Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest Martin
Posted

On Jun 6, 11:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1181091387.615038.91...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 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?

>

> Don't they still have a search engine at their site. Use it to find

> reports on almost any subject that comes to mind.

 

I did a search as you asked. I found no evidence. You even admitted

that they had no evidence on the site and you assumed that they must

have the evidence hidden away in their books.

 

Martin

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Martin
Posted

On Jun 6, 12:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> 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.

 

And if scientists actually refuse to say what happened before Planck

time then what does that tell you? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

)

 

If we say "We don't know" then you say "Aha! You don't know!" but

when we tell you what we DO know you claim we don't have evidence and

are just pushing what we believe. Actually, Jason, that is what YOU

are doing, not us.

 

Martin

Guest Martin
Posted

On Jun 6, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1181091605.694271.234...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 6, 6:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > 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

> 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?

 

No, not according to inflationary theory.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_theory )

> 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?

 

It would require inflationary theory to be wrong but that would still

leave other support for big bang theory: inflationary theory was

proposed as a theory to explain the big bang. In any case, the

density of the universe is found to agree exactly with the predictions

of inflationary theory.

 

I think you're missing the bigger point here. You have 5.39121 x

10^-44 seconds to play with. Perhaps you want to argue that God

existed for that briefest period of time and then promptly disappeared

once everything got started. No physicist would care to disagree

because physics would have nothing to say about that period of time

and it wouldn't change the fact that no gods exist in the universe we

see today.

 

Martin

Guest Martin
Posted

On Jun 6, 12:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:30:35 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-0506072030360...@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <fqrb6319gmon3uuupb9cgivpkqjifod...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:30:21 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> <Jason-0506071530220...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >> >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.

 

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is mentioned in the book The God

Delusion. Does it exist?

 

<insert your answer here>

 

Thank you for yet again disproving the existance of your god.

 

Martin

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 24, 6:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <bfb953hvpdsr5itnpkkcrikcac0gbc4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

>

>

>

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:31:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-2205072231080...@66-52-22-53.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > ><phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > ...

>

> > >> Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic

> > >> countries.

>

> > >> Martin

>

> > >Martin,

> > >I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I

> > >know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is

> > >also legal in some foreign countries.

>

> > So, why don't you compare comparable crimes and find out whether your

> > hypothesis is valid? If your hypothesis is that religious countries have

> > fewer crimes, then the murder rate would be lower in the religious

> > country. The burglary, robbery, rape, assault and other acts that are

> > commonly called crimes throughout the world would also be lower. Is your

> > hypothesis valid or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

>

> > >We now have lots of gangs in large

> > >cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit

> > >lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not

> > >legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very

> > >many gun related crimes in foreign countries.

>

> > Wow, you are actually adding thoughtful complexity to the question.

>

> > >Would you agree that the

> > >crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in

> > >1900?

>

> > No. You'll have to provide evidence to support your claim. Of course we

> > didn't have the failed drug prohibition laws we have today, so you need

> > to account for that.

>

> > >If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their

> > >religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000.

> > >Jason

>

> > And if not, will you admit that your hypothesis is invalid?

>

> You are correct--lots of research would need to be done before we would

> know for sure.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

How come you now believe in research, I would have thought that bible

is the basis for everything you believe!

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 21, 3:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <oy84i.21436$YL5.12...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > >>>> <1179648828.383854.130...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

> > >>>> ...

> > >>>>>> Here's something else that could happen:

>

> > >>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to

> > > work in

> > >>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot.

>

> > >>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands

> > > and start

> > >>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's

> supplies of

> > >>>>>> anchovies.

>

> > >>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South

> > >>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton

> > >>> look-alikes.

> > >>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the

> > >>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that.

> > >>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario.

>

> > >>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi

> > >>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using

> > >>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks.

>

> > >>>>> Couldn't happen?

>

> > >>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

> > >>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

> > >>>>> people to kill each other.

> > >>>> Well said.

> > >>> Was Hitler an atheist?

