Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 6, 2007

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

news:Jason-0606071148520001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1181116070.776867.269890@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 6, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> > I googled "miracle healings" and found lots of sites. This was my

>> > favorit=

>> e:

>> >

>> > About & Contact this project

>> > en espanol

>> > Search =80 Miracles =80 Prayer =80 Power =80 Science =80 Home

>> > 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."

>>

>> What "Lord"? God? Jesus? Neither of them ever existed.

>>

>> Martin

>

> Martin,

> I would like for you to tell me how that young man was able to walk unless

> God had healed him? His doctor confirmed that he was healed.

> Jason

Any number of psychosomatic origins? Confusion of the story? Healing of the

body by nature? Any number of reasons, Jason and several sources who could

have been confused. I've forgotten who said this but in observing the

crutches at one healing pool in France, I think, the observer said that he

would believe when he saw a wooden leg in the pile. Do you understand that?

June 6, 2007

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

news:Jason-0606071144150001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1181113564.287146.199330@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 6, 7:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> > 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:

>>

>> Jason,

>> My Ottawa University Astrophysics professor did not believe in the Big

>> Bang. Of course, that was almost twenty years ago. (He did have

>> evidence supporting his argument though: most objects that had been

>> identified as quasars had been found in the direction of the milky

>> way: if they were truly objects outside our galaxy then they should be

>> evenly distributed over the sky. Thus, he argued that quasars didn't

>> exist.) He wasn't a theist, by the way: he believed the universe had

>> NO beginning. People who argue against the big bang are generally

>> arguing that there was no beginning and no need for a creator.

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> Astronomers find an excess of galaxies that are moving away from us

>> over those moving towards us. In a non-expanding universe, you would

>> expect galaxies to be either moving randomly or collapsing under the

>> force of gravity: this is not the case. A static universe model would

>> also still require a force preventing the universe's collapse so we

>> would still need a negative-pressure vacuum energy or "cosmological

>> constant" or "dark energy".

>>

>> > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting

>> > temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a

>> > fireball.

>>

>> No, sorry, but that's not right. Space is empty: it doesn't have an

>> atmosphere so you can't talk about the "temperature of space". As for

>> the microwave background radiation coming from stars, I'm sorry but if

>> if the radiation is coming from distant stars then it wouldn't all be

>> microwave radiation but it would also be heat and light and we would

>> see it coming from all over the sky. The radiation from the big bang

>> appears as microwave radiation as a result of the Doppler Effect and

>> you would have no Doppler Effect in a static universe.

>>

>> (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift )

>>

>> > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many

>> > adjustable parameters to make them work.

>>

>> That's not true because you only need hydrogen to make first

>> generation stars: the hydrogen fuses to become helium and then the

>> helium fuses to make the heavier elements. (See

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution )

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> Again, this is not true as computer models can reproduce galactic

>> evolution with very few parameters. (See

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stru=

>> cture_formation

>> ,

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos and

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution )

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> As quasars appear as dots in the sky, it is easy to misidentify a star

>> as a quasar and this is going to skew one's data enormously. Also, to

>> complain about the apparent luminosity of quasars is a bit petty

>> because a quasar that doesn't emit light in the visable spectrum isn't

>> going to be seen with ordinary telescopes and would have to be picked

>> up with radio or x-ray telescopes.

>>

>> > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

>>

>> Now that the age of the universe has been found to be 13.7 =B1 0.2

>> billion years, it is clear that any object that was claimed to be over

>> 14 billion years old was, in fact, misidentified as a quasar. (See

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars and

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe )

>>

>> > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite

>> > universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

>>

>> As a physicist, I see this as a restatement of the structure problem

>> applied to galactic momentum: it isn't a separate objection.

>>

>> > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must

>> > be

>> > the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

>>

>> This is only an objection to the inflationary model of the big bang.

>> Measurement of the mass of galaxies shows that 90% of a galaxy's mass

>> is, in fact, dark matter. This actually supports big bang theory in

>> general.

>>

>> > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show

>> > insufficient

>> > evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher

>> > redshifts (z =3D 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

>>

>> Galaxy formation models have galaxies forming very soon after the big

>> bang so this is not a problem. Galaxies would form first from the

>> matter distributed by the big bang and THEN stars would form. We

>> would not be able to see a galaxy that did not have any stars. (See

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field )

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> But the inflationary model fixes the actual density of the universe to

>> be exactly the critical density so, again, this actually supports the

>> current big bang theory.

