Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 3:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181116966.433453.303...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationsand > > 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? > You know that it is uncommon for major mutations to take place. False. A lot of genetic diseases are due to mutations. > In many > cases, the major mutations cause more harm than good. Not all mutations, however, are harmful. > If your theory is > true, many major "positive" mutations would have had to occur. You need to separate theory from fact. Positive mutations DO occur. A man in the Philippines was born with six fingers on each hand and he passed this trait onto his son. What's wrong with that? The same thing happened in India. Here's a picture. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/photos/uncategorized/sixfingers.jpg And here's an article. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002484.html http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/3621/ > 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. What is the difference between a chicken and a turkey? A frog and a toad? A rabbit and a hare? A turtle and a tortoise? A wolf and a dog? A horse and a donkey? A tiger and a panther? A cat and a lynx? A duck and a goose? A man and a gorilla? Different species _are_ different kinds. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 3:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115717.730555.182...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > That probably means that God And yet you've already proven that God doesn't exist with your list of artifacts. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 3:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115800.326832.194...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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! > 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. If you didn't hate people who had a clue as to what the world was really like then you wouldn't have any trouble talking to them. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115145.895700.243...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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 > 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. Perhaps you feel you have more in common with people you have psychological disorders than you do with nuclear physics. Hint: you shouldn't talk about topics that you admit to not even being interested in! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In response to: > In article <1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not > > something a normal person would flaunt. On Jun 7, 4:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > No--there are millions of us. Apparently it is okay to be ignorant as long as there are millions of other people who are also ignorant. Seconds? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181117377.544779.313...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > We are advocates of different theories. Correction: I am advocating a scientific theory whereas you are advocating a religious fantasy. There's a difference. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115544.492024.188...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 6, 10:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181089702.526388.254...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > So you admit that the IRC website contains NO evidence for > > > > creationism. > > > > > We are finally making progress. > > > > I believe the ICR website contains some excellent information. I disagree > > > with them in regard to the earth being only 10,000 years old. > > > So you are not believe the Bible is the literal word of your god. > > > We ARE making progress. > > > Now, perhaps you can identify what "information" you found on the ICR > > website because all I found were lies, assertions and suppositions. I > > read an entire article by Henry Morris and even posted it here and > > refuted it entirely. I didn't even see you acknowledge that. Do you > > accept that Morris is a liar then? > I don't agree with everything that Dr. Gish or Dr. Morris has written. > That does not bother me since I don't agree with everything that many > people have written. You didn't answer the question. Yes or no, is Morris a liar? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181117137.097128.221...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I was referring to info. about the Cambrian Explosion that I believe was > in Dr. Gish's fossil book. I was surprised when you stated that you could > not find that same sort of information at the ICR site. Do the search yourself then. There is no evidence. Obviously there never was any. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115307.232390.182...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 6, 10:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <2j8hj4-b76....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [snips] > > > > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to > the Big > > > > > Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that? > > > > > It is more correct to say that we cannot measure time before the Big Bang. > > > > > The Big Bang is what caused our spacetime to exist. That spacetime is > > > > what we measure space - and time - in; it provides the events, the > > > > observable things, the change in entropy, which allows us to determine > > > > that time actually passes. > > > > > "Prior" to this - if such a phrase even makes sense - we have no way to > > > > measure events, as we are inside a "bubble" of spacetime and our > > > > measurements are solely able to meaningfully discuss the events we can > > > > observe - namely, events which, like us, are inside that "bubble". > > > > > To speak of "before" is to imply something which existed or occurred > > > > before this bubble ever existed, but we cannot really speak meaningfully > > > > of it, as there is no way for us to observe it - it is _outside_ the > > > > bubble, we are _inside_. > > > > > Thus to even say "time did (or didn't) exist prior to the Big Bang" is to > > > > assume that the very concept "before the big bang" is itself meaningful, > > > > but that implies duration - time - and that, in turn, implies something we > > > > can in some way measure, some sequence of events; if, however, we are > > > > limited to seeing events inside the bubble, we cannot measure such > > > > events outside, so we cannot say that the concept of time itself had any > > > > meaning "before", or that "before" has any meaning. > > > > > All we can do is examine what happened after - and even there, we can only > > > > examine