> > >> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the

> > >> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses.

>

> > >> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

> > >>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union.

> > >> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a

> > >> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem.

>

> > >> What about Alexander the Great?

> > >>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

> > >>> conquer.

> > >> No idea.

>

> > >> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons.

> > >> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion

> > >> related ideologies.

> > >> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the

> > >> name of religion.

>

> > >> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They

> > >> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist

> > >> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they

> > >> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part.

>

> > >> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be

> > >> fundamentalist idiots.

> > >> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there

> > >> was no religion.

>

> > >> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And

> > >> quite often, that is the driving force behind it.

> > >> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more

> > >> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the

> > >> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent.

>

> > >> Tokay

>

> > > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have

> > > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin?

> > > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a

> > > war as a fundamentalist theist?

>

> > No, a fundamentalist theist is more likely to start wars because he or

> > she would be more inclined to do it in the name of whatever deities they

> > happened to worship.

>

> I hate to state it but based upon my understanding of history--you are

> correct. The next war will probably be started by a religious nutcase--the

> president of Iran. He actully stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of

> the world." Once he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel--we will have

> to retaliate--probably with our own Nukes.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

What have Isreal got to do with America?

Is it a state of US?

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 22, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <KLt4i.29705$Um6.7...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <oy84i.21436$YL5.12...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

> > > b...@nonespam.com wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > >>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

>

> > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > >>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > >>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

> > >>>>>> ...

> > >>>>>>>> Here's something else that could happen:

>

> > >>>>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to

> > >>> work in

> > >>>>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot.

>

> > >>>>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands

> > >>> and start

> > >>>>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's

> > > supplies of

> > >>>>>>>> anchovies.

>

> > >>>>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South

> > >>>>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton

> > >>>>> look-alikes.

> > >>>>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of

> course, the

> > >>>>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that.

> > >>>>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario.

>

> > >>>>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi

> > >>>>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using

> > >>>>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks.

>

> > >>>>>>> Couldn't happen?

>

> > >>>>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

> > >>>>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

> > >>>>>>> people to kill each other.

> > >>>>>> Well said.

> > >>>>> Was Hitler an atheist?

> > >>>> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the

> > >>>> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the

> masses.

>

> > >>>> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

> > >>>>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union.

> > >>>> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a

> > >>>> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem.

>

> > >>>> What about Alexander the Great?

> > >>>>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

> > >>>>> conquer.

> > >>>> No idea.

>

> > >>>> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons.

> > >>>> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion

> > >>>> related ideologies.

> > >>>> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the

> > >>>> name of religion.

>

> > >>>> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They

> > >>>> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist

> > >>>> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they

> > >>>> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part.

>

> > >>>> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be

> > >>>> fundamentalist idiots.

> > >>>> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there

> > >>>> was no religion.

>

> > >>>> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And

> > >>>> quite often, that is the driving force behind it.

> > >>>> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more

> > >>>> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the

> > >>>> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent.

>

> > >>>> Tokay

> > >>> I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have

> > >>> been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin?

> > >>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a

> > >>> war as a fundamentalist theist?

>

> > >> No, a fundamentalist theist is more likely to start wars because he or

> > >> she would be more inclined to do it in the name of whatever deities they

> > >> happened to worship.

>

> > > I hate to state it but based upon my understanding of history--you are

> > > correct. The next war will probably be started by a religious nutcase--the

> > > president of Iran. He actully stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of

> > > the world." Once he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel--we will have

> > > to retaliate--probably with our own Nukes.

>

> > I am not sure that we would be obligated to strike at Iran for doing

> > that. I would hope that the world would do it anyway.

>

> Israel is an ally of the US.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

So, now it's stupid for Iraqi not to have an ally whcih can in turn

invade US, as suggested by you........!

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 21, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179710639.262640.183...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

>

>

>

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 21, 12:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > > On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>

> > > > >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

> > > > >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

> > > > >people to kill each other.

