Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:12:31 -0000, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181196751.341121.93240@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> >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? Copious Prayer has most certainly NOT cured Jason's severe mental retardation. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:11:31 -0000, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181196691.776947.126840@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> >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. Statistics show that he is on to something, with the "majority of U.S. Citizens are clueless deluded imbeciles" thesis. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:23:25 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1181201005.400014.91420@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >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? Yep, I'm shocked too! "Deception" requires consciousness. -- Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ofojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@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. No, you posted information about a man who was (supposedly) ill and then became well. You did NOT post anything that showed why he became well. My point related > to the sun God Shamash was that people from many different cultures > (during ancient times) believed in God. And many people from different cultures believed in a flat earth. Your point is? Have you ever wondered why that > was true? I wondered about it and came to the conclusion that it was > because people that were alive during ancient times learned about God from > what is known as "oral tradition". You come to a lot of conclusions that are baseless. Who cares about your conclusions? This simply means that people from the > first generation passed stories about God to their children and those > children (when they became adults) passed the stories to their children, > etc. There is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled, "The > Greatest Archeological Discoveries of the 20th Century and their effects > on the Bible". I read that section and learned that most of the people in > ancient times believed in God or Gods. My conclusion was that they > believed in God because of the messages they received from the first > generation of people that had actually known Adam, Eve and the children of > Adam and Eve. Fine. Now show your credentials that make you such an expert on the formation of god-beliefs. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 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. So? At one time most people believed the sun went across the sky in a chariot. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason 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? Yes, he is. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. No, they said your opinions where outside of mainstream SCIENCE. 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. And most people in the US (unfortunately) are very ill informed about science. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Do you not READ? Jesus-fucking-christ, are you really THAT STUPID? (never mind any answer, it's already evident that you are.) Let's parse the above: You: I posted information about a man that was healed by God. Kelsey: No, you didn't. You posted a story about a man who was healed. (I.e. Kelsey didn't claim the man wasn't healed.) Kelsey: You completely failed to demonstrate that God even exists , let alone had any part in the healing, other than by fiat of assertion. (He simply pointed out that you failed to show HOW the man was healed.) You: His doctor confirmed that he was healed. (No kidding. REALLY? </sarcasm> Again, Kelsey didn't question if the guy was healed. He questioned the SOURCE of the healing.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. And that may be simply because, in many ways, the bible is a pretty good history book (assuming that that fact about the colleges is true. But then again your credibility went out the window so long ago it was probably taken by pterodactyls.) That doesn't mean the parts about god have any truth to them. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > Not as well as Martin, Jim and yourself understands them. Based on my > limited understanding, the Big Bang theory is the best theory I have read > about that explains how this universe may have began. I have always > wondered how God done it and this may explain how he was able to do it. He > created the mass of energy and he caused it to expand. I know that you > disagree with me. So you agree with the big bang and yet still insist on putting a god in charge? <sigh> > There may be even better theories in the years to come. They did not have > any theories like this when I was in college in the 1970's. Yes, they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang "After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model[...] The other was Lema Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181153845.786960.195140@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 6, 12:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY >>> OF WILLIAM A. KENT >> Please don't paste the same story more than once, especially if it is >> hundreds of lines long. If you want to remind people about something >> you posted, refer to your earlier post. >> >> - Bob T. > > I tried that several days ago. I failed to save the article related to the > withcraft classes at Columbia. Several days later, someone tried to > convince me that the classes at Columbia were only about the Salem Witch > trials. If I had saved the article, I would have been able to repost it. I > saved the The miracle healing testimony so that will not happen again. Saving the article so that you can respond to posts dealing directly with it is one thing. Reposting it as a non sequitur response to every other post is something else (and totally rude.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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, I'd like for you to tell me how that young man was able to walk unless I had healed him? His doctor confirmed that he was healed. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 James Burns wrote: > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>> Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many >>> years ago that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time >>> period that it took place. >> >> A flood is a massively destructive event, one which leaves >> signs that it occurred. There is plenty of evidence of local >> flooding in many areas; there is, as yet, not a single shred of >> evidence that a global flood took place at any point in history. > > There is very clear evidence of massive floods -- truly > titanic floods -- in the western United States at the end > of the last ice age. These are not global floods, but they > might give a pale shadow of an idea of what kind of tracks > such a flood would be expected to leave behind. IF the flood occurred in the bible mainly due to the "founts of the earth opening up" (i.e. from sub-terrain sources) we wouldn't have the flooding like from a hard rain or such that is washing stuff downhill. (yes, the bible also mentioned rain but didn't say what portion of the flood was from which source.) Now, of course, we still have the issues with "where did the water come from and go to?", etc. that show how stupid such a flood idea is. <snip about Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula Floods> Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181031352.198793.304350@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@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 >> >> Martin > > Something about matter is never created or destroyed--it can only be > changed. Matter that is turned into energy is destroyed. What is NOT destroyed is the total amount of matter AND energy. That total is always 0. The total sum of all integers (positive and negative) is also 0. > You stated that it is possible to get something from nothing. As long as you get an equivalent "negative something" at the same time. > There is a conflict. No, there isn't. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Translation: if I find it boring, it's not true and goddidit. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >>> In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> snip >>>>>>> That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so >>>>>>> strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >>>>>> And this is being taught where, exactly? >>>>> Columbia >>>> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a >>>> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. >>>> >>>> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? >>> Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit >>> the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. >>> >> What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the >> history of witchcraft? > > My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that > covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates > against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. There's a difference between teaching the HISTORY of witchcraft and teaching witchcraft (which is all creation nonsense is) itself. That > college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons > was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these > same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? Possibly not, but unlike you, colleges and those who run them do tend to learn new things and not hold onto stone-age ideas simply because they can't comprehend anything better. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:14:21 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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 Argument from numbers/popularity fallacy. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:08:00 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. Yes you did. Why else bring up a meaningless poll about what people in the US believe? You DO realize that the # of people who believe something has absolutely no bearing on the truth of falsity of that thing, right? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jim07D7 wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> In article <p2db63ttc2eakf5htbntajduig0j66na3g@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >>> >>>> In article <5ckm0cF2uf797U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:Jason-0406071621070001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>> In article <5cjcdkF31jskhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> snip >>>>>>>> That is your spin. My point was that this secular world has gotten so >>>>>>>> strange that it's acceptable to teach the history of witchcraft >>>>>>> And this is being taught where, exactly? >>>>>> Columbia >>>>> But that's not what's being taught - According to what you wrote, it's a >>>>> history class about the witch trials in Salem, MA. >>>>> >>>>> So, where is this "History of Witchcraft" course being taught? >>>> Columbia--I don't know the exact name of the class. You may want to visit >>>> the Columbia website to find out more details about the class. >>>> >>> What's unacceptable about offering a university course that covers the >>> history of witchcraft? >> My original point was that at least one college teaches a class that >> covers the history of witchcraft. However, another college discriminates >> against a professor becauses he is an advocate of creation science. That >> college refused to grant tenure to that professor. One of the main reasons >> was because he was an advocate of creation science. Do you think these >> same things would have happened a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago? > > But if your example is Columbia teaching the history of witchcraft, > you should know that Union Theological Seminary is affiliated with > Columbia. And Universities are quite free to choose what deserves > tenure and what doesn't. > >> I would like your comments about this article: >> >> >> The Light-Distance Problem >> by David F. Coppedge >> >> Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how >> light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years. >> People usually want a quick one-sentence answer to this question, but to >> discuss it fairly would require understanding of many complex and >> seemingly counterintuitive laws of physics. To discuss it rigorously >> requires advanced training in mathematics and relativity theory. As a >> result, the simplistic answers are usually indefensible, while the >> rigorous answers are inaccessible to most people. >> >> For those willing to investigate, Biblical scholars and scientists have >> written a great deal on this topic. For now, let me discuss a strategy for >> dealing with critics who use the question to discredit the reliability of >> the Bible. >> >> A fair question deserves a fair answer. Some critics of Biblical >> creationism, however, use this question to play "king of the hill." Not >> getting the one-sentence answer they demand, they think they have >> established the superiority of the old-age contender, the Big Bang. I find >> it helpful in such situations to level the playing field. Supporters of >> the Big Bang have no cause for pride, because they have a light-distance >> problem, too! It is called the horizon problem. And it is serious. >> >> According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions >>from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny >> region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles >> going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each >> part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the >> problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all >> parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the >> cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If >> no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of >> temperature? >> >> The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular >> cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in >> 