Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:39:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071939590001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. Jesus lost his temper at the thieves in the Temple. Did he lose the debate? Gish is one of the thieves in the Temple. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > (draw in breath) .... Oh, forget it. You won't get the point anyway. Tokay -- Hear the meaning within the word. William Shakespeare Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:30:35 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506072030360001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <fqrb6319gmon3uuupb9cgivpkqjifodb47@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence >from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in >God or Gods--that is evidence that God created life on this planet and the >information was passed from generation to generation. Bible scholars are >experts related to that evidence. > Not one of those are evidence related to any gods at all. You are the most stubbornly ignorant man I have ever had to deal with. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <6vlb63lrt8hi6n6t73ho57otd2mpice8nf@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snip > >> >> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so > >> >> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? > >> >> > > >> >> > Columbia > >> >> > >> >> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a > >> >> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. > >> >> > >> >> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? > >> > > >> >Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit > >> >the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. > >> > > >> What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the > >> history of witchcraft? > > > >My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that > >covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates > >against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That > >college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons > >was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these > >same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? > > But if your example is Columbia teaching the history of witchcraft, > you should know that Union Theological Seminary is affiliated with > Columbia. And Universities are quite free to choose what deserves > tenure and what doesn't. > > >I would like your comments about this article: > > > > > >The Light-Distance Problem > >by David F. Coppedge > > > >Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how > >light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. > >People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to > >discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and > >seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously > >requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a > >result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the > >rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. > > > >For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have > >written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for > >dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of > >the Bible. > > > >A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical > >creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not > >getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have > >established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find > >it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of > >the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance > >problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. > > > >According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions > >from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny > >region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles > >going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each > >part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the > >problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all > >parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the > >cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If > >no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of > >temperature? > > > >The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular > >cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in > >1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued > >by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), > >the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with > >a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the > >expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise > >balance between the acceleration rate and density. > > > >Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of > >problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should > >begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is > >limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to > >be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by > >numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. > > > > David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion > >Laboratory. > >(The views expressed are his own.) > >jason > > > It basically says "Well, you don't have an answer for the > nonhomogeneity of the universe, so we are even." > > Then it lies. "Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem > should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. " > But the light-distance problem, of how light could get to us from many > millions of light years away in only 10,000 years, is NOT a problem > for science because the science indicates that the universe IS > billions of light years old. Thanks for explaining why he had problems with the 10,000 years. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:40:34 -0400, in alt.atheism "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in <5cm72rF31nb8kU1@mid.individual.net>: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:Jason-0506071307060001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>> >> snip >>> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten >>> >> > so >>> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >>> >> >>> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? >>> > >>> > Columbia >>> >>> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a >>> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. >>> >>> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? >> >> Columbia-- > >Wrong. > >I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit >> the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. > >I'm not interested - I'm just proving you that you were wrong when you >stated that a history of witchcraft was being taught as a college course. A >history class about the Salem witch trials is NOT the same thing. Most particularly because there was no witchcraft there, but there was certainly evil done by Christian believers. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:28:38 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071628390001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <6vlb63lrt8hi6n6t73ho57otd2mpice8nf@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: .... >> It basically says "Well, you don't have an answer for the >> nonhomogeneity of the universe, so we are even." >> >> Then it lies. "Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem >> should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. " >> But the light-distance problem, of how light could get to us from many >> millions of light years away in only 10,000 years, is NOT a problem >> for science because the science indicates that the universe IS >> billions of light years old. > >Jim, >Thanks for your post. I typed "Big Bang Problems" and was shocked at the >number of sites related to that subject. I found this information at one >of sites--I welcome your comments: > > >Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang > >Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research > >A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle >for viability as a theory: > > 1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. > > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting >temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a >fireball. > > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many >adjustable parameters to make them work. > > 4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed >"walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. > > 5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just >the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all >redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. > > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. > > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite >universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. > > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be >the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. > > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient >evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher >redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars. > > 10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the >beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to >the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any >larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or >already dissipated. > >From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list >and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta >Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002. Please remember that these folks are trying to sell an extremely old (infinitely old?) universe. Ignore for a moment that their knowledge of scientific evidence is nearly as nonexistent as yours and their attitude toward evidence is every bit as cavalier. If they were right, they would still be telling you that you are wrong. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <husb63dfv5pgjcqsmm9pbgjnq7uu35e5cd@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > <...> > > > >Jim, > >Thanks for your post. I typed "Big Bang Problems" and was shocked at the > >number of sites related to that subject. I found this information at one > >of sites--I welcome your comments: > > > > > >Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang > > > >Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research > > > >A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle > >for viability as a theory: > > > > 1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. > > > > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting > >temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a > >fireball. > > > > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many > >adjustable parameters to make them work. > > > > 4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed > >"walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. > > > > 5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just > >the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all > >redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. > > > > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. > > > > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite > >universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. > > > > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be > >the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. > > > > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient > >evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher > >redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars. > > > > 10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the > >beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to > >the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any > >larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or > >already dissipated. > > > >From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list > >and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta > >Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002. > > > Interesting. The web site says "Scientifically viable challenges to > mainstream paradigms". I applaud that, if they are scientifically > viable, but I don't know either way. Do you? Science always has > unanswered questions and reasons to modify theories. > > If I were you I would contact Van Flandern and ask him it your > creation science approach is what he favors over big bang theory. We both know what Van Flandern would tell me. Many people (esp. if they are professors or reserachers) that are advocates of creation science keep their beliefs a secret for one simple reason. For those sorts of people to admit they are creationists--it could mean the end of their careers; not getting tenure; not getting promotions; and harassment from fellow workers. Before I retired, I only discussed my opinions about abortions and creation science to fellow Christians that had similar opinions. One of my bosses gave me some advice that helped me--he told me to not discuss religion or politics while at work. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <5cm72rF31nb8kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0506071307060001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> snip > >> >> > That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten > >> >> > so > >> >> > strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft > >> >> > >> >> And this is being taught where, exactly? > >> > > >> > Columbia > >> > >> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a > >> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. > >> > >> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? > > > > Columbia-- > > Wrong. > > I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit > > the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. > > I'm not interested - I'm just proving you that you were wrong when you > stated that a history of witchcraft was being taught as a college course. A > history class about the Salem witch trials is NOT the same thing. In one of the states, they want to teach a high school class entitled, "The Bible as History". Would you be in favor of a state high school teaching such a course? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:22:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506071922100001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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." > Tokay Pino Gris was right. You did not get it. You have no clue what is going on. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:31 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506072056320001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181091387.615038.91810@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >Don't they still have a search engine at their site. Use it to find >reports on almost any subject that comes to mind. They include a well >written article in every issue of the newsletter. Those articles become >part of the websites data base. > Articles are not evidence. The articles at ICR don't even refer to evidence. How much did they take you for? It appears that it must have been a lot, otherwise you wouldn't keep defending those thieves and liars. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <f44pgr$612$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f44fq9$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 I googled "miracle healings" and found lots of sites. This is one of them: THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. KENT Giving all the Praise, Honor and Glory unto the Lord through whom this testimony is made possible this eleventh day of November 2000. Edited this 20th day of December to include the following quote from my Doctor, Dr. Dino Delaportas, MD "I rejoice in awe of you and the miracles the Lord has performed." My physician, as evidenced in the enclosed document, has confirmed the miracles I received from the Lord during a Faith and Victory Service at the World Harvest Church with Pastor Rod Parsley delivering the Word on November 5th, 2000. On Monday the 13th of May 1985 I was involved in a motorcycle v. train accident which resulted in a Closed Head Injury (massive traumatic brain injury), Ruptured Optic Nerve (right eye), and Spinal Injuries. These injuries left me a quadriplegic (no use of my lower extremities and only partial use of my right hand with no feeling on my entire right side) cognitive deficits and short-term memory loss. As you can imagine these injuries were tremendously life