>

> > > > Well said.

>

> > > Was Hitler an atheist?

>

> > No.

>

> > > Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

> > > thousands of people in the Soviet Union. What about Alexander the Great?

> > > Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

> > > conquer.

>

> > Stalin and Alexander obviously thought _they_ were God and had the

> > right to lord over others. Is that what you think?

>

> > Martin

>

> No--My point was that theists have killed lots of people but that atheists

> have also killed lots of people. Crazy dictators--regardless of whether

> they are theists or atheists are capable of killing thousands of people.

> The president of Iran recently stated: "Israel must be wiped off the map

> of the world." He is presently trying to build nuclear bombs.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

What are the nuke bombs made by US for?

And who nuke Hiroshima? Hundred of thousands dead!!!!

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 22, 10:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <0h5353dm7jlfq80nf32sm62a31n6f16...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 01:22:24 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > >In article <uo9253tbqkb1klgnalb3in9caht6sv3...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > ><ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:37:31 -0500, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>

> > >> wrote:

>

> > >> >No, there wouldn't be much chaos at all. If the US began using nuclear

> > >> >weapons there would be very many dead people, but that wouldn't

> > >> >necessarily imply chaos as a result.

>

> > >> If we really started dropping nukes there wouldn't be any chaos at all

> > >> ... after a few short weeks. That's about how long it would take for

> > >> the last person to die of radiation poisoning. BushCo would get its

> > >> wish - total annihilation.

>

> > >You snipped my post. Bush would not start the war.

>

> > Why not? He wants Armageddon - that's the fundamentalist goal. The

> > sooner the world ends, the sooner the millennium begins.

>

> > >The president of Iran stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map."

>

> > 1) You don't wipe Israel off the map by nuking the USA.

>

> > 2) You don't wipe Israel off the map by killing every Iranian with the

> > fallout if you're Iran. (Iran is downwind of Israel.)

>

> > 3) The Iranian president doesn't get to do what he wants - he does

> > what the council of religious leaders of the country tell him to do.

> > He can talk all he wants. If the world reacts badly, he can be

> > replaced. The same Mullahs are still in charge behind the scenes.

> > Everyone can identify the puppet, but no one knows who the puppeteers

> > are.

>

> > >If he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel, Bush would be obligated

> to retaliate.

>

> > If he sets up a missile with a nuke, Israel would be obligated to

> > eliminate it. And perfectly capable of knowing about it and taking it

> > out, too. (Where do you think we get most of our Mid-East intel? From

> > the under-achievement department at the CIA?)

>

> > >Israel probably has their own nukes and they would retaliate.

>

> > Most likely not with nukes, though. All they'd need would be a failed

> > gantry. Tip the missile over and Iran is all done. That needs only a

> > very tiny "bomb".

>

> > >It's my guess that

> > >Bush would use Nukes. However, it is also possible that Bush may use

> > >conventional weapons

>

> > It's my guess that Bush will make more mouth-noise.

>

> I just hope the Mullahs that are controlling the Iranian president are

> able to keep him from firing a nuke tipped missle at Israel. The president

> of Iran has stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world." He is

> a nut case and may do it.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

People with a big mouth may or may not do it.

However, people in the US had done it with nuke by killing hundred of

thousands at one go.....!

So, pls talk through your head!!!

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 27, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f39bov$8o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>

>

>

>

>

> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > I know that is what many scientists believe. However, there are other

> > > scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is

> > > playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been

> > > if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that

> > > believe that it is a natural cycle.

>

> > ...that human activity is making worse.

>

> > I.e. yes, there may be a natural cycle and maybe the earth would

> > normally warm by 2 degrees and the ice caps would shrink to 1/2 their

> > current size if humans had nothing to do with it. But instead, the earth

> > might warm by 4 degrees and the ice caps disappear completely due to our

> > actions (the above numbers were just as an illustration and I don't know

> > exactly what they expect the temperature to actually rise to, etc.)