so far, as "prior" to that (again, if the concept of "prior" or > > > > time has any meaning at all in such cases) it is suggested that the > > > > expansion was simply too hot to sustain things in a manner which allow for > > > > observation. > > > > > In essence, at some point, according to the hypothesis and the evidence we > > > > do have, there was a singularity, a point at which the laws of physics as > > > > we know them break down. If they do, in fact, break down then we cannot > > > > rely on them to probe further. > > > > > Was there time "prior to the big bang"? Wrong question. The proper > > > > question is what does "prior to the big bang" mean, unless you can > > > > establish that time actually did exist, and in a manner which we would be > > > > able to detect? > > > > Thanks for your post. It's my opinion that time did exist prior to the Big > > > Bang. Saying "it is more correct to say that we can not measure time > > > before the Big Bang" makes much more sense than saying that "time did not > > > exist prior to Big Bang." > > > Do you think clocks existed before the big bang? > No. I was a fan of the original Star Trek show. They had several episodes > that involved going faster than the speed of light (or it may have been > going thru a worm hole) and going back in time. Please don't tell me that all your knowledge of physics comes from Star Trek. You'd make me cry. I'm serious. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 4:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181115641.136917.257...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 6, 10:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181089796.976281.55...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 4:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <f441ch$9c...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > In article <oppej4-agk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> [snips] > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect > > > for that > > > > > > >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > > > > > >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history > > > of lies, > > > > > > >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > > > > > > > > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she > > > rediculed > > > > > > > several other Christians and myself. > > > > > > > What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history > of lies, > > > > > > deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you > seem to > > > > > > not comprehend? > > > > > > > I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor > but was, > > > > > > instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > > > > > > > (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > > > > > > I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. I was present when he > > > > > debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, > > > > > he won that debate. Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I > > > > > debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. > > > > > Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed > > > > > that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. > > > > > Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. > > > > > How can anyone "win" a debate without presenting any evidence? > > > > The main reason he won was because he remained calm while the professor > > > from the college lost his temper and started name calling Dr. Gish. People > > > in the crowd actually started "booing" the professor when he made a fool > > > of himself. I talked to someone that attended a different debate. That > > > science professor done his homework. He attended one of Dr. Gish's debates > > > and took lots of notes. He was prepared to respond to every point that Dr. > > > Gish made and that professor never lost his temper. The person that > > > attended that debate claimed that Dr. Gish lost that debate. > > > There is still an onus on someone trying to prove a point to actually > > provide suporting evidence. You didn't answer my question. > If you have attended any debates, you should know that the skills of the > debater is even more important than the evidence. Incorrect. A man who has a pleasant voice may sound better but what can he prove without evidence? You have a lot to learn about debating, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 5:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3DC9i.28166$JQ3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0606071148520001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1181116070.776867.269...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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? > > Yes, I understand your point. His doctor confirmed that he was once not > able to walk but as a result of the healing is now able to walk. There is > a story in the Bible about a blind man that Jesus Jesus never existed. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 5:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <prC9i.28164$JQ3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0506071933390001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <lkub639s9o4sq1h4n626gtsm5qasut3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0506071300570...@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <f441ch$9c...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > In article <oppej4-agk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > >> >> > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> [snips] > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect > > > for that > > >> >> >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > > >> >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history > > > of lies, > > >> >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > > > >> >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she > > >> >> > rediculed > > >> >> > several other Christians and myself. > > > >> >> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of > > >> >> lies, > > >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem > > >> >> to > > >> >> not comprehend? > > > >> >> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but > > >> >> was, > > >> >> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > > > >> >> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > > > >> >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. > > > >> 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???? > > Let's say that you lived in a different city than your father lived. You > have a great deal of respect for your father. You meet someone that starts > to tell you how evil your father is and that he had all sorts of evidence > about your father. > > You would have two options: > option 1: Agree agree that man and agree with the evidence. > option 2: Continue to have respect for your father and disregard the evidence. > > I would choose option 2. > option 2 1) Gish is not your father. 