Guest Don Kresch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:11:37 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <nUZ9i.460$s9.377@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0706071150260001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <f48ss5$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. > >Do you have the name of a doctor that can confirm the healing? I have the >name of a doctor that can confirm that young man was healed. That doctor's >name is >Dr. Dino Delaportas, MD > Address. Telephone number. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <l52mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. Thanks for your post. Are you stating that the star ship would be inside the energy mass? Would it be possible for the star ship to be about five thousand miles (outside) the huge energy mass when the long range electronic scanning instruments detected the presence of the energy mass and/or radiation. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:33:08 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071733080001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <m54h63p1ljb397m0rio2hp8abnvh9rm30c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:09:22 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0706071709230001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <tTZ9i.459$s9.243@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> 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. >> > >> >That is true. However, it does not mean that they support all aspects of >> >evolution theory such as the concept that mankind evolved from a living >> >cell. >> > >> The vast majority belong to denominations that do accept the discoveries >> about evolution, including the fact that mankind shares a common >> ancestry with other life on earth. >> >> You reject that fact, but the fact won't change just because you don't >> like it. > >I have pointed out that only about 12 percent of the people believe that. > Even if your claim it true, it doesn't matter. Facts are not voted on. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:47:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > This book contains lots of evidence that God exists: "Evidence That > Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Ooh... I forgot about Mr. "Liar, Lord or Lunatic". Yet another stunning example of deception, fraud and lies. Yes, yes, very good people to hold up as your pinnacles of respectability. -- A ‘higher level of biblical argument’ is rather like a ‘more sophisticated barroom brawl’. - Simon Ewins Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:27:16 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071727160001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <70gmj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:38:17 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Measurements would be meaningless as there's insufficient structure to >> >> measure anything; everywhere you look, it is noise and chaos. >> >> > Thanks for your post. Are you stating that the star ship would be inside >> > the energy mass? >> >> Obviously. The concepts of "space ship" and "time" and "travel" are all >> things defined in terms of the operations of physics within our spacetime, >> thus any such ship would, of necessity, have to be also inside our >> spacetime in order for it to be a meaningful concept to us. Thus, as it >> approaches T=0, it is inside the expanding ball of superheated energy just >> after Planck time. >> >> > Would it be possible for the star ship to be about five >> > thousand miles (outside) the huge energy mass when the long range >> > electronic scanning instruments detected the presence of the energy mass >> > and/or radiation. >> >> No, because the ships is inside the ball. As time goes backwards, the ball >> condenses. It's not like standing beside a ball on the floor, looking at >> it; you - and the ship - are inside the ball, which is shrinking and >> heating, with the ship inside it. >> >> How do you stand off 5,000 miles from something that you're inside of, >> which itself is less than 5,000 miles across - assuming we're talking >> about winding time back as close to 0 as we can theoretically get. > >Thanks for your post. I hope that other people also answer the question. I >was under the impression that the mass of material was floating in open >space prior to the time that it expanded. Is that not true? No. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <j3_9i.473$s9.345@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0706071208340001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <f498d2$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. That an excellent attempt at avoiding to answer my question. I don't blame you for not answering it since it's a difficult question to answer. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Jun 8, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you > respected? Jason, I treat everyone with respect until such a time as it is shown they are unworthy of respect. You, Gish and Morris have all been proven to be unworthy of my respect: I do not respect uneducated liars. You, on the other hand, obviously only respect people who think the way you do. Until coming to this newsgroup, you never even spoke to people who felt differently and, now that you are here, you are not the least bit interested in anything we've had to say, even though you said you were and promised to look at any evidence we could present. That's not respect, Jason: respect is more than simply not resorting to name calling. Respect involves actual communication and not a flat disregard of what people have to tell you. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <7j2mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. You failed to answer this question: Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you respected? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:37:45 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071737450001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0p2h6399jniuu128m1j7hnr7mccd7kjuf8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:33:53 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606072233530001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1181186644.427298.236190@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 7, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > <Jason-0606071304200...@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >In article ><1181115259.911064.176...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > > >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > ... >> >> > >> >> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics >> >> > >> >> > > >> Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? >It's not >> >> > > >> something a normal person would flaunt. >> >> >> >> > > >No--there are millions of us. >> >> > >> >> > > At times you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Apparently the Parable >> >> > > of the Talents is one of Jesus' parables that you do not know. >> >> > >> >> > Do you believe that everyone that has never taken a college physics class >> >> > is ignorant? >> >> >> >> By definition, yes. Can you point me to a college that doesn't offer >> >> any physics classes so that a student wouldn't have had an opportunity >> >> to take one? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >Believe it or not--lots of students do not enjoy math classes as much as >> >you did when you was a college student. I hated math classes in high >> >school and hated Math 101 even more. >> >Jason >> > >> Do you reject the math that you chose not to learn? > >Funny--I did not reject it--I just hated it. Did you enjoy all of the >classes that you had to take your first year of college? > I didn't stop learning when I left college. Why did you? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:30:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071730240001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <693h63l4ncitvvq8shj0783968cf3un28p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0706071642500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <7j2mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [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. >> > >> >You failed to answer this question: >> > >> >Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you >> >respected? >> > >> You have yet to give us a reason that you would respect such a liar and >> con man. Your defense of Gish makes it clear that people should not >> trust you. > >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. Which accomplishment do you respect more: His ability to lie to everyone with a straight face, or His willingness to steal money from Christians by telling those lies? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:29:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071729260001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <q1gmj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <7j2mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [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. >> > >> > You failed to answer this question: >> > >> > Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you >> > respected? >> >> If he earned that by, say, consistently spewing known falsehoods, >> absolutely. > >Thanks for your answer. > Jason respect thievery and fraud. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <57_9i.476$s9.474@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0706071218570001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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 > > Well then, if that many people are sure of that then we should have some > evidence to support this god. Please present some of this evidence. I requested that you google "miracle healings" and if you had done that, you would know that God is healing people today in much the same way that God healed people while Jesus was on this earth. This book contains lots of evidence that God exists: "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Jason Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:55:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f49kbs$3h4$3@news04.infoave.net> >Jason wrote: >> In article <f48ss5$at5$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> Martin, >>>> I would like for you to tell me how that young man was able to walk unless >>>> God had healed him? His doctor confirmed that he was healed. >>> Jason, >>> >>> I'd like for you to tell me how that young man was able to walk unless >>> I had healed him? His doctor confirmed that he was healed. >> >> Are you claiming that you healed the man? What is your evidence? > >The same evidence that exists that some god healed him. On the contrary! You exist. God does not. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:38:47 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f498q7$nk2$2@news04.infoave.net> >Jason wrote: >> >> So if scientists arrive at a consensus that time did not exist prior to >> the Big Bang than people like yourself just accept it without question. > >No. When there is EVIDENCE that time didn't exist prior to the big bang, >we accept it. > >Why do you continually lie so much? He actually seems to enjoy it. Strange pathological behaviour. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:53:22 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <h23h635si7vocaminvnpv10kp07vtq0bvn@4ax.com> >On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:12:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-0706071212100001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <f49bfr$q8c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>> > Let's say that you lived in a different city than your father lived. You >>> > have a great deal of respect for your father. You meet someone that starts >>> > to tell you how evil your father is and that he had all sorts of evidence >>> > about your father. >>> > >>> > You would have two options: >>> > option 1: Agree agree that man and agree with the evidence. >>> > option 2: Continue to have respect for your father and disregard the >>evidence. >>> > >>> > I would choose option 2. >>> >>> >>> So you disregard the evidence and believe whatever you want to believe. >>> That explains a lot. >> >>Are you the type of person that would you turn your back on a person that >>you respected? >> >The more you defend Gish's lies, the less respect you deserve. How can it go below zero? -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 In article <lZZ9i.466$s9.117@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. If you google "Big Bang Problems", you will find lots of sites that mention all of the problems with Big Bang theory. I did not state in my post that the Big Bang did not happen. I only stated that there are problems with the theory and that scientists were working on finding solutions to the problems. Some of the porblems are discussed above in the article that was written by David F. Coppedge--he works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:03:20 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071803200001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <tv5h63p152eiq5lkke28hqjbr3qmes9leb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > .... >> I didn't stop learning when I left college. Why did you? > >I did not stop learning. My interests were different than your interests. Then why do you continue to make false claims about areas of science that you are ignorant of? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:01:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071801200001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181259707.051994.129240@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you >> > respected? >> >> Jason, >> I treat everyone with respect until such a time as it is shown they >> are unworthy of respect. You, Gish and Morris have all been proven to >> be unworthy of my respect: I do not respect uneducated liars. >> >> You, on the other hand, obviously only respect people who think the >> way you do. Until coming to this newsgroup, you never even spoke to >> people who felt differently and, now that you are here, you are not >> the least bit interested in anything we've had to say, even though you >> said you were and promised to look at any evidence we could present. >> That's not respect, Jason: respect is more than simply not resorting >> to name calling. Respect involves actual communication and not a flat >> disregard of what people have to tell you. >> >> Martin > >I have learned about aspects of the Big Bang that I did not know before >reading various posts and visting various sites such as the ones I found >when I googled "Big Bang Problems". It's an interesting theory. > You have done an excellent job of not learning anything about the Big Bang while selectively grabbing onto 'problems' with it that you don't remotely understand. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:01:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0706071801590001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <a16h6319s729j9vneu0i3hn7ch97fj1vh7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:30:23 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0706071730240001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <693h63l4ncitvvq8shj0783968cf3un28p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0706071642500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <7j2mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> [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. >> >> > >> >> >You failed to answer this question: >> >> > >> >> >Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that you >> >> >respected? >> >> > >> >> You have yet to give us a reason that you would respect such a liar and >> >> con man. Your defense of Gish makes it clear that people should not >> >> trust you. >> > >> >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. >> >> Which accomplishment do you respect more: >> >> His ability to lie to everyone with a straight face, or >> >> His willingness to steal money from Christians by telling those lies? > >He was an author and an excellent debater. > So you like his thievery (by writing books that mislead Christians) and his lies (because he told them shamelessly in his 'debates'). You are morally defective. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:25:54 +0930, in alt.atheism Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in <tn6h63dgsuq528bllorj97i6b8gag7ekmf@4ax.com>: >On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:53:22 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > - Refer: <h23h635si7vocaminvnpv10kp07vtq0bvn@4ax.com> >>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:12:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >><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? >>> >>The more you defend Gish's lies, the less respect you deserve. > >How can it go below zero? Depends on the scale. I'm thinking Celsius or even Fahrenheit. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071727160001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <70gmj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:38:17 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Measurements would be meaningless as there's insufficient structure to >> >> measure anything; everywhere you look, it is noise and chaos. >> >> > Thanks for your post. Are you stating that the star ship would be >> > inside >> > the energy mass? >> >> Obviously. The concepts of "space ship" and "time" and "travel" are all >> things defined in terms of the operations of physics within our >> spacetime, >> thus any such ship would, of necessity, have to be also inside our >> spacetime in order for it to be a meaningful concept to us. Thus, as it >> approaches T=0, it is inside the expanding ball of superheated energy >> just >> after Planck time. >> >> > Would it be possible for the star ship to be about five >> > thousand miles (outside) the huge energy mass when the long range >> > electronic scanning instruments detected the presence of the energy >> > mass >> > and/or radiation. >> >> No, because the ships is inside the ball. As time goes backwards, the >> ball >> condenses. It's not like standing beside a ball on the floor, looking at >> it; you - and the ship - are inside the ball, which is shrinking and >> heating, with the ship inside it. >> >> How do you stand off 5,000 miles from something that you're inside of, >> which itself is less than 5,000 miles across - assuming we're talking >> about winding time back as close to 0 as we can theoretically get. > > Thanks for your post. I hope that other people also answer the question. I > was under the impression that the mass of material was floating in open > space prior to the time that it expanded. Is that not true? There was nothing in which to float. There was no time and no space. There was a singularity. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0706071730240001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <693h63l4ncitvvq8shj0783968cf3un28p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0706071642500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <7j2mj4-917.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [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. >> > >> >You failed to answer this question: >> > >> >Are you the type of person that would turn your back on a person that >> >you >> >respected? >> > >> You have yet to give us a reason that you would respect such a liar and >> con man. Your defense of Gish makes it clear that people should not >> trust you. > > I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. What? Lying and leading others astray? What accomplishments! Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On Jun 8, 3:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181196638.095121.125...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@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 Still no evidence though. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 In article <tTZ9i.459$s9.243@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. That is true. However, it does not mean that they support all aspects of evolution theory such as the concept that mankind evolved from a living cell. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 In article <nUZ9i.460$s9.377@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0706071150260001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <f48ss5$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. Do you have the name of a doctor that can confirm the healing? I have the name of a doctor that can confirm that young man was healed. That doctor's name is Dr. Dino Delaportas, MD 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.