Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <90bkj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? Let me ask a question a different way. For the sake of discussion, let's say that 100 years from now--a star ship (like the one in the Star Trek TV show) travels back in time. The goal of the Star Ship captain is to conduct research related to the Big Bang theory. The electronic scanning instruments detect a huge energy mass. They start traveling toward it. Question: Will they be able to travel to the area that is very near the energy mass? Will they be able to determine the year and the time that they observed the energy mass on their scanning instruments? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 19:05:54 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <2p5kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> I posted information about a man that was healed by God. > >No, you didn't. You posted a story about a man who was healed. You He posted a story about a man who some say was healed of a disease that he claimed to have. >completely failed to demonstrate that God even exists , let alone had any >part in the healing, other than by fiat of assertion. > >Try again. This time think before posting. Impossible for Jason the Indoctrobot. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 19:08:20 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <kt5kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:14:21 -0700, 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. > > >Are you really so stupid you think that you can vote God into existence? Absolutely, yes, he is that stupid. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181186215.390621.266680@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 However, in much the same way that I respect my father, I also don't turn my back on people that I respect. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181185722.008538.173...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > 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. I am not a liar though. And I never claimed to be an expert in a field that I knew nothing about. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181186006.021056.253720@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Re-read my post--they both had evidence. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 1:26 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181185581.562621.245...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > Are you saying that anyone that has not taken a college course in physics > is ignorant? Absolutely, 100% ignorant of how the world actually works, yes, as you have proven so very clearly yourself through out this entire thread. I'm only telling this for your own good so that ypu'll know better from now on and not embarass yourself further. It is, of course, possible for someone to learn through self study but you obviously haven't done that either. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181182812.894828.42400@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > The Catholic Church does. The big bang theory was originally proposed > by an ex-monk! This proves that scientists will endorse any theory > that is supported by actual evidence. > > Do you have anything left to say? > > Martin Martin, I was not aware of that information. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181186644.427298.236...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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? > 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. Most -if not all- universities offer a basic level physics class that requires only a basic level of mathematics. You're just making excuses. Perhaps you went to a substandard college that did offer a full range of courses but in all the years since you attended college did you ever try to make up for this shortfall by actually doing some of your own reading? There are plenty of books available for laymen such as yourself that do not require any math background either. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 1:52 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181186215.390621.266...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > However, in much the same way that I respect my father, I also don't turn > my back on people that I respect. Again, you are just making excuses for being ignorant. The fact that you respect Gish and Morris does not change the fact that they are lying frauds. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181187019.842963.282840@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Several people have implied that my opinions about evolution were outside of the mainstream. The truth is that more people in America agree with me than agree with you. Only 12 percent of Americans (according to the poll) believed that humans evolved from other life forms without any involvement from God. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <kt5kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:14:21 -0700, 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. > > > Are you really so stupid you think that you can vote God into existence? I don't recall stating that I think that I can vote God into existence. Are you assuming that I stated something that I did not state? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 2:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181186484.014273.171...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > Explain why that man is now able to walk? Do you think that the man and > his doctor are lying? Explain how you are able to walk. You put one foot in front of another. Please stop asking such mind boggingly stupid questions! Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <kt5kj4-ofp....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:14:21 -0700, 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. > > > Are you really so stupid you think that you can vote God into existence? > > I don't recall stating that I think that I can vote God into existence. You can't. Nothing can bring your god into existance. It doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181186484.014273.171160@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Explain why that man is now able to walk? Do you think that the man and his doctor are lying? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 1:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181186006.021056.253...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > Re-read my post--they both had evidence. Re-read your own post: you merely asserted that they had evidence. You, Gish, Morris, none of us have EVER presented ANY evidence for creationism. It is 100% total bullshit from beginning to end. Your god doesn't even exist. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 2:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181187019.842963.282...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > Several people have implied that my opinions about evolution were outside > of the mainstream. The truth is that more people in America agree with me > than agree with you. Only 12 percent of Americans (according to the poll) > believed that humans evolved from other life forms without any involvement > from God. Please don't insult the majority of Americans by claiming that they are as stupid as you. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 7, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <2p5kj4-ofp....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > I posted information about a man that was healed by God. > > > No, you didn't. You posted a story about a man who was healed. You > > completely failed to demonstrate that God even exists , let alone had any > > part in the healing, other than by fiat of assertion. > > > Try again. This time think before posting. > > His doctor confirmed that he was healed. Do you think nobody ever got better without your god making it so? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <2p5kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I posted information about a man that was healed by God. > > No, you didn't. You posted a story about a man who was healed. You > completely failed to demonstrate that God even exists , let alone had any > part in the healing, other than by fiat of assertion. > > Try again. This time think before posting. His doctor confirmed that he was healed. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 20:46, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5cngmcF327rd...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@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. Let me see now; should I trust Jason, or should I trust the ACLU? What to do, what to do? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 20:48, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? Not knowing how something happened does not mean it was a miracle. That should be fairly easy to understand. >His doctor confirmed that he was healed. Assuming it happened, the doctor could not know that it was a miracle. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 20:00, "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?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 20:06, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0606071146570001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <5cngmcF327rd...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> "Jason" <J...@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. I am shocked! Jason tried to deceive us? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 21:26, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181116515.297390.257...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > hhyaps...@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. The Moslems are not portrayed as innocent victims. The crusades were barbarous examples of greed and religious fanaticism. The crusaders also murdered and robbed regardless of the religion of the victims. The Moslems were not innocent, but the little religious tolerance that existed at that time was practiced by the Moslems not the Christians. Never mind Jason, it is only reality I am talking about; nothing for you to worry about. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun., 20:44, 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 > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf 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.