>

> You explained it well but I am not sure of the exact numbers. One of the

> problems with Al Gore's movie is that he failed to take into consideration

> the significance of a natural cycle as the primary cause of global

> warming. Of course, some scientists believe that a natural cycle is not

> involved related to this case of global warming.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

But for you as a diehard christian, if we perish, it would include you

as well, right?

If so, what is the difference if we do not believe in your god?

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 26, 5:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180163778.288934.59...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> Martin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article

>

> > > <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com

> > > > > (Jason) wrot=

> > > > > > > > e:

> > > > > > > > > In article

>

> > > > > <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote

>

> > > > > > > > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer

> > > > > questions with a

> > > > > > > > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out

> that they

> > > > > are now

> > > > > > > > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those

> > > > > students ca=

> > > > > > > > me

> > > > > > > > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet

> > > > > would be

> > > > > > > > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was

> worried that

> > > > > she wo=

> > > > > > > > uld

> > > > > > > > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a

> > > > > crazy worl=

> > > > > > > > d=2E

> > > > > > > > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at

> > > > > America wh=

> > > > > > > > en

> > > > > > > > > > > >> I was a child.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught

> > > > > back then=

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your

> generation wasn't.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught

> > > about the

> > > > > > > > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't.

>

> > > > > > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting

> > > warmer since

> > > > > > > > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the

> > > question

> > > > > > > > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down.

>

> > > > > > > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow

> > > > > it down.

>

> > > > > > > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but

> they now say

> > > > > > > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning

> of fossil

> > > > > > > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the

> > > > > > > > cause.

>

> > > > > > > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a

> > > natural

> > > > > > > cycle.

>

> > > > > > But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process,

> > > > > > scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again.

>

> > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they

> > > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in.

>

> > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the

> > > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By

> > > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd

> > > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to

> > > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as

> > > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can

> > > > all be rescued. :)

>

> > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue

> > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries

> > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to

> > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone

> > > else on the lifeboat.

>

> > And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One

> > problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than

> > the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US,

> > they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not

> > fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone

> > else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord

> > so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the

> > world.

>

> > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China

> > andhttp://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS)

>

> Of course, the key question is will they abide by the accord? Of course,

> if the US voted to approve it--we would abide by the accord. Clinton did

> NOT want it approved while he was president since he knew it would destoy

> our economy. That's also the reason Bush does not want it approved while

> he is president.

> Do you really think that global warming would no longer be a problem if

> all countries abided by the Kyoto accord? All of those other countries

> know that we would be about the only country that would abide by the

> provisions which is the reason they approved it.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

A very distorted opinion here expressed by you!

While it never occur to you that US as the superpower should lead?

Or should US the only country in this world to care about themselves

while others need not?

What a hypocritic view>>!

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On May 27, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180182471.779597.291...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 26, 5:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1180163778.288934.59...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George

>

> > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article

>

> <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

>

>

>

>

> > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> > > Martin

>

> > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > > > In article

>

> > > > > <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com

> > > > > > > (Jason) wrot=

> > > > > > > > > > e:

> > > > > > > > > > > In article

>

> > > > > > > <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone

> <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote

>

> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

>

>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer

> > > > > > > questions with a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out

> > > that they

> > > > > > > are now

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One

> of those

> > > > > > > students ca=

> > > > > > > > > > me

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that

> the planet

> > > > > > > would be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was

> > > worried that

> > > > > > > she wo=

> > > > > > > > > > uld

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real

> world is a

> > > > > > > crazy worl=

> > > > > > > > > > d=2E

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear

> missiles at

> > > > > > > America wh=

> > > > > > > > > > en

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was a child.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we

> were taught

> > > > > > > back then=

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your

> > > generation wasn't.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught

> > > > > about the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting

> > > > > warmer since

> > > > > > > > > > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend

> and the

> > > > > question

> > > > > > > > > > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to

> slow it down.

>

> > > > > > > > > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can

> do to slow

> > > > > > > it down.

