law of

>> thermodynamics: the time when the big bang occured would have been a

>> time of maximum order with everything that existed in a single place

>> (a singularity). Entropy cannot be negative: thus if the second law

>> of thermodynamics has always been true then the big bang was the

>> beginning of time. This does not PROVE that the big bang was the

>> beginning of time because it assumes that the second law of

>> thermodynamics has always been true: it may have simply become true

>> after the big bang. Do you see what I mean?

>>

>> It is actually quite reasonable to suppose that some things did happen

>> before the big bang that led to the big bang: it could be, for

>> example, that the whole universe is part of some bigger multiverse.

>> How would we know unless there was interaction with the worlds beyond

>> ours? There would be no point speculating if the universe were a

>> closed system: it would be the same as our universe being all there

>> was. In a closed universe, the big bang would be considered the

>> "first cause" although some of the underlying physics may have already

>> existed. The origin of these physical laws (with respect to whatever

>> may exist beyond our universe) would be something that we couldn't

>> determine and we would have to take them as given.

>>

>> > I don't know how God did it.

>>

>> Your god doesn't even exist.

>>

>> Martin

>

> Martin,

> This statement from you post is the most logical conclusion:

>

> "It is actually quite reasonable to suppose that some things did happen

> before the big bang that led to the big bang"

>

> I know that God exists. I know a person that had Parkinson's Disease. That

> person prayed and asked God to heal her. She was healed by God and that

> lady no longer has Parkinson's Disease. A man from my church has a brain

> tumor. He prayed and the members of our church prayed and that tumor

> disapeared.

> Jason

And I can cite thousands of examples where noting happened after prayers.

June 5, 2007

In article <f43nh2$vee$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of

> >>> the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of energy

> >>> (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be.

> >>> If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying

> >>> there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person

> >>> was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer.

> >>> Jason

> >> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system?

> >

> > source: Webster's Dictionary:

> > solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are

> > held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar

> > system centered on another star.

>

> Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how

> meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar system

> than the Big Bang" is.

>

> The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since the

> big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar system

> formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.)

>

> Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was no

> "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang.

Do you have evidence that "time started at the big bang"?

> > Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is

> > How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be?

>

> We don't know. But if you claim that it came to be because of god then

> "How did god come to be?"

I don't know how God came to be.

June 5, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506071251550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1181031352.198793.304350@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>> > Martin

>> >

>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >

>> > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang)

> come to be?

>> >

>> > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is

>> > > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to zero. It

>> > > is possible to get something from nothing.

>>

>> > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the

>> > natural laws

>>

>> Trust me. There's no conflict.

>>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

>>

>> Martin

>

> Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be

> changed. You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing.

> There is a conflict.

No conflict at all, Jason. You assume that matter that is created is

created. It isn't, it only changed forms. At the end of this universe the

matter will return to energy. I read a couple of years ago that one

hypothesis that was being studied was that the energy that was converted to

matter was borrowed from gravity and that was one reason why gravity was the

weakest of the four fundamental forces.

June 5, 2007

[snips]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Jason wrote:

> How did those stars come to be?

Physics. Go read a book.

--

.... Married life presupposes the power of the husband over the wife

and children, and subjection and obediance of the wife to the husband.

- Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii

June 5, 2007

[snips]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:34:33 -0700, Jason wrote:

> How did the energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be?

Physics. Go read a book.

WTF makes you think anyone here is responsible for your education, when

you yourself are either too lazy or too incompetent to figure out what a

library is for?

--

Pssss! Jesus is dead. Pass it on. - David Rice

June 5, 2007

In article <1181029533.139344.202320@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed

> > down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of

> > written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations.

> > Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had

> > legends that were passed down from generation to generation about God or

> > Gods.

>

> You've just proven that primitive people everywhere have a vivid

> imagination. Do you mind me cutting and pasting this paragraph the

> next time I need to prove in just a few lines that God doesn't exist?

>

> Martin

You can do all of the cutting and pasting that you want to do. You may do

everything that you want to do to prove that God does not exist.

I could spend a year proving that Taiwan does not exist. If my conclusion

was that Taiwan did not exist, would my conclusion be correct?

June 5, 2007

In article <012b63tujucr4kb7leki9b6pspv2djo9ek@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> 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".

Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis.

Historians and Archeologists use written evidence such as infomation that

was written on cave walls.

>

> 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"

June 5, 2007

In article <1181028691.955306.172140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 1:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> >

> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > >news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > > In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > > >>news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > >> > In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> > > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > > >> >>news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > >> >> > In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1cr...@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch

> > > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > >> >> >> <Jason-0306072032550...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >> >> >> >In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>, Free

> > > >> >> >> >Lunch

> > > >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >> >> >> >> >In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free

> > > >> >> >> >> >Lunch

> > > >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > >> >> >> >> >>

<Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>,

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Free

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch

> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >

> > <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article

<uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>,

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Free

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >

> > > > <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article

> > > >> >> > <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could it not?

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >how

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it

> > > >> >> >> >happened.

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through natural chemical processes.

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What other method has evidence to support it?

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >processes)

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >come

> > > >> >> >> >to be?

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is

chock full

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> of

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> chemical

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> processes and the world before life would have had

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> different

> > > >> >> > ones. It's

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened.

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be?

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of

natural or

> > > >> >> >> >> >> artificial

> > > >> >> >> >> >> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent

manners.

> > > >> >> >> >> >> Chemical

> > > >> >> >> >> >> reactions always occur in the same way when the same

> > > >> >> >> >> >> conditions

> > > >> >> >> >> >> are

> > > >> >> >> >> >> present.

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> >How did all of those things come to be?

> >

> > > >> >> >> >> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of

> > > >> >> >> >> chemistry.

> >

> > > >> >> >> >Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical

> > > >> >> >> >precursors

> > > >> >> > come to be?

> >

> > > >> >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it.

> >

> > > >> >> > Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions?

> >

> > > >> >> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is

> > > >> >> stating

> > > >> >> that

> > > >> >> you don't know how to ask a question.

> >

> > > >> > Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question?

> >

> > > >> I answered your damn question, several times.

> >

> > > >> > My goal is

> > > >> > to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and

> > > >> > related

> > > >> > atomic materials came to be.

> >

> > > >> That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a

question.

> >

> > > >> > One person mentioned that an exploding star

> > > >> > or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals.

> >

> > > >> That was me.

> >

> > > >> > If that is true,

> > > >> > how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be.

> >

> > > >> Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't know it.

> >

> > > >> > We

> > > >> > can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am

> > > >> > asking

> > > >> > the questions.

> > > >> > Jason

> >

> > > >> Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all of the

> > > >> material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, you

> > > >> thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you

didn't know

> > > >> how

> > > >> to play the game. We know where the material from the universe

> > > >> originated,

> > > >> we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists and

> > > >> we'll

> > > >> concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the universe

> > > >> by

> > > >> using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble

themselves at

> > > >> the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason?

> >

> > > > I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution

> > > > theory had all the answers.

> >

> > > Please give me a cite for your comment. The only person I can see

who might

> > > have thought that, was you.

> >

> > That may be true. I surmised from various posts that people had no respect

> > or regard for creation science and that evolution was a far superior

> > theory. I already knew that the advocates of creation science already knew

> > how the solar system and life on this planet came to be. I wondered if the

> > advocates of evolution could or could not have answers for those same

> > question. As of yet, they have answered some of the questions. However,

> > once we made it back to the time period that preceded the Big Bang, most

> > people started to avoid answering my quesitons

>

> You are assuming there was a time peiod that preceeded the big bang.

> Consider it from the point of view of the second law of

> thermodynamics: the time when the big bang occured would have been a

> time of maximum order with everything that existed in a single place

> (a singularity). Entropy cannot be negative: thus if the second law

> of thermodynamics has always been true then the big bang was the

> beginning of time. This does not PROVE that the big bang was the

> beginning of time because it assumes that the second law of

> thermodynamics has always been true: it may have simply become true

> after the big bang. Do you see what I mean?

>

> It is actually quite reasonable to suppose that some things did happen

> before the big bang that led to the big bang: it could be, for

> example, that the whole universe is part of some bigger multiverse.

> How would we know unless there was interaction with the worlds beyond

> ours? There would be no point speculating if the universe were a

> closed system: it would be the same as our universe being all there

> was. In a closed universe, the big bang would be considered the

> "first cause" although some of the underlying physics may have already

> existed. The origin of these physical laws (with respect to whatever

> may exist beyond our universe) would be something that we couldn't

> determine and we would have to take them as given.

