"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:u7k0o1lrejvkdumjf4hgpqkp4vh4lnob7m@4ax.com...

Then I'll ask a simpler question: why should "life coming from non-
life" be a showstopper for evolution?

Because it is contrary to one of the basic laws of science which states
that
you can't get something from nothing.

What physical item is created from nothing to break these laws?

Why are you limiting my answer to a physical item?

Is it because you know
the answer already and you're attempting to rule that out of the equasion?

The answer of course is intelligent human life and intelligent animal life.
There is no biochemical process that can naturally create this.

Life is a process requiring energy which comes via food,not a created
out of nothing physical object. No mass is lost at the instant of
death. Your premise is therefore false

No mass is lost at the instant of death, huh? What is this I hear about
people suddenly losing measurable weight at the instant of death?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/lifeafterdeath/soul-at-death.html

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713CA6B5AEEAfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:_zPff.35487$0l5.31877@dukeread06:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BB0308F93fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Then you agree that life became from non-life.

That does follow. Why, is the property of being alive something
more than the property of an organized arrangement of organic
molecules?

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no question.

I said "that does follow". Now quit ducking and answer mine.

I cannot because I can't understand your question.

Then I'll ask a simpler question: why should "life coming from non-
life" be a showstopper for evolution?

Because it is contrary to one of the basic laws of science which states that
you can't get something from nothing.

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AC9CFD6C0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

There is no particular reason why it should be anywhere at all at
Planck time.

Then you agree that life became from non-life.

That does follow. Why, is the property of being alive something more
than the property of an organized arrangement of organic molecules?

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no question.

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3u9gutF105qngU1@individual.net...

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051146290001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

snip

We do have fossil evidence. I should note that evolutionists have no
evidence to prove that life can evolve from non-life.

Maybe that's because that doesn't have anything to do with evolution as
you've been told repeatedly.

Really? Then perhaps you could explain where this life was at Planck time.

In article <E8ednezufqhn6-LenZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:

"Jason" wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > : I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did
see
: > : some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still
need
: > : to explain how the matter came to be?
: >
: > Don't theist still need to describe the processes that their god
supposedly
: > used to make matter? Otherwise, what evidence do we have that he made
it?
:
: Bear,
: You failed to answer my question. You are not suppose to answer a question
: with a question.

You didn't ask the question of me.

: Regardless--I'll answer your question. Christians don't know what sort of
: processes or mechanisms God used to make matter. We have no eye witness or
: written evidence that God did or did not make matter.

So your assertion that your deity created matter has on objective,
verifiable evidence to support it.

We do have fossil evidence.

I should note that evolutionists have no
evidence to prove that life can evolve from non-life.

The advocates of the
Big Bang theory are not able to prove how the matter that exploded came to
be.

In article <rK2dnTnUs7GS7eLenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:

"Jason" wrote
: I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did see
: some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still need
: to explain how the matter came to be?

Don't theist still need to describe the processes that their god supposedly
used to make matter? Otherwise, what evidence do we have that he made it?

Bear,
You failed to answer my question. You are not suppose to answer a question
with a question.
Regardless--I'll answer your question. Christians don't know what sort of
processes or mechanisms God used to make matter. We have no eye witness or
written evidence that God did or did not make matter.

That's the reason the staff members at ICR collect evidence (eg fossils).
They hope to provide the evidence needed to prove that creation science is
a valid theory. If you want to learn more about the evidence, read this
book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051004500001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates of the
theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded came to
be?

Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that scientists
refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then it
would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint" theory.

In article <F9idnYm7oZExzOLeRVn-rg@comcast.com>, "Jesus Sucks"
<Jesus@sucks.*****> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911050756410001@pm4-broad-18.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <kBHff.34064$0l5.20050@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:

"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sgfun1piraueh3m3q9tuf9b0vh70qplckn@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:59:14 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<AcGff.33325$0l5.30920@dukeread06>:

<mentalcase_222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132380072.717505.229560@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Jason wrote:

The solar system and earth had to have a beginning point.

They most certainly did,

Then explain this:

The big bang over trillions of years involves a perpetual motion of
expansion and contaction and expansion again into a new universe. When
did
that perpeual motion begin, how did it begin, and where did all that
mass
come from in the first place?

No, the age of the universe isn't very clear, but, if I recall
correctly, the current best estimate is about 13.5 billion years.

Is that before or after the Hubble telescope was able to see farther than
no
man had ever seen before?

I'll ask the same question that I asked to a group of advocates of
evolution. None of them gave me a great answer to this question:
How did the matter that exploded during the "big bang" come to be? I
should note that when I saw a film (based on "computer animation") about
the Big Bang theory, the narrator of the film never stated how the matter
that exploded came to be. The professor that showed the film refused to
answer any questions about the film.
jason

I'm sure the professor did answered your question, just not to your
satisfaction. The only answer that is acceptable to you is that it came from
god. There is really no way of knowing where it originally came from. All we
can do is speculate because it is here. Why can't you grasp that it has just
always been? You don't seem to have a problem with god always being. I can
very easily say that there is another universe outside of our known universe
and outside that one is another and another and so on. Can it ever be proved
or disproved? No. Therefore it is pointless.

You do the same thing when you try to justify your beliefs. Can god ever be
proven or disproven? Yes. But only if god comes and proves himself. Which
surely he is capable of doing. Attacking science is not going to prove his
existence. Quoting biblical crap is not going to prove his existence. What
is really your point of asking this question. Are you so unsure of your
faith that you have to ask questions that the only possible answer is "who
knows?" So you think you have the right answer because you can say "god did
it?" Or do you think that as part of your faith you should try to convert as
many people as possible and the only way you can think of is by showing your
lack of intelligence? Get it through your head. We don't care if you believe
in fairy tales. Just leave it in your church or home.

How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates of the
theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded came to
be?

I'll ask the same question that I asked to a group of advocates of
evolution. None of them gave me a great answer to this question:
How did the matter that exploded during the "big bang" come to be? I
should note that when I saw a film (based on "computer animation") about
the Big Bang theory, the narrator of the film never stated how the matter
that exploded came to be. The professor that showed the film refused to
answer any questions about the film.

I'll ask the same question that I asked to a group of advocates of
evolution. None of them gave me a great answer to this question:
How did the matter that exploded during the "big bang" come to be?