Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <USj9i.16079$FN5.4646@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? I am not planning to buy another copy of that book to prove a point. If other people want to buy the book to prove that I am or am not telling the truth, that is okay with me. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <nVj9i.16080$FN5.13235@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. I have stated in other posts--I don't know the details related to how God created the solar system and life on this planet. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:11:55 -0700, Jason wrote: >> To you??????? A task more difficult than creating the universe. I have a >> book in my library, "Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis", that only scratches >> the surface. It is 594 pages( I know you're big on pages) of mathematical >> formulas and explanations. If you want to borrow it sometime I'll be more >> than happy to lend it to you. Or you can go to your local library and >> check-out a copy. Yes Jason, I know the basics of how that happened but I >> sure don't plan on explaining to someone as dishonest as you. Say Jason, >> tell me again how Jesus holds together the nucleus of an atom. > Is this your method of not answering my question? No. It is his method of saying he actually paid - in money, in time and in effort - to acquire an education, something you obviously failed to do, and to point out that he is not responsible for providing you such an education for free. Part of the problem you're having is that you are trying to understand some fairly complex subjects, but the questions you ask and the way you ask them are, at least in part, things you should have dealt with in high school at the latest. For example, someone could ask me about how to write a computer program and I'd be happy to explain it. However, if I have to first teach them what a keyboard is and how it works and what it does, then what a monitor is and how it works and what it does, just to get them to the point where they grasp the concepts of input and output necessary to create the code, it simply isn't worth trying to explain; if they want to learn how programs are written, let them take the time and effort to learn the very basic concepts of what a computer is and what it does, then ask me. On the other end of the scale, there's a similar problem; it's one thing to ask how to write a program; it's something else entirely to ask someone to explain, on their own time, how all the significant parts of a multi-million line application work. You persist in running into both sides; you fail to demonstrate a grasp of even the basics, so there's little reason to feel a need to waste the time to give you the education you can't be bothered to get yourself, yet you persist in asking about the most intensely detailed and complex side of things which require far too much time and effort to explain to someone who hasn't studied the subject themselves. In short, the correct answer to both of your failings is to suggest you simply get an education, if you're remotely serious about learning the answers to your questions. Get some books out of the library, read some web-based references, etc. People are happy to recommend good, solid, valid references... but not to spend the next five years explaining it all to you in terms you can cope with. -- Staal is a prime example of someone who uses Jesus to excuse his behaviour. - Steve Quarrella Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:49:23 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it. > > > Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions? He's stating that he is not interested in teaching eighth grade chemistry and that if you're interested in learning it, you should either take the class or read a few books on the subject. -- Conan the Librarian..... “Yo book iz ovadue!” Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:32:30 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune >> from further questioning, and if so, why? > Jim, > You are very intelligent to figure out my motives. Your god of the gaps argument has been screamingly fucking obvious to everyone since you started it. > Last week, various > people told me that evolution theory had answers for how the world came > to be and how life came to be. Then they were wrong, because evolution theory discusses neither origins of planets nor origins of life. On the other hand, I suspect they did not, in fact, say any such thing, but, rather, you misrepresent what they said. -- 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 17:34:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up > with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. Good jumping Christ on a sidecar, try to comprehend the simplest things, will you? -- 5th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 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? > >> > 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 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. > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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 Quote
Guest James Burns Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >>Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many >>years ago that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time >>period that it took place. > > 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. There is very clear evidence of massive floods -- truly titanic floods -- in the western United States at the end of the last ice age. These are not global floods, but they might give a pale shadow of an idea of what kind of tracks such a flood would be expected to leave behind. It seems too obvious to mention, but we do not see that kind of evidence indicating there has been a global flood. Jim Burns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Missoula http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/ NOVA Mystery of the Megaflood http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html USGS.gov Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula Floods :[...] : The glacial lake, at its maximum height and extent, contained : more than 500 cubic miles of water. When Glacial Lake Missoula : burst through the ice dam and exploded downstream, it did so : at a rate 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the : world. This towering mass of water and ice literally shook the : ground as it thundered towards the Pacific Ocean, stripping : away thick soils and cutting deep canyons in the underlying : bedrock. With flood waters roaring across the landscape at : speeds approaching 65 miles per hour, the lake would have : drained in as little as 48 hours. [...] : Today we can see how the floods impacted the landscape. They : carved out more than 50 cubic miles of earth, piled mountains : of gravel 30 stories high, created giant ripple marks the : height of three-story buildings, and scattered 200-ton boulders : from the Rockies to the Willamette Valley. Grand Coulee, Dry : Falls, Palouse Falls -- all were created by these flood waters, : as were the Missoula and Spokane ground-water resources, : numerous wetlands and the fertile Willamette Valley and : Quincy Basin. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 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. > > > > > 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 Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:38:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <1181024481.679231.231070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 7:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h9...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> > >> > > >I >> > > >know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be >> > >> > > Could you summarize their explanation? >> > >> > God created the solar system. >> >> God doesn't exist. For the sake of argument though let's say God >> existed. Who then created God? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > I don't know how God came to be. The Bible does not say how God came to be. > I don't worry about subjects like that. > Jason You don't worry how God came to be, yet you believe absolutely, while on the other hand demanding absolute proof of every step of every issue pertaining to science before you'll accept a shred of it. Yup, you're a Christian, all right - dishonest to the core. -- In reference to my reading comprehension, is not your mother-inlaw your mother? Or your father-inlaw your father? You’re splitting hairs. -- Gary Hall Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f44fi1$iso$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 This is the sort of written evidence that I had in mind: The law code of Hammurabi the Genzer calendar the elephantine papyri the hittite monuments religious texts from Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit Ugaritic Inscriptions Nuzi Tablets The Mari Letters Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:10:58 -0700, Jason wrote: > Bob, > Thanks for telling me your opinions on this subject. I have read about > some of the problems with the theory. Do you know anything about the > problems that the experts are having with the Big Bang theory? Here's one: it has been suggested that we are informationally isolated from events "before" Planck time, as "before" this, the laws of physics as we know them break down. What this means is that it may well be essentially meaningless to even speak of "before this time" as we cannot be sure that time itself, let alone any implied directionality thereof, was in effect, or, if it was, what if any implications this has on anything from origins to expansion. -- King Kong died for your sins. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f44gf0$j1f$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f43ncm$hr9$00$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f42ah8$1nv$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f422j1$jqd$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <1180951607.644648.239520@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 4 Jun., 01:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4 Jun., 01:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <RoF8i.15298$JQ3.14...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>>>>>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>> news:Jason-0306071236540001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <1180864433.482133.263...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com= > >>>>>>>>> , M=3D > >>>>>>>>>> artin > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino= > >>>>>>>> Gris > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>,= > >>>>>>>> Free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse= > >>>>>>>> .net=3D > >>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com= > >>>>>>>>> , F=3D > >>>>>>>>>> ree > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lunch > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impul= > >>>>>>>> se.n=3D > >>>>>>>>>> et>: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.c= > >>>>>>>> om>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.imp= > >>>>>>>> ulse=3D > >>>>>>>>>> .net>: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that th= > >>>>>>>> ey k=3D > >>>>>>>>>> eep > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apes and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo= > >>>>>>>> , th=3D > >>>>>>>>>> ey > >>>>>>>>>>>>> kept the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gorilla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to e= > >>>>>>>> scap=3D > >>>>>>>>>> e or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw fecal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have cre= > >>>>>>>> ated=3D > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> designed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than human= > >>>>>>>> s so=3D > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quent= > >>>>>>>> in? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gorillas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use fire? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans > >>>>>>>>>>>>> learned to tame > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire and other animals did not? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference= > >>>>>>>> bet=3D > >>>>>>>>>> ween > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mankind and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worshi= > >>>>>>>> ps G=3D > >>>>>>>>>> od > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all hu= > >>>>>>>> mans > >>>>>>>>>>>>> worship God. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another trivial difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another major difference: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by = > >>>>>>>> talk=3D > >>>>>>>>>> ing. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign lan= > >>>>>>>> guag=3D > >>>>>>>>>> e=3D2E So > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited= > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was your point again? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tokay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that they can not have converations with peopl= > >>>>>>>> e BY > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TALKING. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sound= > >>>>>>>> s=2E W=3D > >>>>>>>>>> e are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicating by internet. No sound? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feede= > >>>>>>>> r ou=3D > >>>>>>>>>> tside > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her window. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on= > >>>>>>>> her > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. Af= > >>>>>>>> ter =3D > >>>>>>>>>> she > >>>>>>>>>>>>> refilled > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Do= > >>>>>>>> gs l=3D > >>>>>>>>>> et > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign l= > >>>>>>>> angu=3D > >>>>>>>>>> age. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a= > >>>>>>>> 12 =3D > >>>>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly. But that is not the question. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the s= > >>>>>>>> olut=3D > >>>>>>>>>> ion > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a l= > >>>>>>>> ow I=3D > >>>>>>>>>> Q=3D2E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jason > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have provided three separate reasons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than = > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape co= > >>>>>>>> uld > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirem= > >>>>>>>> ent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it o= > >>>>>>>> ut f=3D > >>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. > > Now the= > >>>>>>>> re is > >>>>>>>>>>>> life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin > > from non-= > >>>>>>>> life. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the > > distribut= > >>>>>>>> ion =3D > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> diversity of life on earth. > >>>>>>>>>>> Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.- Skjul > > tekst = > >>>>>>>> i an=3D > >>>>>>>>>> f=3DF8rselstegn - > >>>>>>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn > >>>>>>>>>> How could it not? > >>>>>>>>> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it > >>> happened.- Sk= > >>>>>>>> jul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do not know. I do know that life did not always exist on this > >>>>>>>> planet. It had to come from some place. Even the Bible describes it > >>>>>>>> as coming from non-life. I also know that there is evidence > >>>>>>>> supporting one possible way that it happened - you know, the evidence > >>>>>>>> that you keep ignoring every time it is posted. Do you have any > >>>>>>>> evidence that life did not arise through natural processes, evidence > >>>>>>>> that you will actually provide? Of course you don't. > >>>>>>> Thanks for clearly stating that you "do not know". The advocates of > >>>>>>> creation science do believe that life evolved from non-life. The > > advocates > >>>>>>> of creation science are of the opinion that God created life from > >>>>>>> non-life. The advocates of creation science have fossil evidence that > >>>>>>> supports creation science. > >>>>>> WHICH ONE? We gave you countless examples. Now you give one. And DON'T > >>>>>> refer to a book. Or a homepage. Or whatever. DO it. If there is, it > >>>>>> can't be hard. I haven't found any. And I did search. YOU type it in > >>>>>> here. I did. Now you do it. WHAT is this "evidence"? Where are those > >>>>>> fossils? I looked. I did not find it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you want to read about that evidence, I > >>>>>>> suggest that you read either of these books: > >>>>>>> "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > >>>>>>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > >>>>>> No, that won't do. I know what is in those books. It is not evidence of > >>>>>> any kind. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tokay > >>>>> If you choose to believe the books contain no evidence that is your > >>>>> choice. Don't expect me or any of the other advocates of creation science > >>>>> to agree with you. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> lol > >>>> > >>>> You don't even know what is in that books. You said so. So, while other > >>>> "proponents of creation science" might have a point (they don't), you > >>>> have not. You don't even know their arguments. > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>> I read "Evolution: The Fossils Say No" about 10 years ago and no longer > >>> have a copy of that book. I never read "Bones of Contention". > >>> > >>> > >> So, you read the first one but can't state the arguments in there. You > >> haven't read the second one but claim it contains evidence. It doesn't. > >> > >> I don't have to believe that. I know that. > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Tokay, > > I can't even remember what I had for dinner on May 5 so please don't > > expect me to remember the details of books that I read about 10 years ago. > > Can you tell me the details of everything you read in your high school > > English textbook? > > Jason > > > > > > No, but I am also not telling people to read it to see what I am talking > about. > > I do know what is in several other books I read. And if I look through > this heap of books behind me (at the moment quite literally a heap) I > might even find one I am referring to. > > I don't point to books and say "Read this, the evidence is there. I > don't know what is in it, but the evidence is there". > > And that is EXACTLY what you were doing. > > > Tokay That is partly true but you left out that I read Dr. Gish's fossil book. I also read most of a book entitled, "The Bible Has All the Answers" by Dr. Henry Morris --the founder of ICR. I still have that book. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f44fq9$iso$02$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1181028691.955306.172140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 5, 1:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <M629i.22310$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 > >> 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 > > > > > > Proof of this? It is a medical phenomenon. Can you prove it? > > To show that you are not making this up, prove it. This would be > remarkable. There are spontaneous remissions from tumors, you know. All > of them are documented. > > So, where can we find the documents for these cases? > > > Tokay I am NOT going to give you or anyone else the name of that wonderful lady. Try conducting a google search for "documented cases of healings" Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> said: >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. Delete "light" in the last line above. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406072308340001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <2ra963tlfdpeerookdfam9m6d3hpmv30oi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0406071611550001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h90ao@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >I >> >> >know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to be >> >> >> >> Could you summarize their explanation? >> > >> >God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some >> >animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution took over. I >> >am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory was mainly >> >related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as a result >> >of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't accept >> >the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and abiogenesis. >> >See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response. >> > >> Yet you have not a shred of evidence to support your supposition. >> >> Learn. > >Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed >down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of >written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations. No, you did not. You don't get to redefine evidence to fit your biases. Evidence has a meaning and if you refuse to use it correctly, it is only because you are a completely dishonest fraud. Your religious doctrines are not supported by evidence. It is a lie for you to claim they are. >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. Everyone knows that legends are not evidence. Even you know that. Why do you lie? Where did your god tell you to lie like that? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:52:39 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406072252390001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <M629i.22311$KC4.13428@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0406071734020001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <2l5963lfkm7e62b2qqk7fc6tn67ki4re6e@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h90ao@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >I >> >> >> >know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came to >> >> >> >be >> >> >> >> >> >> Could you summarize their explanation? >> >> > >> >> >God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some >> >> >animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution took over. I >> >> >am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory was mainly >> >> >related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as a result >> >> >of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't >> >> >accept >> >> >the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and >> >> >abiogenesis. >> >> >See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response. >> >> >> >> I have no need to put God in the theory, as a marker of our current >> >> limit of knowledge. You seem to need this. >> > >> > The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up >> > with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. >> > When I asked for answers, many of the people found reasons to not answer >> > the questions. Read the other posts in this thread. >> >> So you have evidence that god created all? Please present this evidence. The >> 'evolutionists' have much more evidence to support their theory than >> fundamentalist Christians have to support theirs. > >Other people have told me the same thing. Please tell me how the energy >that expanded during the Big Bang came to be. Since you claim that >evolution is the superior theory, you should be able to easily answer this >question. > Please tell me how evolution has anything to do with the energy of the Big Bang. It is possible that you are one of the best Lokis ever here or you are one of the densest Liars for the Lord. Maybe when it gets to people like you there is no difference. You are your own parody. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:13:24 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > Thanks--great answer. See my other posts. How did the elements come to >> > be? Also, was there a time period in the history of the solar system when >> > there were no elements? >> > >> > >> >> Solar system? No. >> >> Tokay > > Please explain your answer. The solar system is only about 4 billion years old. Our spacetime is approximately 14 billion years old, and the initial elements formed very shortly after the spacetime itself formed - "shortly after" being "the first 100 seconds or so". So elements existed about 10 billion years before the solar system. -- An elegant weapon, from a more civilized age. -- Obi Wan Kenobi Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <iEi9i.18815$px2.1848@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Was I mistaken--is there a natural law or it may be called a law of thermodynamics--that states matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be changed? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f44fi1$iso$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > This is the sort of written evidence that I had in mind: Evidence for WHAT? Lets take it apart: > The law code of Hammurabi Oudated code of laws. Important because it was one of the first to actually say "innocent until proven guilty". What did you have in mind to prove with it? > the Genzer calendar Probably mistyped? Google doesn't find anything. > the elephantine papyri Jewish manuscripts. Basically a kind or ancient archive. What did you want to prove with them? > the hittite monuments Nice. But what did you want to prove with a lot of stone statues and carvings? > religious texts from Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit Yes, nice. Archeological findings of a culture 6000 BC. Kind of kicks the idea of the earth being "created" 4000 BC in the butt, wouldn't you think? > Ugaritic Inscriptions Same. > Nuzi Tablets Another archaeologically interesting find. > The Mari Letters Some kind of prophetic letters. WHAT exactly did you want to prove with this list? They prove exactly what I have said above. Somebody wrote them/build them/carved them. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071307060001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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-- Wrong. 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. I'm not interested - I'm just proving you that you were wrong when you stated that a history of witchcraft was being taught as a college course. A history class about the Salem witch trials is NOT the same thing. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:32:30 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>> 3. Would an answer that involves the existence of a god, be immune >>> from further questioning, and if so, why? > >> Jim, >> You are very intelligent to figure out my motives. > > Your god of the gaps argument has been screamingly fucking obvious to > everyone since you started it. > >> Last week, various >> people told me that evolution theory had answers for how the world came >> to be and how life came to be. > > Then they were wrong, because evolution theory discusses neither origins > of planets nor origins of life. > > On the other hand, I suspect they did not, in fact, say any such thing, > but, rather, you misrepresent what they said. > Nah. That's what they say on the ICR website. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:51:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0406072351250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f59963p01ggf5k4hjlolu3nllm7a37fq2h@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: .... >> 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. As science, the first chapter of Genesis has been proven false by the evidence. Stop worshipping falsehoods. 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.