>

> > I don't know how God did it.

>

> Your god doesn't even exist.

>

> Martin

Martin,

This statement from you post is the most logical conclusion:

"It is actually quite reasonable to suppose that some things did happen

before the big bang that led to the big bang"

I know that God exists. I know a person that had Parkinson's Disease. That

person prayed and asked God to heal her. She was healed by God and that

lady no longer has Parkinson's Disease. A man from my church has a brain

tumor. He prayed and the members of our church prayed and that tumor

disapeared.

Jason

June 5, 2007

In article <1181031352.198793.304350@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the Big Bang)

come to be?

> >

> > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is

> > > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to zero. It

> > > is possible to get something from nothing.

>

> > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the

> > natural laws

>

> Trust me. There's no conflict.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

>

> Martin

Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be

changed. You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing.

There is a conflict.

June 5, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1181029533.139344.202320@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 5, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed

>>> down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of

>>> written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations.

>>> Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had

>>> legends that were passed down from generation to generation about God or

>>> Gods.

>> You've just proven that primitive people everywhere have a vivid

>> imagination. Do you mind me cutting and pasting this paragraph the

>> next time I need to prove in just a few lines that God doesn't exist?

>>

>> Martin

>

> You can do all of the cutting and pasting that you want to do. You may do

> everything that you want to do to prove that God does not exist.

Nobody can prove "God does not exist". It is the null hypothesis. It is

your job to falsify it.

>

> I could spend a year proving that Taiwan does not exist. If my conclusion

> was that Taiwan did not exist, would my conclusion be correct?

The same applies. The people that think Taiwan exists would have to do

the falsifying. Easy, in this case. Take any small electrical appliance

you have. Chances are (if it is a little bit older) that it has "Made in

Taiwan" on the bottom.

The trick is: Falsifying a falsifiable hypothesis.

Tokay

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 5, 2007

In article <1181031871.487229.89440@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article

<1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr.

> > Gish's book

> > > > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If

> > > > you want

> > > > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you

> > > > will have

> > > > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option

> > would be to

> > > > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence"

> > into their

> > > > > > > >search engine.

> > > > > > > >jason

> >

> > > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you

have no

> > > > > > > reason, unless you give me one.

> >

> > > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the

"Cambrian

> > > > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots

> > of sites

> > > > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your

own google

> > > > > > search.

> >

> > > > > How is that evidence for creation?

> >

> > > > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This

> > > > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed

> > > > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY

> > > > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not

> > > > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of

> > > > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been

> > > > > proposed.

> >

> > > > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr.

Gish and

> > > > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion.

> >

> > > No. They don't. I've checked.

>

> > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the

> > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence

> > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in

> > his book?

>

> I've checked the IRC website. Do Morris and Gish have any reason NOT

> to present their supposed evidence on their website?

>

> Martin

I believe the information was in his fossil book.

June 5, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <012b63tujucr4kb7leki9b6pspv2djo9ek@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>

>> 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".

>

> Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis.

> Historians and Archeologists use written evidence such as infomation that

> was written on cave walls.

>

Written evidence such as contracts and wills are useless if not signed.

The the translation of copy of a copy of a copy of a translation would

hardly stand up in court.

Historians hardly ever use one source.

And what do the archaeologists prove by their writings on cave walls?

Correct. Someone painted nice little pictures on walls.

Ok, you can have that. Someone wrote your book. What else do you want to

prove with it? What that book says? From one source? Are you nuts?

Tokay

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 5, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f43nh2$vee$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of

>>>>> the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of energy

>>>>> (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be.

>>>>> If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying

>>>>> there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person

>>>>> was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer.

>>>>> Jason

>>>> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system?

>>> source: Webster's Dictionary:

>>> solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are

>>> held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar

>>> system centered on another star.

>> Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how

>> meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar system

>> than the Big Bang" is.

>>

>> The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since the

>> big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar system

>> formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.)

>>

>> Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was no

>> "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang.

>

> Do you have evidence that "time started at the big bang"?

So far, relativity has not been refuted. The Big Bang started with a

singularity. Within a singularity, there is no time. Since there was

nothing outside (not even space), there was no time.