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued >> by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), >> the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with >> a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the >> expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise >> balance between the acceleration rate and density. >> >> Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of >> problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should >> begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is >> limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to >> be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by >> numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word. >> >> David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion >> Laboratory. >> (The views expressed are his own.) >> jason >> > It basically says "Well, you don't have an answer for the > nonhomogeneity of the universe, so we are even." That much is true. > Then it lies. No, it actually does not at THAT point. > "Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem > should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. " This is true. > But the light-distance problem, of how light could get to us from many > millions of light years away in only 10,000 years, is NOT a problem > for science because the science indicates that the universe IS > billions of light years old. That's not what the light-problem is. The light problem is that there are parts of the universe that are further apart than 13 billion light years. i.e. if we look to one side, we can see things that are 13 billion ly away. We then look in the opposite direction and also see things that are 13 billion ly away. Those two things would be 26 billion ly from each other and thus outside of each other's "sphere of influence." The problem is "how did they become so homogeneous?" The difference is that we don't just sit around and say "goddidit" but are actually searching for an answer. "How are babies made?" is "an issue for all sides", both those who say that a sperm and an egg unite and those who say "they're found under a cabbage leaf." The difference is that one side actually has some evidence and a way of SOLVING the issue and the other side just tries to "magic" it away (and I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which<g>.) Quote
Guest James Burns Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <sjke63tantjqq2dpvsd7o5b9erjgcsu4m4@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:29:58 -0700, in alt.atheism >>Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >><Jason-0606071829590001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>In article <hfde63dca58omfcv2llpie6a31salkrif1@4ax.com>, >>>Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>><Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bjqs9@4ax.com>, >>>>>Free Lunch <lunch@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. Here is your point, unsnipped below. In what way did Free Lunch miss your point? You say below that these texts are proof that people believe in Gods of some sort (not yours, but never mind), and that this is proof that your God exists. Free Lunch says this is not evidence of the second. (No one thinks that the first is false.) Looks like a bull's-eye to me. Jim Burns : [Jason:] : >[Free Lunch:] : >>[Jason:] : >>>This is the sort of written evidence that I had in mind: : >>> : >>>The law code of Hammurabi : >>>the Genzer calendar : >>>the elephantine papyri : >>>the hittite monuments : >>>religious texts from Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit : >>>Ugaritic Inscriptions : >>>Nuzi Tablets : >>>The Mari Letters : >>> : >> : >>None are related to any physical science. : > : > : > The point was related to evidence related to God. If there : > is evidence from many different ancient civilizations that : > those people believed in God or Gods--that is evidence that : > God created life on this planet and the information was : > passed from generation to generation. Bible scholars are : > experts related to that evidence. : > Message-ID: <Jason-0506072030360001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181115307.232390.182910@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@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? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > 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. In some episodes, they > would go back in time. I wondered what would happen if a thousand years > from now--a space ship went back in time to the time period preceding the > Big Bang. Can a ship go north of the north pole? Of course not. For the SAME reason, a ship/person can't go back in time before the big bang. It's simply meaningless. I don't know what a mass of energy would look like--but let's > say that it was visible due to solid materials that were a part of the > mass of energy. Regardless, their electronic intruments would be able to > detect the mass of energy. It was my guess that those people on that space > ship would be able to take a film of the mass of energy and be able to > record the exact time. If you are not a fan of Star Trek, you probably > don't understand my point. I already know that time travel is a > controversial issue. And where, exactly, would these people be AT when they're taking a picture of this mass of energy (since they are a part OF the mass of energy?) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Can you detect yourself as an entity standing in front of you? Of course not. The star ship also wouldn't be able to detect this mass in FRONT of them since they ARE (a part of) the mass. > Question: Will they be able to travel to the area that is very near the > energy mass? ONLY if by "very near" you mean "within the big mass" then, yes. > Will they be able to determine the year and the time that they observed > the energy mass on their scanning instruments? Just as you can tell how far north you are, yes, they could tell how far back in time they are. But just as you can't go north of the north pole, they can't go past the beginning of space-time. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 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. No. When there is EVIDENCE that time didn't exist prior to the big bang, we accept it. Why do you continually lie so much? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4bjq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606071304200001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1181115259.911064.176680@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@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. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> 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? Some are ignorant simply because they haven't learned the information. You, on the other hand, are willfully STUPID because you intentionally IGNORE the information presented. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. So you disregard the evidence and believe whatever you want to believe. That explains a lot. 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.