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> Ah, so this is ten years out of date.

>>

>> Martin

>

> Martin,

> The original list was published in 1997 but the list has probably been

> updated or changed during the past 10 years. I was shocked at the sites

> that appeared when I googled "Big Bang Problems." I visited one site that

> was probably created by an hard core atheist. His point (if I understood

> him successfully) was that the Big Bang theory was a conspiracy that was

> developed by Christians). The atheist believed the Christians developed

> the theory to convince people that was the method that God used to create

> the solar system. I only read the first paragraph so I might have

> misunderstood some of the details. I found that funny since some

> Christians do not believe the Big Bang theory is a valid theory.

> Jason

I'm surprised that you have not even acknowledged Martin's fine replies to

your list. You are being dishonest again. Jason.

June 6, 2007

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

news:Jason-0606071146570001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <5cngmcF327rd3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>

>> "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.

>

> I agree with you. However the ACLU is fighting it.

The state is Georgia. The courses are elective and very few school systems

have elected to offer the course. The ACLU has not become involved.

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 12:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY

> OF WILLIAM A. KENT

Please don't paste the same story more than once, especially if it is

hundreds of lines long. If you want to remind people about something

you posted, refer to your earlier post.

- Bob T.

June 6, 2007

<hhyapster@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1181115880.343282.272590@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On May 31, 8:11 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 31, 3:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > In article

<1180514437.317608.17...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

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

> > > > On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > I did not download the article but I read it.

> >

> > > > Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to

your

> > > > computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't

either.

> > > > It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you

would

> > > > have been able to answer questions about what you had read.

You

> > > > obviously didn't read the article even though you said you

did.

> > > I meant that I did not save the article or print out the

article. I am a

> > > speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good

as it was

> > > when I was your age.

Speed reading is a freaking joke. To admit that you "speed read"

something, is to admit that you merely skimmed the material, and

therefore lack comprehension of what you "read". Therefore, you

remain pig ignorant, since you probably won't spare the time to

actually read anything.

> > > As the song says, "what a drag it is getting old."

> > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we looked

at

> > > one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were called

parameciums and

> > > amoebae. Do you honestly believe that mankind evolved from a one

> > > celled-life form? You could never convince me that it could ever

happen.

> >

> > Then go away. Seriously. You've just convinced me that I am

wasting

> > my time with you.

> >

> > Martin- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> Of course, Martin.

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. [sorry, the moment I read

those words, that voice just popped into my mind]

> You are just wasting your valuable time responding to someone who is

> naive and not open-minded.

To be honest, most people responding to the trolls on a.a are only

doing so for amusement, and don't truly expect to convince the whackos

of much. As entertainment I suppose it leaves a bit to be desired,

but some of us are really, really bored.

> Jason either has already close dhis mind or just wanting to catch

your

> mistake by surprise. Or he is choosing not to accept the real life

of

> things in this world and therefore posting nothing logical.

He has made comments that suggest that he is (or at least thinks he

is) old and worn-out. Though, it seems hardly likely that his brain

would be worn-out, since it doesn't appear to have had much use.

> Even if he found the bible and the existence of god irrelevent to

this

> world of human, he will just accept them.

I'm afraid that this sentence makes no sense to me. Perhaps you'd not

mind trying to restate this?

> I would not waste my time on someone that unresonable.

You never know, someone might be able to bring light into his dark

little world.

June 6, 2007

In article <1181113564.287146.199330@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 7:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > 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:

>

> Jason,

> My Ottawa University Astrophysics professor did not believe in the Big

> Bang. Of course, that was almost twenty years ago. (He did have

> evidence supporting his argument though: most objects that had been

> identified as quasars had been found in the direction of the milky

> way: if they were truly objects outside our galaxy then they should be

> evenly distributed over the sky. Thus, he argued that quasars didn't

> exist.) He wasn't a theist, by the way: he believed the universe had

> NO beginning. People who argue against the big bang are generally

> arguing that there was no beginning and no need for a creator.

>

> > 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.

>

> Astronomers find an excess of galaxies that are moving away from us

> over those moving towards us. In a non-expanding universe, you would

> expect galaxies to be either moving randomly or collapsing under the

> force of gravity: this is not the case. A static universe model would

> also still require a force preventing the universe's collapse so we

> would still need a negative-pressure vacuum energy or "cosmological

> constant" or "dark energy".