>

>>> Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is

>>> How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be?

>> We don't know. But if you claim that it came to be because of god then

>> "How did god come to be?"

>

> I don't know how God came to be.

What DO you know?

Tokay

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 5, 2007

In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> 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?)

I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. I was present when he

debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion,

he won that debate. Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I

debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr.

Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed

that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr.

Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate.

June 5, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1181028691.955306.172140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 5, 1:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> In article <M629i.22310$KC4.10...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>>

>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:Jason-0406071422010001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>> In article <3tZ8i.15629$FN5.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:Jason-0406071240400001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>>>> In article <mdU8i.18610$923.16...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>>>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>>>>>> In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1cr...@4ax.com>,

> Free Lunch

>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:32:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306072032550...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>> In article <alt6631ej75cq2s9llbhvdio9ic2f57...@4ax.com>, Free

>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch

>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:14 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0306071957140...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <3pp6631kon6ea5hg92ij4uqdimal0cg...@4ax.com>, Free

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch

>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> <Jason-0306071912070...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmp...@4ax.com>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>> <Jason-0306071833470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article

> <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmduf...@4ax.com>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>> <Jason-0306071654000...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>> <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How could it not?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>> happened.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through natural chemical processes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What other method has evidence to support it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come

>>>>>>>>>>> to be?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through other chemical processes. The world is

> chock full

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes and the world before life would have had

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different

>>>>>>>>> ones. It's

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all hard for the processes to have happened.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of

> natural or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artificial

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical precursors which behave in very consistent

> manners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chemical

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reactions always occur in the same way when the same

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did all of those things come to be?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Your question betrays a total lack of understanding of

>>>>>>>>>>>> chemistry.

>>>>>>>>>>> Would you tell me how the natural or artificial chemical

>>>>>>>>>>> precursors

>>>>>>>>> come to be?

>>>>>>>>>> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it.

>>>>>>>>> Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions?

>>>>>>>> Too ask a question such as where do the chemicals come from, is

>>>>>>>> stating

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> you don't know how to ask a question.

>>>>>>> Are you trying to find a reason to avoid answering my question?

>>>>>> I answered your damn question, several times.

>>>>>>> My goal is

>>>>>>> to keep going back until I find out how the chemicals, atoms and

>>>>>>> related

>>>>>>> atomic materials came to be.

>>>>>> That is precisely why I said that you didn't know how to ask a

> question.

>>>>>>> One person mentioned that an exploding star

>>>>>>> or stars were the source of some or all of the chemicals.

>>>>>> That was me.

>>>>>>> If that is true,

>>>>>>> how did the chemicals and atomic particles in those stars come to be.

>>>>>> Oh, its true alright and even if it wereb't true, you wouldn't know it.

>>>>>>> We

>>>>>>> can't keep going back if we bogged down with criticisms of how I am

>>>>>>> asking

>>>>>>> the questions.

>>>>>>> Jason

>>>>>> Let me help you out, Jason. You ask the question, "where did all of the

>>>>>> material originate that formed our universe of today"? See Jason, you

>>>>>> thought you were playing a game but you only showed that you

> didn't know

>>>>>> how

>>>>>> to play the game. We know where the material from the universe

>>>>>> originated,

>>>>>> we don't know the why. We'll leave the why up to you religionists and

>>>>>> we'll

>>>>>> concentrate on the how. You know Jason, how did god create the universe

>>>>>> by

>>>>>> using only his voice? Did the electrons and quarks assemble

> themselves at

>>>>>> the sound of his voice? How did that work, Jason?

>>>>> I am not playing a game. Last week, people kept saying that evolution

>>>>> theory had all the answers.

>>>> Please give me a cite for your comment. The only person I can see

> who might

>>>> have thought that, was you.

>>> That may be true. I surmised from various posts that people had no respect

>>> or regard for creation science and that evolution was a far superior

>>> theory. I already knew that the advocates of creation science already knew

>>> how the solar system and life on this planet came to be. I wondered if the

>>> advocates of evolution could or could not have answers for those same

>>> question. As of yet, they have answered some of the questions. However,

>>> once we made it back to the time period that preceded the Big Bang, most

>>> people started to avoid answering my quesitons