Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181029533.139344.202...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed > > > down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of > > > written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations. > > > Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had > > > legends that were passed down from generation to generation about God or > > > Gods. > > > You've just proven that primitive people everywhere have a vivid > > imagination. Do you mind me cutting and pasting this paragraph the > > next time I need to prove in just a few lines that God doesn't exist? > > You can do all of the cutting and pasting that you want to do. You may do > everything that you want to do to prove that God does not exist. > > I could spend a year proving that Taiwan does not exist. If my conclusion > was that Taiwan did not exist, would my conclusion be correct? You have to realize that when we call you a blithering idiot, Jason, we are not so much insulting you as telling you something you need to know. If you had ever had children, you would be embarassing them right now. Hint: God is imaginary. You proved that yourself: people various cultures have imagined various gods. Taiwan is not imaginary: everybody sees the same Taiwan. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 4:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f441ch$9c...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <oppej4-agk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > > >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > > >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > > > > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed > > > several other Christians and myself. > > > What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > > deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to > > not comprehend? > > > I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, > > instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > > > (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > > I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. I was present when he > debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, > he won that debate. Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I > debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. > Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed > that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. > Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. How can anyone "win" a debate without presenting any evidence? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:15 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0506071217330001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article <f43nh2$ve...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@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. We know that the human brain is a biological machine subject to the second law of thermodynamics. The "arrow of time" is determined by the order in which we remember events occuring. If our brain obeys the second law of thermodynamics then, of course, what we see is the entire universe time developing in the same direction. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 3:22 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0506071251550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1181031352.198793.304...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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. Entropy can increase without bounds so while thermodynamics implies a beginning it doesn't imply an end. > 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. That doesn't sound right. I think you are confusing gravitational potential energy with the strength of the gravitational force. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 5:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <USj9i.16079$FN5.4...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0506070023440001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > Martin > > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. > > > Gish's book > > >> > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. > > >> > > > > >If > > >> > you want > > >> > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you > > >> > will have > > >> > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option > > > would be to > > >> > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" > > > into their > > >> > > > > >search engine. > > >> > > > > >jason > > > >> > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you have > > >> > > > > no > > >> > > > > reason, unless you give me one. > > > >> > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the > > >> > > > "Cambrian > > >> > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots > > > of sites > > >> > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your own > > >> > > > google > > >> > > > search. > > > >> > > How is that evidence for creation? > > > >> > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This > > >> > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are > > >> > > killed > > >> > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY > > >> > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not > > >> > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of > > >> > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been > > >> > > proposed. > > > >> > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Gish > > >> > and > > >> > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. > > > >> No. They don't. I've checked. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the > > > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence > > > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in > > > his book? > > > Jasson > > > Good move Jason. You assert that Gish discussed fossil evidence in his book > > and then you want others to provide the evidence :-))))). How deceitful of > > you. Tell me Jason, will your god send you to hell for lying? > > I am not planning to buy another copy of that book to prove a point. If > other people want to buy the book to prove that I am or am not telling the > truth, that is okay with me. There are people here who HAVE read it and are reporting that it contains no evidence. You didn't answer my question, Jason. If the people at ICR have evidence for creationism then why don't they present any on their website? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 6:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f44fl3$iso$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f43nh2$ve...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > >>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>> "Jason" <J...@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. Except all the evidence supporting the second law of thermodynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 6:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f44f9m$i9o$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1181029533.139344.202...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 5, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >>> Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed > > >>> down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of > > >>> written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations. > > >>> Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had > > >>> legends that were passed down from generation to generation about God or > > >>> Gods. > > >> You've just proven that primitive people everywhere have a vivid > > >> imagination. Do you mind me cutting and pasting this paragraph the > > >> next time I need to prove in just a few lines that God doesn't exist? > > > >> Martin > > > > You can do all of the cutting and pasting that you want to do. You may do > > > everything that you want to do to prove that God does not exist. > > > Nobody can prove "God does not exist". It is the null hypothesis. It is > > your job to falsify it. > > I know a woman that was healed by God God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 6:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f44fi1$iso$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <012b63tujucr4kb7leki9b6pspv2djo...