Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:10:14 -0700, Jason wrote: > Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books > or articles about genes. Yet you think you're qualified to state that "differences in DNA" is what separates man from animals, while not having the slightest clue what that implies? No wonder you dodged the cats/dogs question. -- ‘There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was known as the Dark Ages.’ --- Ruth Hurmence Green Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <jnugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that? It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe almost anything that scientists tell them to believe. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? I respect him for his accomplishments. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f44l1m$7tv$01$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <jyi9i.18812$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 > > I don't believe that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. What you believe does not matter. If someone > invented a time machine, it would be easy to disprove that theory. Yes. Good luck, though. A singularity is no piece of cake. They > could travel back into the time period prior to the Big Bang and film the > mass of energy before it expanded. From where? There is nothing from which they could film it. That is what the theory you STILL do not understand says. Of course,I guess you believe the time > machine would not be able to do that since you appear to believe > everything that scientists tell you to believe. Resorting to that? What are you, on the run again? As you had to do with evolution? No, I don't believe anything scientists tell me. I can do my own thinking. And btw. Scientists don't "tell you what to believe". They tell you what they think. And what the experiments and observations have shown. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:24:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > I agree with many aspects of evolution theory. The main area of > disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution or evolution theory; your statement says, quite clearly, that either you haven't got a clue of even the simplest aspects of the subjects, or you're so completely dishonest you won't examine them for what they are, only for what you want them to be. So which is it? Are you a liar, or simply incurably ignorant? -- Show me one thing in the universe, just one, only one, which is unchanging. - Jesse Hornbacher The ignorance of Creationists. - David Rice Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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" > > Again, YOU made the claim, YOU produce the evidence. Otherwise, it's a made-up story. I wouldn't be surprised. 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 <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. Yes, you said you read it. But you failed to say what is in it. And you cannot produce even one shred of "evidence" that was supposedly in there. As has been shown by others, Bullfrog-Gish's record is far from good. He has no scientific credibility. He did the one thing a scientist can never do and keep his credibility: He told scientific lies. > > 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. This gets better and better... "Most of a book". Great. So, you still have it. Any evidence in there? Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f44l1m$7tv$01$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <jyi9i.18812$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 I don't believe that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If someone invented a time machine, it would be easy to disprove that theory. They could travel back into the time period prior to the Big Bang and film the mass of energy before it expanded. Of course,I guess you believe the time machine would not be able to do that since you appear to believe everything that scientists tell you to believe. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:19:38 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > More than that. He disgusts me. It disgusts me to think that someone of > the same species as me is actually that stupid. > Oh, I hope (and I think I am right) that in the millennia to come, the > human race and evolution will some day (millions of years from now) > divide into two species. > You see, the women I would like to know better (and have kids with) must > have a certain minimum of brain capacity. If she hands me a > "watchtower", she is out. If she mumbles about creationism, she is out. Hmm... import time... <import> A short while ago, someone queried: "Just what is a fundy?". To end all the confusion, here follows a brief description: FUNDIE (fun'dee) n. and adj. (Var. Fundy; pls. Fundies, Fundys), A member of an American conservative religious movement that believes in biblical inerrancy. This movement had its roots in the nineteenth-century orthodox reaction to the higher (historico- literary) criticism of the Bible that originated among European theologians and was accepted by American "modernists". Fundamentalism owes its name to the "Five Fundamentals", a list of five beliefs that the Presbyterian General Assembly drew up in 1910 as being essential to the Christian faith. Among those fundamentals was the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Fundies (scientifically: Homo nesciens idiotus) come in two varieties; (about more later) but are united by the belief that each and every word ("jot and tittle") of the Holy Writ (at least, their latest authorized version) is unequivocally true. When they find a text convenient to an argument, it is quotable as the ultimate truth. But when confronted with an apparent contradiction, however rational and logical, they sail away upon the wings of a symbol, an analogy of hidden or recondite significance. Although two separate and distinct "kinds" of fundies exist, (H.n.i. var. ruralensis and H.n.i. var. urbanensis), they can be typically identified by their ubiquitous possession of a heavily thumped (but seldom read) Bible; an almost cataleptic and unquestioned adherence to dated dogma and the extraordinarily annoying ability of being able to interject their own personal version of ethics and morality into almost any subject, no matter how abstruse. As a group, they are exasperatingly uni-dimensional. H.n.i. var. ruralensis can be typified as a backwoods rustic living among the 'possums, 'coons, 'dillos and magnolias who is functionally illiterate. Though some may become transplanted to more municipal settings; they stubbornly adhere to old habits: mouth breathing, barefootedness and brainless Bible-based bleating. A macroevolutionary jump (although most would argue that it is really a regressive event) is responsible for the other variety: H.n.i. var. urbanensis. They arose from their humbler cousins in the deep, dark, dank backwoods but have evolved to exploit the trophism of bright lights, television cameras, teleprompters and wireless communication. Basically, a member of this group can be described as a country bumpkin of the wacko-right turned religious zealot and usually named Billy, Jimmy, Oral or some other familiar sobriquet. They drape the mantle of Christian piety around their shoulders (which they carefully interweave with the American flag), and stomping off on a witch hunt; ferret out "fellow travelers", "one- worlders", that archenemy of all right thinking people: the "secular humanist", and other assorted bogeymen. With a primitive view of this world and a psychedelic view of the next, they harangue lost sinners (and those with the ability to think for themselves) in an impassioned and declamatory style to "REPENT!" and be born again. Ranting and raving; and spouting smoke, fury, fire, brimstone and stained glass blather; they pace whatever stage they can usurp like a whirling dervish with a caffeine addiction. The venue may change, but the song always remains the same. Usually, such narrowly unspecialized organisms as the ones cited above represent an evolutionary dead-end. In these cases, though, it is more of a U-turn. I hope that clears up any confusion. </import> So, as you can see, the species is already well on its way to division. -- I figure if they wanted to keep the bridge, they wouldn’t have left it out in the forest all night. - Unknown Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f44l9r$7tv$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > I have a copy of the book and have read most of it. I will not try to > explain his interesting theory. > > You did not understand it? 