>

> > > > > > > > > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but

> > > they now say

> > > > > > > > > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning

> > > of fossil

> > > > > > > > > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as

> being the

> > > > > > > > > > cause.

>

> > > > > > > > > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe

> it is a

> > > > > natural

> > > > > > > > > cycle.

>

> > > > > > > > But based on the theory that the warming was simply a

> natural process,

> > > > > > > > scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again.

>

> > > > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler

> again but they

> > > > > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in.

>

> > > > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the

> > > > > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By

> > > > > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd

> > > > > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to

> > > > > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as

> > > > > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can

> > > > > > all be rescued. :)

>

> > > > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue

> > > > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries

> > > > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to

> > > > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone

> > > > > else on the lifeboat.

>

> > > > And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One

> > > > problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than

> > > > the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US,

> > > > they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not

> > > > fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone

> > > > else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord

> > > > so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the

> > > > world.

>

> (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China

>

> > > > andhttp://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS)

>

> > > Of course, the key question is will they abide by the accord? Of course,

> > > if the US voted to approve it--we would abide by the accord. Clinton did

> > > NOT want it approved while he was president since he knew it would destoy

> > > our economy.

>

> > Actually, democracy demands that something like the Kyoto Accord

> > requires a new mandate. Gore did run as an environmental candidate

> > but voters in his own state voted for Bush. Again, logically it is

> > Americans that don't care for other people in the world.

>

> > Martin

>

> Martin,

> Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to cause harm to the economy while they

> were presidents. It's related to the building of their legacies. I am glad

> that the Kyoto Accord was not approved. The reason is because I care about

> the millions of people that work in American factories. If the Kyoto

> Accord is approved in America--even more factories will close down. It's

> cheaper to close down a factory than to install billions of dollars worth

> of pollution equipment. The problem with the Kyoto Accord is that

> countries like China will sign it but will do little or nothing to abide

> by it. That is the nature of Communist countries--they sign agreements and

> usually do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, environmentalists

> would DEMAND that America abide by all provisions of the Kyoto Accord and

> they will get their way. If America becomes the only country in the world

> that abides by the Kyoto Accord, that means the world problems related to

> C02 levels and pollution will get worse and not better.

> Jason

> Jason- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

A very distorted view, indeed bias to the most extreme....!

When you are a millionare, if you care very much other people are not

millionares, then I would respect you. But unfortunately, you are not

that kind but an arrogant american!

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in

 

snip

>

> 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.

 

Oh bullshit. Does that mean that fairies and vampires exist too, because

there are lots of ancient stories about them as well. Sheesh!

 

Bible scholars are

> experts related to that evidence.

 

You misspelled "bullshit".

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

 

So what? That doesn't mean it exists.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in

 

snip

>

> 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?

 

I honestly couldn't care less as long as it was an elective and not

mandatory.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506072024390001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

 

So? That doesn't mean that god(s) exist.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Mike
Posted

Ralph wrote:

> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

> news:kdpb635atjucps0b83ti2gl5f2rht73nrr@4ax.com...

>> It is possible that you are one of the best Lokis ever here or you are

>> one of the densest Liars for the Lord. Maybe when it gets to people like

>> you there is no difference. You are your own parody.

>

> I thought Loki also because it would be hard to be this dense naturally.

 

But Jason does hard things in a split second (the impossible, like

producing a god, takes a bit longer.)

Guest Mike
Posted

Martin Phipps wrote:

> 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.

 

Thanx. Thanx a HELL of a LOT for putting the picture of Jason

reproducing into my head. Now I'm going to be in therapy for the rest of

my LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

>

> 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

>

Guest Mike
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <f43nh2$vee$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <a829i.22312$KC4.2371@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>> That is true. I was wanting to go even further back into the history of

>>>>> the solar system than the Big Bang. I want to know how the mass of energy

>>>>> (that expanded during the Big Bang) came to be.

>>>>> If you don't know the answer--just tell me. Several people are trying

>>>>> there best to find reasons to avoid answering this question. One person

>>>>> was honest enough to say that he did not know the answer.

