Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > Hardly. It is true, you know. The difference is 3% (IIRC). That means 97% are the same. Tokay (Oh, humans are not apes. And humans are special. No argument. But the reason is not DNA) -- 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 19:28:48 +0000, Jim07D7 wrote: > I'm going to politely chase you for a little while. > > Let us assume that every answer to "But how did that come to be?" can > be followed by the question "But how did that come to be?" > > Three points of discussion follow: > > 1. What conclusion, if any, do we draw if the answer is "We don't > currently have an answer to that question." > > 2. What source of information would lead us to an answer that involves > a god? > > 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune > from further questioning, and if so, why? He does seem hell-bent on pursuing the long-debunked God of the Gaps argument, doesn't he? Still, given his apparent lack of exposure to any form of critical analysis on virtually any subject, it's little wonder he hasn't realized why this, too, falls on its face. -- JESUS CHRIST WILL COME, WETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. • Leonard Bernier He sure is taking a long time. I’m quite sore. - Fredric Rice Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. As you have been told many times,science does not operate via debate and number of supporters. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message 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. > Historians and Archeologists use written evidence such as infomation that > was written on cave walls. The only thing that is used for as evidence is that they could write and draw. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072357200001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. No need to bother us. The fact that you respect Bullfrog Gish tells us all we need to know. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >> You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? How >> long ago? >> IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years >> ago. But that is another matter. > > 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. A flood is a massively destructive event, one which leaves signs that it occurred. There is plenty of evidence of local flooding in many areas; there is, as yet, not a single shred of evidence that a global flood took place at any point in history. However... Let's assume for the nonce that it did happen. What does this tell us? We might start by noting that there is simply not enough water on earth for this to happen. This means water must either have magically appeared for the event to have occurred, or there must have been enough water beforehand and it magically disappeared. Magically disappeared? Yes. It requires that whatever mechanism disposed of such an enormous amount of water, in a comparatively small time frame, stopped before all the water vanished. Since neither the mechanism to account for that much water vanishing nor the mechanism for stopping the process have been posited, let alone evidenced, it is therefore summed up simply as "magic". So, we're already on poor footing, as there isn't enough water to do the deed. But let us continue. I'm going to post here some text by someone responding to exactly this nonsense from another person ignorant of basic mechanics. <import> First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved. So, here are the calculations: First, Everest V= 4/3 pi r cubed = 4/3 pi 6387.248 km cubed = 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3) Now, the Earth at sea level V = 4/3 pi r cubed = 4/3 pi 6378.4 km cubed = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3) The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth: 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres This is one helluva lot of water. For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary. Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition)...so, 4.252x1009 km3 of water, X 106 (= cubic meters), X 106 (= cubic centimetres), X 1 g/cm3 (= grams), X 10-3 (= kilograms), (turn the crank) equals 4.525E+21 kg. Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice. Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood. Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event. Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy). Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands. Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence. Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...? Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space. Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores. Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense. Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F). Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall. Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense: Potential energy: E=M g H, where M = mass of water, g = gravitational constant and, H = height of water above surface. Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4 3.14159 ((6386)2 86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s. Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature: E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280. Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K. The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep. Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid. It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise. </import> I'm sure you'll find some "reason" to dodge this, but I'm equally certain you will not actually attempt to understand, let alone deal with the implications of, the science involved. That would require a degree of integrity on your part which you have never given an indication you're even capable of. -- It’s better to copulate than never. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072351250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f59963p01ggf5k4hjlolu3nllm7a37fq2h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <8s4963pd4sredl8p52pecjgrmqj07q8i1l@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >In article <eks863dj6jo4ue36ojb56berh6svidadf1@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <fua863hpkqknmptenviu23cqom90pmp52h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> <...> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you > have no >> >> >> >> >> reason, unless you give me one. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the >> >"Cambrian >> >> >> >> >Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found >> >> >> >> >lots >> >of sites >> >> >> >> >that had lots of information so you may also want to do your > own google >> >> >> >> >search. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I read Stephen Gould's >> >> >> >> "Wonderful Life" when it was published in paperback in 1990. > Does Gish >> >> >> >> and do you believe the accepted chronology --, that the Cambrian >> >> >> >> Explosion started at about 530 - 550 million years ago and > lasted 10 - >> >> >> >> 20 million years? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://dannyreviews.com/h/Wonderful_Life.html >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I don't know the dates that Dr. Gish used in his book. I donate my >> >> >> >old >> >> >> >books to a used book store. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please read my question again. Part of it was, what do you >> >> >> believe? >> >> > >> >> >If that is the date that the experts are certain that it happened, I >> >> >accept it but can not speak for Dr. Gish. >> >> > >> >> The same experts also say that evolution happened. Do you accept that, >> >> too. >> > >> >I accept many of the aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept the >> >aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. >> >As >> >I have told you, I believe that God created mankind; some plants; some >> >animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution kicked in. >> >Evolution is mostly about how animals and plants are able to >> >change--esp. >> >via mutations. >> > >> What makes you not accept that God could have created an early life >> form that evolved to mankind, plants and animals? > > The first chapter of Genesis is the basis of creation science. It clearly > states that God created mankind, plants and animals. It does not give a > detailed list of the plants and animals. It's my guess that all of the > plants and animals in the world today evolved from those original plants > and animals that God created. The first chapter of Genesis was written by backward and superstitious people and should be read as such. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506070023440001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181022000.370051.68930@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. > Gish's book >> > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. >> > > > > >If >> > you want >> > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you >> > will have >> > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option > would be to >> > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" > into their >> > > > > >search engine. >> > > > > >jason >> > >> > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have >> > > > > no >> > > > > reason, unless you give me one. >> > >> > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the >> > > > "Cambrian >> > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots > of sites >> > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own >> > > > google >> > > > search. >> > >> > > How is that evidence for creation? >> > >> > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This >> > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are >> > > killed >> > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY >> > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not >> > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of >> > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been >> > > proposed. >> >> > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Gish >> > and >> > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. >> >> No. They don't. I've checked. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in > his book? > Jasson Good move Jason. You assert that Gish discussed fossil evidence in his book and then you want others to provide the evidence :-))))). How deceitful of you. Tell me Jason, will your god send you to hell for lying? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0406072354530001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1mpej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:59:23 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false >> >> >information? >> >> > >> >> The evidence says they are. >> > >> > I disagree. There are at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees >> >> You know, that's a big part of your problem - you let someone else do >> your >> thinking for you. "They have degrees, so they must be right, I should >> believe them." It's bullshit. Either what they say - their claims and >> the support for them - holds up, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it makes >> no difference if they have 90 PhDs or 90,000, they are still spewing >> crap. >> >> Have you examined the evidence? No, you haven't. I know that, because >> you persist in asking questions which are so basic that you could not >> examine the evidence without already knowing the answers. Hell, you even >> think Gish won a bunch of debates, which demonstrates you have not >> actually looked at what those debates covered, what claims were made and >> what support was offered for the claims. >> >> Why would you let someone else do your thinking for you? Aside from the >> fact that they're doing a very bad job of it, you were given a brain... >> why let it atrophy instead of using it? > > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to > the books that I have read related to creation science. All that we hear, see and read influences our thought processes. Tell us something that we don't know. Jason, you never told me whether or not you think that Jesus Christ is holding the nucleus of the atom together. Your much respected hero believes this and I just wondered what you believe. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:54:52 -0700, Jason wrote: > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to > the books that I have read related to creation science. I let them "influence" me because they provide actual sound reasoning and actual evidence. Yours don't. Again, that's the problem; you let them do your thinking for you, instead of doing it yourself. I don't. If a scientist I'm reading makes a claim which seems outlandish, I'll reject it until it is supported by evidence . You, by contrast, simply note that someone with a degree wrote it down, therefore it must be right. It has never, apparently, occurred to you that others can be just as dishonest and deceitful as you yourself are, so you swallow crap hook, line and sinker. By contrast, we know people can be dishonest; we even know they can be simply mistaken. This is why we demand evidence of the claim. The fact they have a degree, or that there are lots of them, means fuck all . Either they provide the evidence supporting their claims, or their claims are rejected, out of hand. As far as Gish is concerned, we have seen, repeatedly, his lies, his frauds, his deceptions, his foundation of dishonesty upon which he bases virtually everything he does, so we do not trust him at all, but we have also noticed that, when it comes to his debates, his publications and the rest, he fails, miserably, to substantiate his claims except, perhaps on occasion, some trivial side point here and there. Since he does not support his claims with evidence - or even sound reasoning - his claims are rightly discarded. Problem is, when you do that, he's left with nothing. For some reason, you seem to think that this nothingness is a winning point for him, that his dishonesty is worthy of respect. Why you would respect a known liar who, even when faced with the proof he is lying continues to lie about the exact same point, isn't clear. Oh, actually, it is - because you haven't got a shred of honesty yourself, as you persist in demonstrating. -- Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.’ • Thomas Jefferson, ‘Notes on Virginia’ Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:46:28 -0700, Jason wrote: > Visit the ICR website and type this term into their search engine: > Cambrian Explosion Okay, I did. Let's see.. Click the first link. A paragraph down I see a heading, "Evolution Is Not Happening Now". Fine, so first link, one paragraph in, they're already lying. Very good; we do your little search and in seconds we encounter them lying through their teeth. And this was supposed to show us what, the amazing credibility they have? You might want to re-think your references. -- The inspiration in the Bible depends on the ignorance of the reader. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:51:24 -0700, Jason wrote: > The first chapter of Genesis is the basis of creation science. It clearly > states that God created mankind, plants and animals. The process of science: 1) Observe something - a phenomenon, a process. 2) Create a testable hypothesis of how it occurs and/or why it occurs. 3) Test said hypothesis. 4) If it stands, it is _tentatively_ validated, hence a theory. 5) If it doesn't, refine it or discard it. So, let's take creation "science". The phenomenon to be explained is... well, if nothing else, the presence of life. Very good. The testable hypothesis is... oh, wait, there isn't one. It is simply "God dunnit". Since it cannot be tested, it is not science. The testing done says... oh, wait, there is no testable hypothesis, so the tests cannot say anything; it is not science. Were the tests consistent with the hypothesis? There is no testable hypothesis, so the tests cannot say anything; it is not science. Were the tests inconsistent with the hypothesis? There is no testable hypothesis, so the tests cannot say anything; it is not science. Hmm. Okay, feel free to demonstrate the "science" in "creation science". -- Despite their many glaring flaws, I can at least credit the Roamin’ Catholics with having very high academic standards for their clergy. While they may accept pedophiles, you can be sure they are literate, educated pedophiles. - J. J. Hitt Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, 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. Gish is not a "she", he's a "he". Again, on what basis do you find Gish worthy of respect? Is it his lies, his deceptions or his fundamental dishonesty you find so worthy of respect? -- EVERYONE FROM THE SOUTH IS GUILTY OF INCEST. - Christopher Calabrese Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:01:21 -0400, Mike 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?) Advanced drooling. -- Fundamentalism: Please help find the cure. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:42:54 -0700, Jason wrote: > also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talking. By actual speech, perhaps not - but certainly by sign language and the like. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in several species. -- Prayer: A request for annulment of the laws of the universe. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f44f9m$i9o$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 know a woman that was healed by God of Parkinson's Disease. There was a > man in my church that was healed of a brain tumor. That is enought > evidence for me but I doubt that is enough evidence for you since you > don't know either of those two people. You may want to do a google search > for "documented healing cases" or a related term. YOU claimed it happened. YOU provide the evidence. Or is this like the two books you mentioned but can't tell whats in them? 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 12:12:56 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it >> > happened. > Thanks for clearly stating that you "do not know". This is hardly a revelation; science - i.e. honest investigation - does not claim to have every answer to every question. What it has is a method of _finding_ answers which are _probably_ correct in the significant details - but this takes time. Consider; religion - Christianity in particular - has been around for thousands of years. In all that time, when did anyone use the Bible, or other religious thought, to produce modern medicine, or refrigeration, internal combustion engines, computers, integrated circuits, fiber optic cables, telephones, televisions, radios, cars, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? Right. It never happened, because the Bible and religious thought in general is non creative, non explanatory, non investigative; if anything, id discourages investigation and critical analysis. Science as we know it today has only really been around since about the 1600's, and has only really been actively pursued since the 1800's - call it 200 years. So, where Christianity has had ten times the tenure, it has actually produced nothing of modern value, while science, in a tenth the time, has produced an endless array of useful goods, knowledge of the world and the universe around us, and benefited society in any number of ways. Your basic premise is that if science cannot answer a specific question, there must be something wrong either with science in general, or at least with a particular bit of science. I suggest this is nonsense, as demonstrated by the simple fact that while science doesn't have all the answers, doesn't solve every problem, it has, in a far shorter time than Christianity has existed, solved more problems, answered more questions and provided more use than Christianity ever has, or ever will. Nor does science stop. If it hasn't answered a question, it continues to try to - something Christianity doesn't do. The religious approach is "Hey, it's all in a book from the dark past, no need to look any further", which cannot answer new questions; science at least looks for the answers. To argue, as you do, that because a specific answer isn't immediately forthcoming there is thus something wrong, or something lacking, or some place to "sneak in gods", is crap. They stand on their own, or not at all - and you have not given a single shred of evidence, a single hint of a reason, a single anything beyond your own personal pet belief, to show that your god is real. You feel free to criticize science for not being able to immediately answer one particular question, yet ignore the fact that your religion fails to answer millions of such questions. -- Psychic Wanted: Qualified person will know where to apply Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f44fl3$iso$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f43nh2$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.\ > > Scientists may have a consensus about this subject but I doubt that they > have evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. See? You don't understand the theory. You go back in time to a point where there IS no time. As required by the theory you do not understand. So, how can anything be BEFORE that? > >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 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? I see you did not answer that question. Nothing, then? 