changing. However, being a Born Again Christian, as well as having been an Emergency Medical Technician for several years before my accident, I was better situated in overcoming my injuries and moving forward with my life. Although I was confined to a wheelchair I was able to continue through Him in my education at Salisbury State University, Hagerstown Junior College, and Prince George's Community College where I was a student in General Studies and Para-Legal Studies. While attending Salisbury State University in 1987, I became involved in wheelchair sports and excelled in Shooting. Over the next three years God blessed me with 39 Gold Medals, 14 Silver, and 3 Bronze and opportunities to compete in Regional, State, National, International, World Championships, and the 1988 Paralympics in Seoul, South Korea. During this time God also blessed me with 19 National and World Records. In 1993, while attending Prince George's Community College, I was blessed in an internship with Judge William D. Missouri the Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (the first such internship in the Para-Legal program). During the time between 1994 - June 2000, I went through a lot of turmoil in both my personal and professional life and was separated in faith through choice and ignorance - I thought I knew better without the Lord - was I ever wrong. This was perhaps the most destructive time in my life. I attempted suicide twice, lost the love of my life (so I thought), lost a business, and lots of friends. Finally in July 2000, due to circumstances beyond my control, I was stuck at my Sister-in-Christ's house with a broken down van. During this time I was lead back to the Lord and magnificent things started happening. I became so full of the Spirit that I lost control and have completely surrendered unto Him. I became active in the Church (The Tabernacle Church of Laurel, MD) and have been working on computers at the church since. About three weeks before the November 5th service at the World Harvest Church the Lord moved in me that I needed to be in Columbus, Ohio on November 5th. I didn't know why. I didn't know anyone in Columbus nor had I ever heard of Pastor Rod Parsley or the World Harvest Church. Then about two weeks later I saw in infomercial about a Dept Burning Service at the World Harvest Church and the fact that the church was located in Columbus, Ohio. The Lord immediately came over me and led me to call the church right then to get the information, which ultimately lead to my being there on November 5th. On the evening of Thursday, November 2nd I went to service at the Tabernacle Church in Laurel, MD and gave testimony that the Lord had placed it on my heart that I was to go to the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio and that I was to receive a healing - just what healing I didn't know as I had several ailments. Pastor Gurley then prayed over me for a healing that manifested the next morning with the feeling being restored to my right hand. Later that Thursday evening Pastor Gurley took an offering in order that my gas be covered to get me to Columbus - otherwise, without this blessing from God, I would not have been able to receive the awesome blessing that the Lord has provided. Upon arrival at the World Harvest Church I called into the church from the parking lot, on my cell phone to speak with Ed McKee to see if there was some type accommodation that I may freshen up after my more than 400 mile drive. During this conversation I was informed that Ed was not there and that I had called in on the Prayer Line and the offer was extended for prayer. I accepted the offer and during this prayer a burning sensation came over my feet and I knew that the Lord was once again at work in my body and at that point I declared through Him that I would be healed and that I would accept His blessing that would enable me to walk. I revealed this to the prayer partner and asked that she keep an eye out for this miracle and then come shake my hand afterward so that I may meet her and thank her for agreeing in this healing. During the service at the World Harvest Church on November 5th Pastor Parsley called all those with diabetes to come forward - and while I was up there the Pastor named several other afflictions and during this time I could feel the Lord working on my body and when I went to adjust myself in my wheelchair one of your ushers asked if I was trying to get out of my chair - and before I had a chance to respond the Spirit took control and spoke through me and said "I'm going to jump out of this chair in thirty seconds" - well guess what? - in thirty seconds I was standing for the first time in 15 1 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <g3sb63lo2n8tu5v6acovru7qnvep4c7c8u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:37:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506071537080001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f44fq9$iso$02$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > ... > > >> > >> 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" > > > Where is the evidence that God had anything to do with it? > > There isn't. You know there isn't. I googled "miracle healings" and found lots of sites. This was my favorite: About & Contact this project en espanol Search Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:11:29 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) once again proves that he has no clue what science is or how it works with this nonsense <Jason-0506072111300001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <l67c63p9endm4gd56li71t0ckkurrpuouj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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>: .... >> >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. > >So if scientists arrive at a consensus that time did not exist prior to >the Big Bang than people like yourself just accept it without question. Not without question. The questions have been answered. You were in the other room making really loud sounds so you wouldn't hear the answers. >When someone says, "the emperor has no clothing"--everyone is shocked. >They may even say, "that's an ignorant opinion". You have demonstrated that your opinion is ignorant. You have demonstrated that you do not want to learn. -- "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 Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <0u4hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:10:58 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Bob, > > Thanks for telling me your opinions on this subject. I have read about > > some of the problems with the theory. Do you know anything about the > > problems that the experts are having with the Big Bang theory? > > Here's one: it has been suggested that we are informationally isolated > from events "before" Planck time, as "before" this, the laws of physics as > we know them break down. > > What this means is that it may well be essentially meaningless to even > speak of "before this time" as we cannot be sure that time itself, let > alone any implied directionality thereof, was in effect, or, if it was, > what if any implications this has on anything from origins to expansion. Thanks for your post. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181089429.327200.94360@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis. > > And written "evidence" that has not been authenticated or witnessed is > dismissed as fraudulent. Every day. > > Martin Some archeologists and paleontologists are experts in regard to written evidence related to ancient civiliizations. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:21:42 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0506072121420001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181091605.694271.234520@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> Except all the evidence supporting the second law of thermodynamics. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics >> >> Martin > >Interesting point. Is it your opinion that all of the energy in the >universe was in the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang? That is what the Big Bang theory tells us. >Is it possible that there was some energy that was outside (or not part of) >the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory does not say that. >If there was some energy that was not part of the mass of energy that >expanded--would that mean that physics and time did exist prior to the Big >Bang? The Big Bang theory does not allow for your speculative wishes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <fqrb6319gmon3uuupb9cgivpkqjifodb47@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in God or Gods--that is evidence that God created life on this planet and the information was passed from generation to generation. Bible scholars are experts related to that evidence. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In alt.atheism On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:32:54 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. That's nice, but reality isn't like a court, m'laddio. Now address my answers to your questions. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <Jason-0506071605360001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I have a copy of the book and have read most of it. I will not try to > explain his interesting theory. Well.... if it's interesting, it must be true... even if no facts back it up. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <u63hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:11:55 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> To you??????? A task more difficult than creating the universe. I have a > >> book in my library, "Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis", that only scratches > >> the surface. It is 594 pages( I know you're big on pages) of mathematical > >> formulas and explanations. If you want to borrow it sometime I'll be more > >> than happy to lend it to you. Or you can go to your local library and > >> check-out a copy. Yes Jason, I know the basics of how that happened but I > >> sure don't plan on explaining to someone as dishonest as you. Say Jason, > >> tell me again how Jesus holds together the nucleus of an atom. > > > Is this your method of not answering my question? > > No. It is his method of saying he actually paid - in money, in time and > in effort - to acquire an education, something you obviously failed to do, > and to point out that he is not responsible for providing you such an > education for free. > > Part of the problem you're having is that you are trying to understand > some fairly complex subjects, but the questions you ask and the way you > ask them are, at least in part, things you should have dealt with in high > school at the latest. > > For example, someone could ask me about how to write a computer program > and I'd be happy to explain it. However, if I have to first teach them > what a keyboard is and how it works and what it does, then what a monitor > is and how it works and what it does, just to get them to the point where > they grasp the concepts of input and output necessary to create the code, > it simply isn't worth trying to explain; if they want to learn how > programs are written, let them take the time and effort to learn the > very basic concepts of what a computer is and what it does, then ask me. > > On the other end of the scale, there's a similar problem; it's one thing > to ask how to write a program; it's something else entirely to ask someone > to explain, on their own time, how all the significant parts of a > multi-million line application work. > > You persist in running into both sides; you fail to demonstrate a grasp of > even the basics, so there's little reason to feel a need to waste the time > to give you the education you can't be bothered to get yourself, yet you > persist in asking about the most intensely detailed and complex side of > things which require far too much time and effort to explain to someone > who hasn't studied the subject themselves. > > In short, the correct answer to both of your failings is to suggest you > simply get an education, if you're remotely serious about learning the > answers to your questions. Get some books out of the library, read some > web-based references, etc. People are happy to recommend good, solid, > valid references... but not to spend the next five years explaining it > all to you in terms you can cope with. You appear to know a lot of information about complex subjects but it was clear from the responses to my questions that evolution and science does not have all of the answers. I googled "Big Bang Problems". I was shocked at the sites that appeared. Mankind did not come about as a result of random gene mutations. Since you know much more about math than I know, you can run the probabilities on your computer with a statistical program about all of the millions of mutations that had to happen before the first humans arrived on this earth. That leads to another question: Assuming that mankind evolved from a living cell, how many gene mutations would be needed? The truth is that God made mankind; some animals and some plants. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in. Much of what Darwin taught about natural selection is true. Over 90 people that have Ph.D degrees agree with me. They figured it out and are willing to let the world know that they are advocates of creation science. Only God knows how many professors, scientists and researchers are closet creationists. They know that if the annouce they are creationists--they may be: harrassed by fellow workers; denied tenure; never promoted; fired; or be the victims of redicule. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181091387.615038.91810@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Don't they still have a search engine at their site. Use it to find reports on almost any subject that comes to mind. They include a well written article in every issue of the newsletter. Those articles become part of the websites data base. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <l67c63p9endm4gd56li71t0ckkurrpuouj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. So if scientists arrive at a consensus that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang than people like yourself just accept it without question. When someone says, "the emperor has no clothing"--everyone is shocked. They may even say, "that's an ignorant opinion". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <1181091605.694271.234520@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Interesting point. Is it your opinion that all of the energy in the universe was in the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang? Is it possible that there was some energy that was outside (or not part of) the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang? If there was some energy that was not part of the mass of energy that expanded--would that mean that physics and time did exist prior to the Big Bang? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bjqs9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:30:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506072030360001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <fqrb6319gmon3uuupb9cgivpkqjifodb47@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence > >from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in > >God or Gods--that is evidence that God created life on this planet and the > >information was passed from generation to generation. Bible scholars are > >experts related to that evidence. > > > Not one of those are evidence related to any gods at all. You are the > most stubbornly ignorant man I have ever had to deal with. The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> If I were you I would contact Van Flandern and ask him it your >> creation science approach is what he favors over big bang theory. > >We both know what Van Flandern would tell me. He seems pretty iconoclastic to me. >Many people (esp. if they >are professors or reserachers) that are advocates of creation science keep >their beliefs a secret for one simple reason. For those sorts of people to >admit they are creationists--it could mean the end of their careers; not >getting tenure; not getting promotions; and harassment from fellow >workers. Before I retired, I only discussed my opinions about abortions >and creation science to fellow Christians that had similar opinions. One >of my bosses gave me some advice that helped me--he told me to not discuss >religion or politics while at work. I will be away until next Tuesday. Cheers. 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.