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 <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > I respect him for his accomplishments. > > And what are they? Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 In article <f44l9r$7tv$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 I have a copy of the book and have read most of it. I will not try to explain his interesting theory. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:29:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071129270001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f43ncm$hr9$00$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: .... >> So, you read the first one but can't state the arguments in there. You >> haven't read the second one but claim it contains evidence. It doesn't. >> >> I don't have to believe that. I know that. >> >> >> Tokay > >Tokay, >I can't even remember what I had for dinner on May 5 so please don't >expect me to remember the details of books that I read about 10 years ago. >Can you tell me the details of everything you read in your high school >English textbook? Since you don't know what was in the book, why do you refuse to acknowledge what other people tell you is in the book? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Gish is a liar? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:34:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071534050001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f44gf0$j1f$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: .... >> 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. But you didn't know enough about it to know he lied to you. >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. Morris has done quite well for himself telling credulous religious folks lies that they want to hear. The ICR is an organized syndicate of liars. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:38:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071138580001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f43q8l$2mv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: .... >> No, you didn't. Otherwise your answer would have been either "dogs are >> not animals" or "cats are not animals." >> >> So which is it? You claimed that humans are not animals due to a >> difference in DNA. It was pointed out that there's a difference in DNA >> between these two. So which one is not an animal? If you claim they are >> both animals even though the DNA is different, then how does >> "differences in DNA" make apes animals and humans not? > >I stated that one of the difference between mankind and apes is a >difference in DNA. Do you disagree with that statement? I don't think you know what you are talking about. If you had bothered to learn something about evolution instead of worshipping your own ignorance, you would understand that no one has identical genes. Are you a difference species than your parents? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:02:34 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in <AYd9i.18700$px2.16234@bignews4.bellsouth.net>: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:Jason-0406072334330001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... .... >> How did the energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? > >Who knows????? I've told you this many times before, you lying Christian. > Most importantly, he does not. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his speculative claim. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:51:54 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. The short answer is that your memory about this is wrong, it is particularly wrong at the quantum level. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:39:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071539450001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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? It's not really true but its a reasonable rule of thumb at human scale. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:kdpb635atjucps0b83ti2gl5f2rht73nrr@4ax.com... > 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. I thought Loki also because it would be hard to be this dense naturally. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:32:54 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. And you cannot tell the difference between a writing that is two thousand years old and a story that has evolved over that period. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:30:21 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071530220001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 > None are related to any physical science. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071516570001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? In our universe it didn't. >> >> > 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. Don't care to address the above? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071553140001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f44l1m$7tv$01$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <jyi9i.18812$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 > > I don't believe that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If someone > invented a time machine, it would be easy to disprove that theory. They > could travel back into the time period prior to the Big Bang and film the > mass of energy before it expanded. Of course,I guess you believe the time > machine would not be able to do that since you appear to believe > everything that scientists tell you to believe. I doubt that you would be filming any energy. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:44:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071244010001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181028691.955306.172140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: .... >> 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. No, you do not. You have absolutely _no_ knowledge at all to support that claim. You really need to learn to use words properly and you completely misused the word "know" here. >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. She may have had a remission in Parkinson's. He may have had a remission in the tumor. It happens. There is no evidence that God had anything to do with either. If you think that God heals, why does he only heal things that are known to have remissions, but refuses to ever fix a missing limb? Does God hate amputees? -- "... There's glory for you." "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all." Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0506071519380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. They do mathematically. Of course I'm sure your mighty god would know. Of course he hasn't spoken since his creation by man so I doubt that we would learn anything from him. >> > >> >>> 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
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.