2) You are a fool to discount evidence on a whim. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 6:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The Bible is not a cosmology text book. No. It is a work of fiction. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 9:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ofojj4-ofp....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> >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 > > > > The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. > > > All this shows is that some people believe in gods. We know that. The > > question at hand is not whether some people believe in gods, but whether > > there is evidence that gods actually exist. Try again. > > I posted information about a man that was healed by God. God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 9:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3ude639n85rvgsph18v5hqb2rj8fpsv...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:14:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0606071214370...@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1181116197.466834.209...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > ><phippsmar...@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. > > > >> Seehttp://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. > > > Are you aware that as a result of the archaeology that has been done in > > the Holy Land that we know that many of the stories in the Old Testament > > are not historically accurate? > > I just checked the back of my study Bible and found no information about > that subject. What a surprise! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0606071304200...@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>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. > > >No--there are millions of us. > > > At times you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Apparently the Parable > > of the Talents is one of Jesus' parables that you do not know. > > Do you believe that everyone that has never taken a college physics class > is ignorant? By definition, yes. Can you point me to a college that doesn't offer any physics classes so that a student wouldn't have had an opportunity to take one? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 9:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <h1je63ptu4pdpgbsboi53vqgvscd4vv...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:52:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0606071752070...@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <l5rjj4-ofp....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > ><kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > > > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:09:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> >> 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. > > > >> So do I - I see evidence that stars and parks exist. Nothing about gods, > > >> though. > > > >> > I also know it when I see evidence that a person was healed of a > > >> > terrible disease or disorder. > > > >> I see evidence they were healed; nothing implies gods, though. > > > >> Oh, your cute little story, like all such, assumes God is a driveling > > >> idiot, so it's not the sort of thing I'd tend to spew if I were a > > >> believer. The notion God is such a complete fucking retard that he can't > > >> figure out - despite being all-knowing - who needs healing unless he has > > >> some snake-oil salesman to ring a bell and say "Here's one" makes God out > > >> to be an incompetent, useless fuckup. > > > >> 'Course, the fact he's also supposed to be all-powerful yet can't snap his > > >> fingers and instantly heal people completely likewise makes him look like > > >> a complete fuck-up. > > > >> Fine, you've got a story which, if we accept it, makes God out to be an > > >> incompetent idiot. Why you'd want to show us this isn't clear - giving up > > >> your religion, are you? > > > >> One thing I find really amusing about all these is that they never - and I > > >> mean never - involve anything which would actually require a miraculous > > >> intervention to explain; they are all, without exception, cases where the > > >> most honest thing one can say about them is "Cure is currently > unexplained." > > > >> Want to impress us? Show us someone who has actually had a leg amputated > > >> have it miraculously grow back, right there on stage. Oh, wait, never > > >> happens. God, if he exists and is even half of what he's cracked up to > > >> be, could do it in a heartbeat, yet it never ever EVER seems to actually > > >> happen. You'll never find a case where there's something actually > > >> interesting happening; it is always "Well, something happened, coulda been > > >> gods, coulda been the meds finally working, coulda been any of a thousand > > >> other things, who knows?" - yet we're supposed to conclude only one > > >> possible explanation is allowed - the one that _assumes_ gods exist. > > > >Google "miracle healings" and you may be able to find some testimonies > > >that will convince you that God is still healing people in much the same > > >way that he healed people while Jesus was on this earth. > > > The testimonies are not evidence. They merely reflect the state of mind > > of the people giving testimony. > > I disagree. If a man has been making use of a wheel chair for 10 years and > is healed and as a result no longer has to use a wheel chair that is > evidence that he was healed. His doctor confirmed that he was healed. That > is evidence that he was healed. If you choose to reject the evidence, that > is your choice. Evidence of healing is not evidence of God. I had a zit on my face a month ago but it has healed. Do you think your god did that? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 10:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I have a copy of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine. > On page 6, poll results were mentioned. "According to a Gallup Pole that > was conducted in Feb., 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding US > adults agreed that God created humans pretty much in their present form > within the last 10,000 years or so." ...."Only 12 percent believed that > humans evolved from other life forms without any involvement from God." > > It appears to me that more people in America agree with me than agree with > you. In fact, only about 12 percent of Americans agree with you. If science were decided by democracy then our textbooks would claim that the Earth was flat. Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:23:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > Let's go about it a different way. Is it your opinion that time and > physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang?. Please explain your answer. > Perhaps you could convince me that I was wrong. You have it backwards. What we do know of physics says that as the total energy of the system condenses into a smaller space, temperature rises. At a certain temperature, matter breaks down. At a higher temperature, the components of matter break down. As things continue backwards, the temperature increases further; based on the physics we know, there is reason to postulate infinite temperature and infinite density - which are meaningless concepts in our spacetime, but are a necessary prediction of the mechanics of the situation. In essence, then, what we know of physics tells us that physics as we understand them breaks down at the singularity. So. Physics itself says "Doesn't apply here, not in any way we can discuss meaningfully". Which, among other things, means we have no basis in physics to define "time" as a relevant concept, as we have no basis to define any physical processes, events or interactions with which to define time. So, we're left with the obvious: physics breaks down, measurement breaks down, observability breaks down, any possible hope of defining "time" breaks down... yet you somehow want to assert that "before" is a meaningful concept. Again, I ask... on what basis you you assert this? -- Pi is equal to 3.0: God has a nasty habit of using base 10.472. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 10:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <sjke63tantjqq2dpvsd7o5b9erjgcsu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:29:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0606071829590...@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <hfde63dca58omfcv2llpie6a31salkr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0506072132080...@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> 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 believe in the sun God Shamash because it was mentioned in the > > >> law code of Hammurabi? > > > >No--I was aswering a question--see the above two posts. > > > The fact that people worshipped gods is not evidence that the gods > > existed. Is this really confusing to you? > > You missed my point. 1) You still haven't made a point. 2) You still haven't answered his question. Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:11:59 -0700, Martin wrote: >> No. I was a fan of the original Star Trek show. They had several episodes >> that involved going faster than the speed of light (or it may have been >> going thru a worm hole) and going back in time. > > Please don't tell me that all your knowledge of physics comes from > Star Trek. You'd make me cry. I'm serious. The scary part is, he'd probably have a better grasp of physics if it did come from Star Trek than he actually appears to have. -- If the theists all shut up, the gods would be speechless. -- Robert Curry Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:06:21 -0700, in alt.atheism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1181185581.562621.245160@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: >In response to: > >> In article <1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not >> > something a normal person would flaunt. > >On Jun 7, 4:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> No--there are millions of us. > >Apparently it is okay to be ignorant as long as there are millions of >other people who are also ignorant. > >Seconds? Second. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181185581.562621.245160@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > In response to: > > > In article <1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not > > > something a normal person would flaunt. > > On Jun 7, 4:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > No--there are millions of us. > > Apparently it is okay to be ignorant as long as there are millions of > other people who are also ignorant. > > Seconds? > > Martin Are you saying that anyone that has not taken a college course in physics is ignorant? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181185722.008538.173540@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181115544.492024.188...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 10:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1181089702.526388.254...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > So you admit that the IRC website contains NO evidence for > > > > > creationism. > > > > > > > We are finally making progress. > > > > > > I believe the ICR website contains some excellent information. I disagree > > > > with them in regard to the earth being only 10,000 years old. > > > > > So you are not believe the Bible is the literal word of your god. > > > > > We ARE making progress. > > > > > Now, perhaps you can identify what "information" you found on the ICR > > > website because all I found were lies, assertions and suppositions. I > > > read an entire article by Henry Morris and even posted it here and > > > refuted it entirely. I didn't even see you acknowledge that. Do you > > > accept that Morris is a liar then? > > > I don't agree with everything that Dr. Gish or Dr. Morris has written. > > That does not bother me since I don't agree with everything that many > > people have written. > > You didn't answer the question. Yes or no, is Morris a liar? > > Martin Martin, I have stated things that turned out to be not true and it's my guess that Dr. Morris, Dr. Gish and almost everyone else in the world has done the same thing. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181186644.427298.236190@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0606071304200...@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > >>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. > > > > >No--there are millions of us. > > > > > At times you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Apparently the Parable > > > of the Talents is one of Jesus' parables that you do not know. > > > > Do you believe that everyone that has never taken a college physics class > > is ignorant? > > By definition, yes. Can you point me to a college that doesn't offer > any physics classes so that a student wouldn't have had an opportunity > to take one? > > Martin Martin, Believe it or not--lots of students do not enjoy math classes as much as you did when you was a college student. I hated math classes in high school and hated Math 101 even more. Jason Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.