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 <jyi9i.18812$px2.15924@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0506071217330001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <f43nh2$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. > > Do you believe that time did not exist prior to the big bang? As required by general relativity (a theory you do obviously not understand) you go back in time until there is no time. The word "before" becomes meaningless. 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 <k4ugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? How >>>> long ago? >>>> IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years >>>> ago. But that is another matter. >>> 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. >> A flood is a massively destructive event, one which leaves signs that it >> occurred. There is plenty of evidence of local flooding in many areas; >> there is, as yet, not a single shred of evidence that a global flood took >> place at any point in history. >> >> However... >> >> Let's assume for the nonce that it did happen. What does this tell us? >> >> We might start by noting that there is simply not enough water on earth >> for this to happen. This means water must either have magically appeared >> for the event to have occurred, or there must have been enough water >> beforehand and it magically disappeared. >> >> Magically disappeared? Yes. It requires that whatever mechanism disposed >> of such an enormous amount of water, in a comparatively small time frame, >> stopped before all the water vanished. Since neither the mechanism to >> account for that much water vanishing nor the mechanism for stopping the >> process have been posited, let alone evidenced, it is therefore summed up >> simply as "magic". >> >> So, we're already on poor footing, as there isn't enough water to do the >> deed. But let us continue. I'm going to post here some text by someone >> responding to exactly this nonsense from another person ignorant of basic >> mechanics. >> >> <import> >> >> First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see >> that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest >> is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the >> other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of >> water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we >> subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know >> this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect >> sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts >> involved. >> >> So, here are the calculations: >> >> First, Everest >> >> V= 4/3 pi r cubed >> = 4/3 pi 6387.248 km cubed >> = 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3) >> >> Now, the Earth at sea level >> >> V = 4/3 pi r cubed >> = 4/3 pi 6378.4 km cubed >> = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3) >> >> The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to >> just cover the Earth: >> >> 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into >> a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres >> >> This is one helluva lot of water. >> >> For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't >> forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice >> present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water >> necessary. >> >> Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight >> do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic >> centimetre (by definition)...so, >> >> 4.252x1009 km3 of water, >> X 106 (= cubic meters), >> X 106 (= cubic centimetres), >> X 1 g/cm3 (= grams), >> X 10-3 (= kilograms), >> (turn the crank) >> equals 4.525E+21 kg. >> >> Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many >> times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets >> covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake >> of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the >> latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average >> thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas >> [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating >> edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice. >> >> Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of >> water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all >> that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% >> [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) >> percent of the water needed for the flood. >> >> Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before >> present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood >> event. >> >> Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the >> supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of >> the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called >> glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like >> northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some >> 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's >> hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this >> glacioeustacy). >> >> Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated >> terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated >> during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged >> interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by >> geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche >> moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial >> drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to >> say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth >> (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the >> glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size >> of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable >> and measurable effects on the lands. >> >> Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly >> much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has >> exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence. >> >> Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...? >> >> Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. >> Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an >> additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the >> point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's >> gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the >> atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our >> atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood >> waters; and it boils off into space. >> >> Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In >> fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which >> can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative >> gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far >> more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss >> of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, >> nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the >> flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses >> (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such >> global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores. >> >> Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other >> claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense. >> >> Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth >> of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or >> 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' >> (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to >> accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted >> additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The >> Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above >> the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x >> 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., >> clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than >> standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat >> released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to >> raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C >> (6,460 F). >> >> Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water >> needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe >> (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What >> is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little >> property called gravity that would cause it to fall. >> >> Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we >> have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a >> mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the >> Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which >> is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted >> to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is >> immense: >> >> Potential energy: E=M g H, where >> M = mass of water, >> g = gravitational constant and, >> H = height of water above surface. >> >> Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 >> days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x >> 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. >> Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is >> 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to >> radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times >> number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4 3.14159 >> ((6386)2 86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s. >> >> Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 >> joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- >> Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature: >> >> E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal) >> >> E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280. >> >> Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K. >> >> The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 >> F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that >> anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the >> water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and >> in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep. >> >> Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid. >> >> It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only >> fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise. >> >> </import> >> >> >> I'm sure you'll find some "reason" to dodge this, but I'm equally certain >> you will not actually attempt to understand, let alone deal with the >> implications of, the science involved. That would require a degree of >> integrity on your part which you have never given an indication you're >> even capable of. > > I will not try to respond to your post. Dr. Moris (founder of ICR) had a > theory related to the water. You can read his about his theory in this > book: > "The Bible Has The Answers" by Dr. Henry M. Morris. I won't try to > summarize his theory since I would probably end up leaving out important > details. > > Oh bugger, what an excuse. So you don't know it? Have you read the book this time? Do you still have it? I guess no.... on both counts. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:30:40 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. Why, did they have lots of pretty pictures? -- “Unleash the atheists! Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of reason!” Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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? > > My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that > covers the history of witchcraft. Notice: "History of" What they probably teach is either the above said trial (or trials) or THE HISTORY of it. They DON'T teach "witchcraft", the teach "THE HISTORY of" However, another college discriminates > against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That > college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons > was because he was an advocate of creation science. No. The reason (we covered this) was that he was an astronomy professor (or whatever) that believed in creation, probably that the universe was 6000 (10.000?) years old and other related nonsense. He is there to TEACH SCIENCE! In this case astronomy. If he believes in this 10.000 year (whatever) bullshit, that hinders his teaching of astronomy. Do you think these > same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? > I would like your comments about this article: > > > The Light-Distance Problem > by David F. Coppedge [snip the bullshit] I answered this in another post. Have YOU red it? Did you understand it? Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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? > >My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that >covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates >against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That >college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons >was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these >same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? But if your example is Columbia teaching the history of witchcraft, you should know that Union Theological Seminary is affiliated with Columbia. And Universities are quite free to choose what deserves tenure and what doesn't. >I would like your comments about this article: > > >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.) >jason > It basically says "Well, you don't have an answer for the nonhomogeneity of the universe, so we are even." Then it lies. "Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. " But the light-distance problem, of how light could get to us from many millions of light years away in only 10,000 years, is NOT a problem for science because the science indicates that the universe IS billions of light years old. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:23:40 -0700, Jason wrote: > Martin, > You are correct. We would never admit it and I doubt that you would admit > that Stephen Gould's books contain no evidence. Correct, because they do. [snipped cosmology issues not relevant to Gould, evolution, abiogenesis, or any other relevant topic] -- Christianity: Judaism for Windows Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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? My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? I would like your comments about this article: 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.) jason Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.