Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > If you have attended any debates, you should know that the skills of the > debater is even more important than the evidence. The evidence is > important but the presentation of the evidence is an even more important > issue in relation to a debate. Science isn't a debate. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <cuvgj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that >>>>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. >>>> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies, >>>> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? >>> It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed >>> several other Christians and myself. >> Gish is not a "she", he's a "he". Again, on what basis do you find Gish >> worthy of respect? Is it his lies, his deceptions or his fundamental >> dishonesty you find so worthy of respect? > > I respect him for his accomplishments. So, he's an accomplished liar and con-man. Big deal. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <207f63l1vndqjhd4th6c3ppe842gtur3o6@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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. > > -- Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f48ra4$9nr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181196751.341121.93240@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f48roe$a7c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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.) Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181200564.614824.97020@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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? According to the article that was written by Chuck Norris, the Texas Freedom Network is one of the liberal groups that is fighting at great expense to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms. Chuck Norris mentioned that other liberal groups are also fighting to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:08:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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? If you're not trying to do that, then it doesn't matter whether two people or twenty billion believe, the numbers are absolutely irrelevant. Yet you bring them up as if they do mean something, so yes, you do seem to think that simply counting noses establishes reality - that you can vote God into existence. -- Faith fills the fundy head...where facts and knowledge fear to tread. - Steve Rose Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:06:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. So only 12% of Americans have a science education. Big whoop. Again, counting noses does not establish reality. A claim stands on its own, not on how many - or who - stands behind it. -- What is the difference between right-wing and left-wing Christianity? --- Preston Simpson Jelly doesn’t understand the former is according to Saul; the latter, to Jesus. --- Karl Schneider Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181202133.894513.79570@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 str= > uggle > > > > for viability as a theory: > > > > > > 1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding unive= > rse =3D > > > 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 ma= > ny > > > > 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/S= > tru=3D > > > 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 ju= > st > > > > the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at a= > ll > > > > 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 =3DB1 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 fini= > te > > > > 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 mus= > t 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 insuffi= > cient > > > > evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher > > > > redshifts (z =3D3D 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. A= > ny > > > > larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itse= > lf 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 l= > ist > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > Some Christians do not believe it, most educated Christians see no > problem with it; just as they accept evolution as a fact. It is only > the ignorant that have problems with it. Some churches are nothing but social organizations that no longer teach messages from the Bible. We have such a church in my town. According to page 6 of the Noverber 2004 issue of National Geographic, only 12 percent of Americans believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without involvement of a god. It appears that you believe that most of the people that live in America are ignorant. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:23:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > Scenario: > An atheist attends an open casket funeral. > > The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." > > The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence > that man was really dead." Since dead people do not, in fact, get up and walk and talk then it's pretty clear someone was playing a game. > The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the > doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no > blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." Fine - but was he dead? > The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." Correct. > I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I > posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. We don't care that he was healed. I'm sure it's all very nice for him and all, and bravo hip hip and all that. It does not, however, demonstrate that God exists, nor that God performed the healing. Hey, I knocked over my coffee - God must exist! That would be a stupid statement, as there is no reason to suspect God was involved. Thing is, it's the same situation - there is no reason to suspect God was involved in your "healing" example, first because there's no reason to suspect God even exists , and second, because there's no reason to think he is the only explanation even if he did exist. So maybe he was sick, maybe he was healed, all very good, but you claimed to have evidence that gods exist and so far you've failed, completely, to provide it. -- “I am not a ‘boy,’ fundyramus.” -- Dave Horn Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f4922n$gop$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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>.) You mentioned one of the problems with the Big Bang theory. There are about 29 other problems so scientists still have a lot of work to do related to this theory. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:25:17 -0700, Jason wrote: > Scenario: > An atheist attends an open casket funeral. Yeah, you've found another cute story to spew. One problem: it still completely fails to show what you claimed you had: evidence that gods exist. So, Jason, where is the evidence already? -- ‘And you have no proof that the Mutant Cosmic Star Goat (Braise His Mane!!) didn’t eat Yahweh, have Jesus for dessert, get really bad gas, and now you worship a smelly methane cloud.’ - Quentin Fai Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f490qc$f9l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. It's my opinion that colleges should not discriminate professors that are advocates of creation science. Columbia does not discriminate against a professor that teaches a class related to the history of witchcraft. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181200807.202359.9430@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f48ss5$at5$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. Are you claiming that you healed the man? What is your evidence? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181196751.341121.93240@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Scenario: > An atheist attends an open casket funeral. > > The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." > > The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence > that man was really dead." No, there's no evidence that god was responsible. You seem to have a problem with cause-and-effect. We don't always deny the effect but you have never shown the cause. > The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the > doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no > blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." > > The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." > > I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I > posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The > evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now > able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not > believe me, call that man and call his doctor. How many times do we have to repeat it? The issue is NOT "was the man healed?" but "what/who did the healing?" But of course, you'll come back and lie about it again. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f48roe$a7c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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.) > > Scenario: > An atheist attends an open casket funeral. > > The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." > > The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence > that man was really dead." > > The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the > doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no > blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." > > The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." > > I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I > posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The > evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now > able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not > believe me, call that man and call his doctor. > Jason Yeap, you'll completely ignore what was said and then just try the same bullshit again. Clue-time: if it didn't work the 1st 1,000,000 times you tried that bullshit, it ain't gonna work now. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181196542.967643.170890@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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! Scenario: An atheist attends an open casket funeral. The dead man climbs out of the casket and states, "God raised me from the dead." The atheist stands up and states in a loud voice, "There is no evidence that man was really dead." The doctor of the man stands up and states in a loud voice, "I am the doctor that determined that he was dead--he did not have a pulse, had no blood pressure and had acheived room temperature." The atheist replies, "That is NOT evidence." I should note that the patient (that was mentioned in the story that I posted) and the patient's doctor both claimed that he was healed. The evidence is: That man was unable to walk before he was healed and is now able to walk. He no longer needs to use a wheel chair. If you do not believe me, call that man and call his doctor. Jason Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f48ss5$at5$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Are you claiming that you healed the man? What is your evidence? The same evidence that exists that some god healed him. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > > It's my opinion that colleges should not discriminate professors that are > advocates of creation science. Columbia does not discriminate against a > professor that teaches a class related to the history of witchcraft. I wish I had a 20lb sledge hammer that I could beat you upside the head with. Maybe then a point would sink into that skull of yours. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181195590.769451.101310@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, You still have not answered my question related to the Big Bang. Would the captain of a star ship that went back in time be able to determine the time, date and year that the electronic scanning equipment detected a huge mass of energy? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:50:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <f48ss5$at5$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Are you claiming that you healed the man? What is your evidence? The same as yours for the claim God healed him - none whatsoever. Actually, Mike's claim is in fact a better claim, as we are reasonably certain Mike actually does exist, something that we cannot say about God. -- Maybe a month in my twit filter will teach you some smarts. - M Goldbe Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181196012.613482.158040@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, They had physics classes at the state college that I attended. I did not take the physics class since I had a difficult time passing the math 101 required math class. I did enjoy taking the required biology 101 class. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:38:47 -0700, Jason wrote: > According to page 6 of the Noverber 2004 issue of National Geographic, > only 12 percent of Americans believed that humans evolved from other > life-forms without involvement of a god. > > It appears that you believe that most of the people that live in America > are ignorant. If the polls are correct, then it isn't a matter of belief; most people who live in America are ignorant. This, of course, is not surprising, as we are all ignorant of many things. The specific case, however, suggests that the majority of Americans are ignorant of a particular branch of science. On the other hand, ask them about, oh, say, quantum tunneling. See if the numbers improve any; I rather suspect even fewer have any knowledge of that phenomenon. Again, though... what is the point in bringing up the numbers, other than to perhaps argue that the US needs a vastly improved education system? -- you refuse to understand evolution because the fact of evolution places all responsibility to be worthy as a human squarely upon YOUR shoulders. - David Rice 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.