>>>>> Jason

>>>> Uhh...Jason, what is your definition of the solar system?

>>> source: Webster's Dictionary:

>>> solar system--the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are

>>> held together by its attraction and revolve around it; also a similar

>>> system centered on another star.

>> Ok, so you can quote a dictionary. Now use that to understand how

>> meaningless "go even further back into the history of the solar system

>> than the Big Bang" is.

>>

>> The big bang was NOT part of the history of the solar system since the

>> big bang happened 13 billion years ago (approx) and the solar system

>> formed 4.5-5 billion years ago (approx.)

>>

>> Also, if you knew anything about the big bang, you'd know there was no

>> "further back" than it since time itself started at the big bang.

>

> Do you have evidence that "time started at the big bang"?

 

Yes. Read a book on cosmology or thermodynamics.

>>> Are you trying to avoid answering my question: the question is

>>> How did the mass of energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be?

>> We don't know. But if you claim that it came to be because of god then

>> "How did god come to be?"

>

> I don't know how God came to be.

 

Then how do you know that god DID come to be?

Guest Ralph
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

 

Do you worship Shamash?

Guest Ralph
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0506071502460001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <nVj9i.16080$FN5.13235@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Jason-0406072354530001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <1mpej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> [snips]

>> >>

>> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:59:23 -0700, Jason wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >> >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false

>> >> >> >information?

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> The evidence says they are.

>> >> >

>> >> > I disagree. There are at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees

>> >>

>> >> You know, that's a big part of your problem - you let someone else do

>> >> your

>> >> thinking for you. "They have degrees, so they must be right, I should

>> >> believe them." It's bullshit. Either what they say - their claims

>> >> and

>> >> the support for them - holds up, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it

>> >> makes

>> >> no difference if they have 90 PhDs or 90,000, they are still spewing

>> >> crap.

>> >>

>> >> Have you examined the evidence? No, you haven't. I know that,

>> >> because

>> >> you persist in asking questions which are so basic that you could

>> >> not

>> >> examine the evidence without already knowing the answers. Hell, you

>> >> even

>> >> think Gish won a bunch of debates, which demonstrates you have not

>> >> actually looked at what those debates covered, what claims were made

>> >> and

>> >> what support was offered for the claims.

>> >>

>> >> Why would you let someone else do your thinking for you? Aside from

>> >> the

>> >> fact that they're doing a very bad job of it, you were given a

>> >> brain...

>> >> why let it atrophy instead of using it?

>> >

>> > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other

>> > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related

>> > to

>> > the books that I have read related to creation science.

>>

>> All that we hear, see and read influences our thought processes. Tell us

>> something that we don't know. Jason, you never told me whether or not you

>> think that Jesus Christ is holding the nucleus of the atom together. Your

>> much respected hero believes this and I just wondered what you believe.

>

> I have stated in other posts--I don't know the details related to how God

> created the solar system and life on this planet.

 

That wasn't the question. It is simple, Jason. Duane Gish has said that

Jesus Christ holds the nucleus of an atom together. Do you think that he is

correct?

Guest Mike
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <f43pip$1v3$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>> In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>>>> These are some of the differences:

>>>>>>> the use of fire

>>>>>>> burying the dead

>>>>>>> the ability to communicate by talking

>>>>>>> differences in DNA

>>>>>>> differences in IQ

>>>>>>> the ability to worship

>>>>>> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as

>>>>>> explained

>>>>>> here:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf

>>>>> Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books

>>>>> or articles about genes.

>>>> Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with

>>>> chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either

> that or

>>>> god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect.

>>> I don't know enough about genes to make a comment.

>> But yet you managed to make such a comment when you said "differences in

>> DNA."

>

> I am not an expert on DNA--that was my point. Are you an expert on DNA?

 

you don't have to be an expert in something to know something about it.

Your whole problem is that you don't know ANYTHING about the subjects

that you keep running off at the mouth about.