>

> > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting

> > temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a

> > fireball.

>

> No, sorry, but that's not right. Space is empty: it doesn't have an

> atmosphere so you can't talk about the "temperature of space". As for

> the microwave background radiation coming from stars, I'm sorry but if

> if the radiation is coming from distant stars then it wouldn't all be

> microwave radiation but it would also be heat and light and we would

> see it coming from all over the sky. The radiation from the big bang

> appears as microwave radiation as a result of the Doppler Effect and

> you would have no Doppler Effect in a static universe.

>

> (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift )

>

> > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many

> > adjustable parameters to make them work.

>

> That's not true because you only need hydrogen to make first

> generation stars: the hydrogen fuses to become helium and then the

> helium fuses to make the heavier elements. (See

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution )

>

> > 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.

>

> Again, this is not true as computer models can reproduce galactic

> evolution with very few parameters. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stru=

> cture_formation

> ,

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos and

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution )

>

> > 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.

>

> As quasars appear as dots in the sky, it is easy to misidentify a star

> as a quasar and this is going to skew one's data enormously. Also, to

> complain about the apparent luminosity of quasars is a bit petty

> because a quasar that doesn't emit light in the visable spectrum isn't

> going to be seen with ordinary telescopes and would have to be picked

> up with radio or x-ray telescopes.

>

> > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

>

> Now that the age of the universe has been found to be 13.7 =B1 0.2

> billion years, it is clear that any object that was claimed to be over

> 14 billion years old was, in fact, misidentified as a quasar. (See

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars and

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe )

>

> > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite

> > universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

>

> As a physicist, I see this as a restatement of the structure problem

> applied to galactic momentum: it isn't a separate objection.

>

> > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be

> > the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

>

> This is only an objection to the inflationary model of the big bang.

> Measurement of the mass of galaxies shows that 90% of a galaxy's mass

> is, in fact, dark matter. This actually supports big bang theory in

> general.

>

> > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient

> > evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher

> > redshifts (z =3D 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

>

> Galaxy formation models have galaxies forming very soon after the big

> bang so this is not a problem. Galaxies would form first from the

> matter distributed by the big bang and THEN stars would form. We

> would not be able to see a galaxy that did not have any stars. (See

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field )

>

> > 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.

>

> But the inflationary model fixes the actual density of the universe to

> be exactly the critical density so, again, this actually supports the

> current big bang theory.

>

> > 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.

>

> Ah, so this is ten years out of date.

>

> Martin

Martin,

The original list was published in 1997 but the list has probably been

updated or changed during the past 10 years. I was shocked at the sites

that appeared when I googled "Big Bang Problems." I visited one site that

was probably created by an hard core atheist. His point (if I understood

him successfully) was that the Big Bang theory was a conspiracy that was

developed by Christians). The atheist believed the Christians developed

the theory to convince people that was the method that God used to create

the solar system. I only read the first paragraph so I might have

misunderstood some of the details. I found that funny since some

Christians do not believe the Big Bang theory is a valid theory.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <5cngmcF327rd3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

> "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.

I agree with you. However the ACLU is fighting it.

June 6, 2007

In article <1181116070.776867.269890@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > I googled "miracle healings" and found lots of sites. This was my favorit=

> e:

> >

> > About & Contact this project

> > en espanol

> > Search =80 Miracles =80 Prayer =80 Power =80 Science =80 Home

> > 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."

>

> What "Lord"? God? Jesus? Neither of them ever existed.

>

> Martin

Martin,

I would like for you to tell me how that young man was able to walk unless

God had healed him? His doctor confirmed that he was healed.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181118078.064710.322910@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Martin,

I have stated in other posts that neither myself or other advocates of

creation research know how God was able to do it but believe he did do it.

You know more about math than I know but it did not pass the "common

sense" test when someone stated that time and space did not exist prior to

the Big Bang. That appeared to me to be an unproven concept. Do you

believe that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang?

jason

June 6, 2007

In article <f468ua$k2g$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

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

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

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

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

> >>>

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

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

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

energy

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

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

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

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

> >>>>> Jason

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

> >>> source: Webster's Dictionary:

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

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

> >>> system centered on another star.

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

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

> >> than the Big Bang" is.

> >>

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

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

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

> >>

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

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

> >

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

>

> 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?

I see the evidence when I look at the stars in the sky or visit a state park.