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:34 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >>> In article <2ra963tlfdpeerookdfam9m6d3hpmv3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >>>> <Jason-0406071611550...@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >>>>> In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h9...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > >>>>> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>> know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came > to be > > >>>>>> Could you summarize their explanation? > > >>>>> God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some > > >>>>> animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution took over. I > > >>>>> am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory was mainly > > >>>>> related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as a result > > >>>>> of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't > accept > > >>>>> the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and > abiogenesis. > > >>>>> See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response. > > > >>>> 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? > 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 This is evidence that people have a lot of imagination. This evidence proves your god doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Jun 6, 6:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Present some evidence from that book. Because Henry Morris' article on ICR didn't contain ANY evidence. I posted it here already, remember? It was filled with lies, assertions and suppositions. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181090287.049708.251120@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 3:22 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > news:Jason-0506071251550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1181031352.198793.304...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > Entropy can increase without bounds so while thermodynamics implies a > beginning it doesn't imply an end. > > > 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. > > That doesn't sound right. I think you are confusing gravitational > potential energy with the strength of the gravitational force. > > Martin Martin, Is this a natural law: The total energy of an isolated system can not change. If it is a natural law, it seems to be in conflict with this statement that you made: "It is possible to get something from nothing". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <ke9hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:39:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > 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? > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. thanks Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <ssub635vimbr8j7fv42mn8c519oun1s1t3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506071544200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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? > > There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to > Planck time. > > >It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe > >almost anything that scientists tell them to believe. > > > Nope, they are willing to accept evidence. > > You, on the other hand, reject evidence to worship lies. I doubt that there is evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Evidence? Yes. Evidence you are likely to be able to comprehend? No. We know we live in a spacetime continuum. The two are strongly linked as we know from the experiments that proved relativity which both of us should be able to google. So, without space you could not have time. Try to imagine the time dimension without a space dimension. It makes no sense; you have zero space for any action to occur that would it make it possible to keep track of time, or to do anything else for that matter. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <ssub635vimbr8j7fv42mn8c519oun1s1t3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506071544200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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? > > There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to > Planck time. > > >It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe > >almost anything that scientists tell them to believe. > > > Nope, they are willing to accept evidence. > > You, on the other hand, reject evidence to worship lies. I doubt that there is evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:40:13 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f43lu5$90f$01$2@news.t-online.com> >Jim07D7 wrote: >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> I said: >> >>>> Well, we will never have an answer to the next question "but why is >>>> that?". >>>> >>>> How does putting God in the theory, solve this problem? After all, the >>>> logical question is, "But why God?" >>> If you have read the other posts, you will know that the advocates of >>> evolution don't really know how the energy that expanded during the Big >>> Bang came to be. They either refuse to answer or are honest enough to say >>> that they don't know the answer. Putting an intelligent designer (God) >>> into the theory solves lots of problems. For example, I know how the >>> energy that exploded came to be. God also casued the expansion to take >>> place. >> >> God of the gaps. > >And on the run. First, he was in the gaps of biology, we chased him >away. Then he was in the gaps in abiogenesis, we chased him away. Now he >is in the gaps of physics. He will be on the run there soon as well. When he get's to the "god of the gap between his ears", he'll be zeroing in on the truth. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 05:10:18 -0700, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: - Refer: <0eka63172j2btkhkiegv1jfr1b6f1rgcg6@4ax.com> >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >I said: >>> What makes you not accept that God could have created an early life >>> form that evolved to mankind, plants and animals? >> >>The first chapter of Genesis is the basis of creation science. It clearly >>states that God created mankind, plants and animals. It does not give a >>detailed list of the plants and animals. It's my guess that all of the >>plants and animals in the world today evolved from those original plants >>and animals that God created. > >What makes you believe Genesis is correct? A subtle mix of brutal child abuse and aqcuired brain damage. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <2j8hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > 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 is more correct to say that we cannot measure time before the Big Bang. > > The Big Bang is what caused our spacetime to exist. That spacetime is > what we measure space - and time - in; it provides the events, the > observable things, the change in entropy, which allows us to determine > that time actually passes. > > "Prior" to this - if such a phrase even makes sense - we have no way to > measure events, as we are inside a "bubble" of spacetime and our > measurements are solely able to meaningfully discuss the events we can > observe - namely, events which, like us, are inside that "bubble". > > To speak of "before" is to imply something which existed or occurred > before this bubble ever existed, but we cannot really speak meaningfully > of it, as there is no way for us to observe it - it is _outside_ the > bubble, we are _inside_. > > Thus to even say "time did (or didn't) exist prior to the Big Bang" is to > assume that the very concept "before the big bang" is itself meaningful, > but that implies duration - time - and that, in turn, implies something we > can in some way measure, some sequence of events; if, however, we are > limited to seeing events inside the bubble, we cannot measure such > events outside, so we cannot say that the concept of time itself had any > meaning "before", or that "before" has any meaning. > > All we can do is examine what happened after - and even there, we can only > examine so far, as "prior" to that (again, if the concept of "prior" or > time has any meaning at all in such cases) it is suggested that the > expansion was simply too hot to sustain things in a manner which allow for > observation. > > In essence, at some point, according to the hypothesis and the evidence we > do have, there was a singularity, a point at which the laws of physics as > we know them break down. If they do, in fact, break down then we cannot > rely on them to probe further. > > Was there time "prior to the big bang"? Wrong question. The proper > question is what does "prior to the big bang" mean, unless you can > establish that time actually did exist, and in a manner which we would be > able to detect? Thanks for your post. It's my opinion that time did exist prior to the Big Bang. Saying "it is more correct to say that we can not measure time before the Big Bang" makes much more sense than saying that "time did not exist prior to Big Bang." Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:07:56 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >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? Perhaps he is thinking of Lillian Gish? ( I use the term in its loosest possible sense) -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:57:33 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f44q3l$ivt$01$3@news.t-online.com> >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? Inventor of "The Gish Gallop". A world renowned fraudster's technique of throwing a continuous stream of high speed outrageous lies in an attempt to shut up any opposition. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181089702.526388.254870@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181031871.487229.89...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. > > > > Gish's book > > > > > > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If > > > > > > you want > > > > > > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you > > > > > > will have > > > > > > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option > > > > would be to > > > > > > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" > > > > into their > > > > > > > > > >search engine. > > > > > > > > > >jason > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you > > have no > > > > > > > > > reason, unless you give me one. > > > > > > > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the > > "Cambrian > > > > > > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and found lots > > > > of sites > > > > > > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your > > own google > > > > > > > > search. > > > > > > > > > How is that evidence for creation? > > > > > > > > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major extinction. This > > > > > > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms are killed > > > > > > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY > > > > > > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution is not > > > > > > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out periods of > > > > > > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been > > > > > > > proposed. > > > > > > > > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. > > Gish and > > > > > > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. > > > > > > > No. They don't. I've checked. > > > > > > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish discussed the > > > > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence > > > > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion fossils in > > > > his book? > > > > > I've checked the IRC website. Do Morris and Gish have any reason NOT > > > to present their supposed evidence on their website? > > > I believe the information was in his fossil book. > > So you admit that the IRC website contains NO evidence for > creationism. > > We are finally making progress. > > Martin I believe the ICR website contains some excellent information. I disagree with them in regard to the earth being only 10,000 years old. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <ll8hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:45:57 -0700, 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. > > That would be his collected lies, his foundation of dishonesty, or his > outright frauds? The curious wish to know. He was an author and excellent debater. I saw him, in my opinion, win a debate with a science professor from the local state college. I debated that same professor (in his office) and he easily won his debate with me. However, when he debated Dr. Gish a week later--that same professor lost that debate mainly because he lost his temper and started "name calling". I guess you could understand why I enjoyed watching Dr. Gish as he remained calm while that professor was acting like a spoiled brat. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <lkub639s9o4sq1h4n626gtsm5qasut32su@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> [snips] > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > >> >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > >> > > >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed > >> > several other Christians and myself. > >> > >> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to > >> not comprehend? > >> > >> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, > >> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > >> > >> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > > > >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. > > Claims like this cause me not to respect you because you are so easily > gulled, but refuse to admit it. > > >I was present when he > >debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, > >he won that debate. > > You are wrong. Gish may have conned you, but he didn't win a debate. Unless you attended that same debate that I attended, how would you know. > > >Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I > >debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. > >Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed > >that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. > >Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. > > Gish lied. You bought his lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:13:09 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071913090001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ssub635vimbr8j7fv42mn8c519oun1s1t3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0506071544200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >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? >> >> There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to >> Planck time. >> >> >It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe >> >almost anything that scientists tell them to believe. >> > >> Nope, they are willing to accept evidence. >> >> You, on the other hand, reject evidence to worship lies. > >I doubt that there is evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. > So what? You have already demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge about science. You should be ashamed to offer an opinion about anything that you are ignorant of. You should be doubly ashamed to keep repeating your opinion when half a dozen people have repeatedly explained to you why your opinion is wrong. I already said that there is evidence that _physics as we know it_ did not exist prior to Planck Time. Time is an integral part of physics as we know it. You are free to do your job and offer evidence that time did exist prior to Planck Time. If you manage to, you would be on the short list for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Remember, in science no one cares about anyone's ignorant opinion. They care about evidence. It's pretty much backward from your approach to the world. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:25:22 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071925220001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181089702.526388.254870@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 6, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181031871.487229.89...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <1181022000.370051.68...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > On Jun 5, 4:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > In article >> > >> > <1180965414.666161.117...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > On Jun 4, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. >> > > > Gish's book >> > > > > > > > > >and can not provide you with the answers that you are >seeking. If >> > > > > > you want >> > > > > > > > > >to read about the fossil evidence that supports >creationism, you >> > > > > > will have >> > > > > > > > > >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option >> > > > would be to >> > > > > > > > > >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" >> > > > into their >> > > > > > > > > >search engine. >> > > > > > > > > >jason >> > >> > > > > > > > > I am interested in why you believe Gish, and now assume you >> > have no >> > > > > > > > > reason, unless you give me one. >> > >> > > > > > > > The main reason that comes to mind is what I learned about the >> > "Cambrian >> > > > > > > > Explosion" in Dr. Gish's book. I googled that term and >found lots >> > > > of sites >> > > > > > > > that had lots of information so you may also want to do your >> > own google >> > > > > > > > search. >> > >> > > > > > > How is that evidence for creation? >> > >> > > > > > > Often evolution gets a jumpstart following a major >extinction. This >> > > > > > > is a well known phenomenon: if 99.9%, say, of all lifeforms >are killed >> > > > > > > in, say, an asteroid collision then the surviving species are VERY >> > > > > > > different from what was typically seen before. So evolution >is not >> > > > > > > always gradual. Stephen J. Gould was first to point out >periods of >> > > > > > > rapid speciation. The extinction-explosion idea has since been >> > > > > > > proposed. >> > >> > > > > > Stephen J. Gould has his ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. >> > Gish and >> > > > > > ICR have their own ideas about the Cambrian Explosion. >> > >> > > > > No. They don't. I've checked. >> > >> > > > My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall that Dr. Gish >discussed the >> > > > Cambrian Explosion fossils in his fossil book. Do you have evidence >> > > > indicating that Dr. Gish did not discuss the Cambrian Explosion >fossils in >> > > > his book? >> > >> > > I've checked the IRC website. Do Morris and Gish have any reason NOT >> > > to present their supposed evidence on their website? >> >> > I believe the information was in his fossil book. >> >> So you admit that the IRC website contains NO evidence for >> creationism. >> >> We are finally making progress. >> >> Martin > >I believe the ICR website contains some excellent information. I disagree >with them in regard to the earth being only 10,000 years old. > At least you aren't totally out of touch with reality. Which of your other completely wrong opinions would you like to work on next? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:33:39 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071933390001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <lkub639s9o4sq1h4n626gtsm5qasut32su@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect >for that >> >> >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >> >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history >of lies, >> >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? >> >> > >> >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >> >> > several other Christians and myself. >> >> >> >> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to >> >> not comprehend? >> >> >> >> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, >> >> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? >> >> >> >> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) >> > >> >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. >> >> Claims like this cause me not to respect you because you are so easily >> gulled, but refuse to admit it. >> >> >I was present when he >> >debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, >> >he won that debate. >> >> You are wrong. Gish may have conned you, but he didn't win a debate. > >Unless you attended that same debate that I attended, how would you know. Because he has a reliable history of lying in his debates. He also has a reliable history of getting the religious suckers to claim that he won. He never engaged in a scientific debate, so there is no possibility that he ever won. >> >Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I >> >debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. >> >Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed >> >that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. >> >Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. >> >> Gish lied. You bought his lies. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181089796.976281.55140@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 4:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f441ch$9c...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <oppej4-agk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snips] > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that > > > >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > > >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > > > >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > > > > > > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed > > > > several other Christians and myself. > > > > > What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, > > > deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to > > > not comprehend? > > > > > I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was, > > > instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > > > > > (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > > > > I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. I was present when he > > debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, > > he won that debate. Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I > > debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. > > Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed > > that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. > > Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. > > How can anyone "win" a debate without presenting any evidence? > > Martin Martin, The main reason he won was because he remained calm while the professor from the college lost his temper and started name calling Dr. Gish. People in the crowd actually started "booing" the professor when he made a fool of himself. I talked to someone that attended a different debate. That science professor done his homework. He attended one of Dr. Gish's debates and took lots of notes. He was prepared to respond to every point that Dr. Gish made and that professor never lost his temper. The person that attended that debate claimed that Dr. Gish lost that debate. jason Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.