Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f498d2$n31$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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?) Thanks for your answer. It would be interesting to know how other members of this newsgroup would answer this question. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:32:40 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. TFN... ACLU. TFN... ACLU. Yup, they're obviously the same thing. Just like salt and sunshine are the same thing. -- “1 + 1 may not always equal two, because no one has done it a trillion times yet!” -- Russ Wuertz Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181196120.632387.197210@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you respected? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <f49bfr$q8c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. Are you the type of person that would you turn your back on a person that you respected? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:29:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > Martin, > I have stated things that turned out to be not true and it's my guess that > Dr. Morris, Dr. Gish and almost everyone else in the world has done the > same thing. Correct. However, Gish at the very least doesn't just say things that turn out to not be true; he repeats things which he knows are not true for years. This, for example, is why he's often referred to as "Bullfrog Gish". You really need to learn a little bit about the people you claim to respect. -- Sex outside of a Christian marriage is unsafe whether it is homosexual or not. - Dr. (sic) James Robertson Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:46:53 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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? They would be able to get to a point considerably _after_ Planck time, when temperatures are low enough for complex matter to exist. They'd see a lot of random radiation and not much else, sort of like being _inside_ a sun, except vastly hotter and less structured. Measurements would be meaningless as there's insufficient structure to measure anything; everywhere you look, it is noise and chaos. -- Let us have faith that right makes might. - Lincoln Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <1181196638.095121.125260@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Only 12 percent of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a God. source: page 6--National Geographic--November 2004 Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:11:10 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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 > > Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you > respected? He, like me, is presumably the sort of person who grants respect to those worthy of it. Gish is not such a person. -- If Satan does exist then I believe he is Santa Clause. You can all laugh at me and say I’m crazy, but that’s what I believe. -- Kano Vuong Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <glvlj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I did not conduct the poll. Several people in various posts implied that I was ignorant for not believing that humans evolved from a living cell. My point was that millions of people agree with me. In fact, only about 12 percent of the people agree with you. You may believe that your oldest ancestor is a cell but I believe that my oldest ancestors were all human beings. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:58:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > I did not conduct the poll. Yet you post it as if it is meaningful. Thus you appear to be asserting that because something is popular, it must, therefore, also be true, which is a fallacy - you are, in essence, trying to "vote God into existence". If that's not what you're doing, then the numbers are simply irrelevant; the claims stand or fall on their own. If it is what you're trying to do, it is a fallacy. -- But stupid you forgot to that notes like I said for you dumb asses too. - Bill Wolff (Fundamentalist Christian) Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:10:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > Wow--Would you claim the man that rose from the dead was not really > dead? If he gets up and walks around, it is much more sensible to conclude someone is playing a game than to conclude that he actually was dead. > The doctor confirmed that he pronounced that he was dead since he had NO > blood pressure, no pulse and had achieved room temperature. > > Are you stating that the doctor's above mentioned evidence was not > really evidence? Not of death, no. Oh... wait... you've never heard of hypothermia... heart transplants... any number of conditions in which body temperatures drop and/or hearts are stopped - even removed - without the person being dead... There's a reason we use brain death, rather than mere heart stoppage and other such pointless time-wasting notions, to determine death. -- “What crawled up your butt and died?” - J. B. Shaughnessy “CHRIST IS THE ANSWER". Seems to me, this adds a new meaning to the words ‘religious tract.’ Not to mention ‘Biblical passage.’” -- J. J. Hitt Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <a50mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. Wow--Would you claim the man that rose from the dead was not really dead? The doctor confirmed that he pronounced that he was dead since he had NO blood pressure, no pulse and had achieved room temperature. Are you stating that the doctor's above mentioned evidence was not really evidence? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:10:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > The doctor confirmed that he pronounced that he was dead since he had NO > blood pressure, no pulse and had achieved room temperature. Something just occurred to me... that the above indicates yet another of your basic problems; you have really lousy standards of evidence. You see a guy crawl out of a casket and conclude "miracle" rather than "someone's playing tricks." You use the least reliable means of determining issues such as death and then conclude "miracle". In each case you present, you demonstrate a complete inability to examine the case in a critical light, choosing the least analytical, most credulous approach you can find. Your case of the "healing", for example. You see that he was (supposedly) healed. Fine, great, marvelous... but you don't even consider possible natural causes, you simply discard even the possibility of a non-theistic explanation and conclude "god dunnit". What's funny about this in a sad and pathetic sort of way is that you absolutely refuse to apply that credulity in an even-handed manner. You demand that science prove beyond doubt every jot and tittle of its claims, you reject the evidence out of hand when it's presented, but when it comes to god notions, you require virtually no actual support before you'll believe absolutely. I'm not sure what you get out of this; it is certainly neither an education nor the simple ability to say to yourself "Today, I acted in a good, honest way that shows the power of my faith", because you don't; you demonstrate the faith to be fragile, shallow, sitting atop a bed of dishonesty. Personally, I couldn't base my entire life on a lie and still look at myself in the morning. Maybe you can, but why would you want to? -- Drop that Bible and come out with your eyes open! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071258340001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <glvlj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I did not conduct the poll. Several people in various posts implied that I > was ignorant for not believing that humans evolved from a living cell. My > point was that millions of people agree with me. In fact, only about 12 > percent of the people agree with you. You may believe that your oldest > ancestor is a cell but I believe that my oldest ancestors were all human > beings. > Jason Sorry Jason, you're confusing belief in god with a basis in evolution. There are hundreds of millions of Christians that support the science that has brought us into the 21st century. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071150260001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? It's as good as yours, Jason, that's the point. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071148320001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Remember the wooden legs, Jason, remember the wooden legs. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <7p1mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:32:40 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> 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. > > > TFN... ACLU. TFN... ACLU. Yup, they're obviously the same thing. Just > like salt and sunshine are the same thing. According to the article, "...liberal groups are fighting at great expense to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms". It's difficult to brainwash public school students related to evolution theory, if intelligent design or courses related to the Bible are taught. That, in my opinion, is the MAIN reason that liberal groups are fighting at great expense to keep the Bible and intelligent design out of the public school system. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071138470001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 If you are representative of that then the answer is yes, they're ignorant. Again you are railing against the strawman you have constructed because you have been told many times here that how the universe started is unknown so you can posit your god if you wish. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071142510001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. They have enough evidence to show that the big bang happened. What is your evidence that it didn't? Don't have any? I didn't think so. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071146180001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Your opinion becomes less forceful every time you voice it. We can't help it if you can't distinguish between science and creation 'science'. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071132410001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. They aren't in this case, you lying dog! I'm getting tired of correcting your lies. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071330530001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <7p1mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:32:40 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> TFN... ACLU. TFN... ACLU. Yup, they're obviously the same thing. Just >> like salt and sunshine are the same thing. > > According to the article, "...liberal groups are fighting at great expense > to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms". > > It's difficult to brainwash public school students related to evolution > theory, if intelligent design or courses related to the Bible are taught. > That, in my opinion, is the MAIN reason that liberal groups are fighting > at great expense to keep the Bible and intelligent design out of the > public school system. Again, your opinion, which by now is worthless. The liberal organizations support real science instruction and schools free from teaching the Christian religion. That really applies to all religions but in the US the Christian religion causes the most problem in that area. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071208340001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f498d2$n31$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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?) > > Thanks for your answer. It would be interesting to know how other members > of this newsgroup would answer this question. Well, when an honest person asks we will tell them. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071200460001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Impossible scenario! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071212100001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f49bfr$q8c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Are you the type of person that would you turn your back on a person that > you respected? He's probably the type person that would accord respect to those who deserve it. You refuse to examine the track record of old Bullfrog Gish. 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.