Guest Mike
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <f43q8l$2mv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <1180951091.949854.152650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 4 Jun., 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>> In article <1180907895.450122.123...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>> On 3 Jun., 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <1180863203.738843.244...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>> <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots.

>>>>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep

>>> the apes=

>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they

>>> kept the =

>>>>>> gori=3D

>>>>>>>> lla

>>>>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or

>>> throw f=

>>>>>> ecal

>>>>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and

>>> designed

>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as

>>> not to c=

>>>>>> onfu=3D

>>>>>>>> se

>>>>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution.

>>>>>>>>>>> Jason

>>>>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin?

>>>>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas

>>> use fi=

>>>>>> re?-=3D

>>>>>>>> Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn -

>>>>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn -

>>>>>>>> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No

>>>>>>>> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely

>>>>>>>> meaningless.

>>>>>>> These are some of the differences:

>>>>>>> the use of fire

>>>>>>> burying the dead

>>>>>>> the ability to communicate by talking

>>>>>>> differences in DNA

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>>> The DNA in dogs is not the same as that in cats. Does that mean that

>>>>>> dogs are not animals or is it cats? I cannot wait for your answer.

>>>>> The DNA is one of the reason that dogs are different than cats.

>>>> And the various types of apes have differences in their DNA, yet they

>>>> are all animals including man. By the way I am not surprised that you

>>>> didn't answer the question. Such silly evasions as the above are what

>>>> one expects from you.

>>> I clearly answered your question. You may not have been satisfied with my

>>> answer but I did answer your question.

>> No, you didn't. Otherwise your answer would have been either "dogs are

>> not animals" or "cats are not animals."

>>

>> So which is it? You claimed that humans are not animals due to a

>> difference in DNA. It was pointed out that there's a difference in DNA

>> between these two. So which one is not an animal? If you claim they are

>> both animals even though the DNA is different, then how does

>> "differences in DNA" make apes animals and humans not?

>

> I stated that one of the difference between mankind and apes is a

> difference in DNA. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

Gudloos asked a question. Do you have an answer to it?

Guest gudloos@yahoo.com
Posted

On 4 Jun., 21:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180951091.949854.152...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 4 Jun., 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1180907895.450122.123...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > On 3 Jun., 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1180863203.738843.244...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > > > On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > > > > > > <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > > > > > > >In article

>

> <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> > > > > > > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > ...

>

> > > > > > > > >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots.

>

> > > > > > > > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep

> the apes=

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they

> kept the =

> > > > gori=3D

> > > > > > lla

> > > > > > > > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or

> throw f=

> > > > ecal

> > > > > > > > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and

> designed

> > > > > > > > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as

> not to c=

> > > > onfu=3D

> > > > > > se

> > > > > > > > >the advocates of evolution.

> > > > > > > > >Jason

>

> > > > > > > > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin?

>

> > > > > > > People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas

> use fi=

> > > > re?-=3D

> > > > > > Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn -

>

> > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn -

>

> > > > > > Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No

> > > > > > Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely

> > > > > > meaningless.

>

> > > > > These are some of the differences:

> > > > > the use of fire

> > > > > burying the dead

> > > > > the ability to communicate by talking

> > > > > differences in DNA

>

> > > > The DNA in dogs is not the same as that in cats. Does that mean that

> > > > dogs are not animals or is it cats? I cannot wait for your answer.

>

> > > The DNA is one of the reason that dogs are different than cats.

>

> > And the various types of apes have differences in their DNA, yet they

> > are all animals including man. By the way I am not surprised that you

> > didn't answer the question. Such silly evasions as the above are what

> > one expects from you.

>

> I clearly answered your question. You may not have been satisfied with my

> answer but I did answer your question.- Skjul tekst i anf

Guest Ralph
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news: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 knows Gish. Gish is a liar and a fraud. You can see that here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

>> >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.

 

No comment Jason? We are asserting that Bullfrog Gish is a liar. We have

evidence to support that assertion. Yet you still respect him????

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...