I also know it when I see evidence that a person was healed of a terrible

disease or disorder. Here is some evidence for you to consider:

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

June 6, 2007

In article <1181116197.466834.209470@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 11:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1181089429.327200.94...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@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.

> >

> > Some archeologists and paleontologists are experts in regard to written

> > evidence related to ancient civiliizations.

>

> And these experts are not on your side.

>

> See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

>

> Martin

NO

However, there is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled,

"Archeology Discoveries". I was told (and I don't have the evidence) that

most (or all) colleges that offer degrees in Archeology--require

archeology students to take at least one course related to Bible History.

They mainly concentrate on the portions of the Old Testament related to

ancient cities.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <ldy9i.18909$px2.15511@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

<mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "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?

You missed the point.

June 6, 2007

In article <1181116515.297390.257480@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

hhyapster@gmail.com wrote:

> On May 21, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

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

> > > On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in

> > > > California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in

> > > > California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost

everyone in

> > > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in

Virgina

> > > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia.

> > > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were

arrested in the

> > > > local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I

> > > > live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY

> > > > different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never

had any

> > > > gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang

> > > > members are atheists.

> >

> > > It's a guess based on what?

> >

> > > > There have been at least 10 murders since I have

> > > > lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two

murders. There

> > > > have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in

> > > > California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are

> > > > more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their

religion very

> > > > seriously. Feel free to disagree with me.

> >

> > > The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious

> > > affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates

> > > per religion category:

> >

> > > Response Number %

> > > ---------------------------- --------

> > > Catholic 29267 39.164%

> > > Protestant 26162 35.008%

> > > Muslim 5435 7.273%

> > > American Indian 2408 3.222%

> > > Nation 1734 2.320%

> > > Rasta 1485 1.987%

> > > Jewish 1325 1.773%

> > > Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

> > > Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

> > > Moorish 1066 1.426%

> > > Buddhist 882 1.180%

> > > Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

> > > Adventist 621 0.831%

> > > Orthodox 375 0.502%

> > > Mormon 298 0.399%

> > > Scientology 190 0.254%

> > > Atheist 156 0.209%

> > > Hindu 119 0.159%

> > > Santeria 117 0.157%

> > > Sikh 14 0.019%

> > > Bahai 9 0.012%

> > > Krishna 7 0.009%

> > > ---------------------------- --------

> > > Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does

> > > this)

> > > Unknown/No Answer 18381

> > > ----------------------------

> > > Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is

> > > known.

> > > Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)

> > > ----------------------------

> > > Total In Prisons 96968

> >

> > > Atheists only represent 0.209% of the prison population in America of

> > > 1 in 500, which is less than the statistical number you would expect

> > > based on the numebr of atheists in America today.

> >

> > > If atheists are more likely to commit crimes than theists then explain

> > > to mee why there are relatively so few atheists in prison.

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Thanks for posting the statistics. It's my guess that most of the people

> > that are in prison do not take their religions seriously--otherwise they

> > would not have ended up in prison. On the other hand, once they make it to

> > prison, many of them get back involved in their religions and usually do

> > well while in prison and stay out of trouble.- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> Hey, Jason,

> Do you know that during the Crusade, Christians killed all the non-

> believers. This was one of the worst atrocity committed by religion.

> Do you wish to give it a thought when you talk about crimes!

>

> And you know Bush made up stories about WMD to invade Iraq, don't you?

> And he claimed to be born-again or a religious Christian?

> Yap

There has been a lot of historical revisionism in relation to the

Crusades. The Muslims took over Spain and were making effords to take over

some of the other European countries. The Crusades were an effort to drive

the Muslims out of Europe and reduce the total number of Muslims so they

would not be able to return to Spain and take it over again. The

Historical Revisionists leave out the murders that were done by the

Muslims during that time period. They portray the Muslims as innocent

victims.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181116966.433453.303640@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 11:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > 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.

>

> Actually, we did. Not that one thing has to do with the other.

>

> > Since you know much more about math than I know,

>

> My ten year old son probably knows more math than you do.

>

> > 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?

>

> Irrelevent because we don't know how many extinct species died out

> along the way. It isn't a linear progression. And we're talking

> billions of years. Mutations DO occur and have been observed. The

> rate at which mutations occur DOES account for the diversity of life

> on Earth, especially if you take into account all the mass extinctions

> that have occured throughout Earth's history.

>

> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

>

> > The truth is that God made mankind;

>

> Your god doesn't even exist. You proved that yourself, remember?

>

> Martin

Martin,

You know that it is uncommon for major mutations to take place. In many

cases, the major mutations cause more harm than good. If your theory is

true, many major "positive" mutations would have had to occur. I read an

article in National Geographic about research that had been done in

relation to fruit flies. The researchers spent lots of time and energy

trying to make mutations happen. They succeeded. The end result was a new

species of fruit flies. The ICR newsletter had an article about a creation

science versus evolution debate. The staff member from ICR was shocked

when the science professor stated in the debate that he had done some

research on fruit flies and was able to cause a mutation that caused at

least one fruit fly to have two sets of wings. After the debate was over,

the staff member found out the science professor was telling the truth

about the fruit fly that had two sets of wings. He also found out that the

fruit fly was not able to fly. My point was that even when those

researchers used X-Ray machines to create mutations in fruit flies--that

in all cases--the fruit flies continued to be fruit flies and never

evolved into some other type of insect.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181115717.730555.182120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <husb63dfv5pgjcqsmm9pbgjnq7uu35e...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>

> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > > J...@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.

>

> Anyone arguing against the big bang theory would be arguing for a

> steady state universe in which no creator would be required.

>

> Martin

Martin,

That probably means that God used the Big Bang. It's my guess that God

created the mass of energy that expanded and caused the expansion to take

place. Don't bother responding since I already know that you disagree with

me. I now understand why the outspoken athiest believed the Big Bang was

some sort of conspiracy theory that was developed by Christians. He has

his own website.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181115800.326832.194070@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > Before I retired, I only discussed my opinions about abortions

> > and creation science to fellow Christians that had similar opinions.

>

> Ah, so you admit you've never discussed these matters with anyone who

> actually knew what they were talking about! That explains everything!

>

> Martin

Martin,

I had a different reason. I wanted to have a working relationship with my

fellow workers--not an adversarial relationship. We could easily work

together regardless of our beliefs about such things as aborition and

evolution. I don't have to work with you so in this case it does not

matter that we have an adversarial relationship. I actually don't hate

anyone regardless of their beliefs.

jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181115145.895700.243840@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1181090287.049708.251...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

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

> > > On Jun 6, 3:22 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

> >

> > > >news:Jason-0506071251550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> >

> > > > > In article

<1181031352.198793.304...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

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

> >

> > > > >> On Jun 5, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > >> > In article <1180999530.600463.267...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

> > > > >> > Martin

> >

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

> > > > >> > > On Jun 5, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > >> > > > How did the mass of material that expanded (during the

Big Bang)

> > > > > come to be?

> >

> > > > >> > > Energy to mass conversion. As gravitational potential energy is

> > > > >> > > negative, the entire energy of the universe could add up to

zero. It

> > > > >> > > is possible to get something from nothing.

> >

> > > > >> > I seem to recall that your statement is conflicting with one of the

> > > > >> > natural laws

> >

> > > > >> Trust me. There's no conflict.

> >

> > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory

> > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

> >

> > > > > Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be

> > > > > changed. You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing.

> > > > > There is a conflict.

> >

> > > > No conflict at all, Jason. You assume that matter that is created is

> > > > created. It isn't, it only changed forms. At the end of this

universe the

> > > > matter will return to energy.

> >

> > > Entropy can increase without bounds so while thermodynamics implies a

> > > beginning it doesn't imply an end.

> >

> > > > I read a couple of years ago that one

> > > > hypothesis that was being studied was that the energy that was

converted to

> > > > matter was borrowed from gravity and that was one reason why

gravity was the

> > > > weakest of the four fundamental forces.

> >

> > > That doesn't sound right. I think you are confusing gravitational

> > > potential energy with the strength of the gravitational force.

>

> > Is this a natural law:

> > The total energy of an isolated system can not change.

> >

> > If it is a natural law, it seems to be in conflict with this statement

> > that you made:

> > "It is possible to get something from nothing".

>

> Your "knowledge" of physics is a hundred years out of date. Why do

> yiu refuse to consult the links? Do you think everybody who writes

> for wikipedia is lying?

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Field_Theory

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

>

> Martin

Martin,

I find it boring to read long articles related to Quantum Physics. Perhaps

if I had a degree in Physics or Chemistry--I would enjoy reading those

sorts of articles since I could easily understand the math. For example,

would you enjoy reading a long article about psychological disorders.

Jason

June 6, 2007

In article <1181115259.911064.176680@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <ssub635vimbr8j7fv42mn8c519oun1s...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

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

> > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

> > > <Jason-0506071544200...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >In article <jnugj4-b76....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > > ><kbjarna...@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.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

>

> Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not

> something a normal person would flaunt.

>

> Martin

No--there are millions of us.

June 6, 2007

In article <0qy9i.18910$px2.15687@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

<mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "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?

I don't know the entire quotation. I would have stated it a different way

such as God and Jesus created the solar system and created life. Jesus and

God do not need to spend time holding the nucleus of atoms together. The

creation of atoms took place millions of years ago.

June 6, 2007

On 6 jun, 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1181113564.287146.199...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

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

> > On Jun 6, 7:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > 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:

>

> > Jason,

> > My Ottawa University Astrophysics professor did not believe in the Big

> > Bang. Of course, that was almost twenty years ago. (He did have

> > evidence supporting his argument though: most objects that had been

> > identified as quasars had been found in the direction of the milky

> > way: if they were truly objects outside our galaxy then they should be

> > evenly distributed over the sky. Thus, he argued that quasars didn't

> > exist.) He wasn't a theist, by the way: he believed the universe had

> > NO beginning. People who argue against the big bang are generally

> > arguing that there was no beginning and no need for a creator.

>

> > > 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.

>

> > Astronomers find an excess of galaxies that are moving away from us

> > over those moving towards us. In a non-expanding universe, you would

> > expect galaxies to be either moving randomly or collapsing under the

> > force of gravity: this is not the case. A static universe model would

> > also still require a force preventing the universe's collapse so we

> > would still need a negative-pressure vacuum energy or "cosmological

> > constant" or "dark energy".

>

> > > 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting

> > > temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a

> > > fireball.

>

> > No, sorry, but that's not right. Space is empty: it doesn't have an

> > atmosphere so you can't talk about the "temperature of space". As for

> > the microwave background radiation coming from stars, I'm sorry but if

> > if the radiation is coming from distant stars then it wouldn't all be

> > microwave radiation but it would also be heat and light and we would

> > see it coming from all over the sky. The radiation from the big bang

> > appears as microwave radiation as a result of the Doppler Effect and

> > you would have no Doppler Effect in a static universe.

>

> > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

> > andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)

>

> > > 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many

> > > adjustable parameters to make them work.

>

> > That's not true because you only need hydrogen to make first

> > generation stars: the hydrogen fuses to become helium and then the

> > helium fuses to make the heavier elements. (See

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution)

>

> > > 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.

>

> > Again, this is not true as computer models can reproduce galactic

> > evolution with very few parameters. (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stru=

> > cture_formation

> > ,

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmosand

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution)

>

> > > 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.

>

> > As quasars appear as dots in the sky, it is easy to misidentify a star

> > as a quasar and this is going to skew one's data enormously. Also, to

> > complain about the apparent luminosity of quasars is a bit petty

> > because a quasar that doesn't emit light in the visable spectrum isn't

> > going to be seen with ordinary telescopes and would have to be picked

> > up with radio or x-ray telescopes.

>

> > > 6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

>

> > Now that the age of the universe has been found to be 13.7 =B1 0.2

> > billion years, it is clear that any object that was claimed to be over

> > 14 billion years old was, in fact, misidentified as a quasar. (See

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasarsand

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe)

>

> > > 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite

> > > universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

>

> > As a physicist, I see this as a restatement of the structure problem

> > applied to galactic momentum: it isn't a separate objection.

>

> > > 8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be

> > > the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

>

> > This is only an objection to the inflationary model of the big bang.

> > Measurement of the mass of galaxies shows that 90% of a galaxy's mass

> > is, in fact, dark matter. This actually supports big bang theory in

> > general.

>

> > > 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient

> > > evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher

> > > redshifts (z =3D 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

>

> > Galaxy formation models have galaxies forming very soon after the big

> > bang so this is not a problem. Galaxies would form first from the

> > matter distributed by the big bang and THEN stars would form. We

> > would not be able to see a galaxy that did not have any stars. (See

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field)

>

> > > 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.

>

> > But the inflationary model fixes the actual density of the universe to

> > be exactly the critical density so, again, this actually supports the

> > current big bang theory.

>

> > > 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.

>

> > Ah, so this is ten years out of date.

>

> > Martin