News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Just wondering.

Anyone might think that by posting a creationist claim and locking the thread, the poster is afraid of being confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary. But that can't be, because the creationists here are in no way insecure about their beliefs are they?

Thanks Russ for the recent regurgipost of quote mines. I take it you are not bothered about the fact that the majority of them are taken out of context and others are decades old and no longer relevant. Do you really think someone like Stephen Gould secretly believed that evolution is hogwash and occasionally got "tripped up" by astute creationists just waiting for him to make a Freudian slip? Please, how much are you going to insult people's intelligence here?

I would ask if I, too, could post and have it locked, but I welcome debate as a way to the truth.

Hey LL

Always remember the FundamentalsEnjoy.[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Hi RAZD

Too busy to talk on EvC lately -- new job and all. They keep me busy there on the forum when I visit LOL.

Quote mines aren't going to fool anyone other than people who already have a vested interest in believing them (i.e. creationists). So no distractions for me here <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

probably because it would be akin to peeing on the side of your own car.

I have an idea Linda, why don't you start your own website and then you can make the rules too.

as it is, you're sort of playing on someone else's swingset.

i think the poster is probably real tired of the redundant bullcrap replies masquerading as intelligence actually. I am just guessing of course. I have no idea why anyone would feel that way.

Funny, that's just what I was thinking. I notice Russ has ceased to engage with any of RAZD's posts and is simply producing loads of creationist propaganda to which he will allow no one to reply. Sure that's his prerogative. It is also quite telling.

It's sad that you assume the worst of my character. Those who know me would never do such things.

It is not fear that motivates me to lock the threads (as you suggested), it is love.

I desire to keep the information on this system as organized as possible so people have the ability to hear both side of an argument (which they are currently not receiving in the school system or the museum system—a socialists agenda). Allowing responses to the "sticky" posts at the top of this forum only corrupts the order of the posts making it difficult to display pertinent information in an orderly way.

It has nothing to do with fear. It is my love of the truth and my heartfelt concern for those who visit this forum to have the opportunity to hear logic and reason uncorrupted by a false faith that teaches that rocks turn into highly complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines over time.


[color:"darkblue"]"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."[/color]

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].




Linda,

You have the entire forum to post your replies to. Is that not sufficient for you?

I could suppose that you—as an unapologetic socialist (as you called yourself on another thread)—are unhappy that you cannot post replies in some certain way, that is, just the way you want? In this case, do you feel that your "rights" are being withheld? If so, this is another great irony and contradiction within you (with all due respect).

You see, unlike evolutionists, I do not believe that rocks turn into highly complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines over time, and for this reason, I believe in inalienable rights and I enjoy exercising them.

You see, your faith in socialism is a fantastically naive faith (just as is your faith in evolution) that has numerous internal contradictions and self-serving purposes. Socialism is the system created by the worlds worst tyrants and is currently promoted by those who also currently enslave you.

I kindly highly suggest you read the federalists papers and also check out some of the links below. These will help you understand that what the Bible has said is correct in that these end times will bring about a cruel socialist world government who will kill a majority of the world's population (have you read UN Agenda 21?).

My hope for you Linda is that you will take some time to explore those who have views that oppose your own, for you can only find your own internal contradictions by testing them against logic and reason, and current logic dictates that rocks do not turn into highly complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines over time. It is simply not logical and there is simply no evidence for it, only the appearance of evidence that—when more deeply explored—turns out to be false and deceitful.

I would also share with you the fact that socialism is, among other things, a system that allows the funneling of private money into the hands of big (politically-influential) business. Again, you need to carefully understand history to see what the origin of these things really are.

[color:"brown"]Please take time to explore the opposing viewpoints as it may expand your own if you have the proper humility (no small requirement).[/color]

All the best.

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Evolution\'s Moral Implications (video)

Creation vs. Evolution Video


These (below) will help reveal part of the Biblically-predicted end-time conspiracies...

Detailed Instructions for Sabotaging Voting Machines

Vote Fraud or Mistake in New Hampshire Confirmed

Clinton Curtis (Computer Programmer) Rigs Voting Machines

Voting Machine Sabotage Demonstrated on Video

---

The abuses enumerated in this document were executed by socialists who purposed to control the world, which can only be achieved by gaining the support of those who are naive to history.

The Declaration of Independence


Return of the Nephilim, Chuck Missler

The New Order of Barbarians

The Government Always Tells the Truth

Confessions of An Ex-RX Drug Pusher

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People

From Freedom To Fascism

Our Solor System

One Nation Under Siege

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Loose Change

Bush Nazi Family Ties

Kennedy On Secret Societies

...for by your medication were all the nations deceived.

The Lincoln Assassination and the Jesuit Connection, Jon Eric Phelps (MP3)

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

New Age Bible Versions


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not [color:"red"]do as he wants to do[/color] . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. [color:"red"]We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom[/color]."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century]. (emphasis mine)


[color:"red"]"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."[/color]

—Aleister Crowley, Satanist, The Book of the Law, 1:40
(This statement is taken from the first chapter verse 40 of the The Book of the Law, also know as Liber al vel Legis, which is claimed to have been communicated to Aleister Crowley by a discarnate entity known as Aiwass on April 8, 9 and 10 in 1904, in Cairo, Egypt.) (emphasis mine)

—I include this here to demonstrate the true reason for the incessant promotion of the myth of evolution, namely, the desire for sexual freedom via the elimination of God from our minds: see following...

[color:"brown"]"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..."[/color]
—Romans 1:28



"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"

—Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.


"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."

—Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist


"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."

—T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.


"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."

—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."

—The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].


"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "

—Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]


"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."

—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."

—Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.


"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].


"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

—Charles Darwin: In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology

Thanks for the chuckle Russ -- about your paper-thin arguments for locking creationist threads while refusing to engage with RAZD's information -- and also about my evil socialist agenda.

The fact of the matter remains that you simply cannot respond in a logical or scientific way to sensible challenges to the nonsense you are posting, which is why you will not allow anyone to post a challenge in the first place.

I'm sorry Linda. I'm not sure I understand what you're upset about.

Relating to my "paper-thin" arguments with RAZD...

I made my case and RAZD refuted. I will let the people watching this forum decide whether his rebuttal is worth refuting, but as for me, I believe the logic that RAZD is putting forth—namely that rocks evolve into humans and animals over time—is in itself paper thin. I believe this: If people cannot see through the current globalists socialistic agenda and how it is profoundly related to the incessant promotion of the evolution, I simply cannot help them, although, in love, I am doing my best to help them see through the lies. For example:

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted


You see, people must be willing to consider (read) viewpoints they don't agree with if they intend to become educated. I have certainly done my share of exploring both sides of the evolutionary argument and after this research was mature, I have concluded (as have numerous others who have done their homework) that evolution is nothing more than a belief system to remove God from our memories and put man in His place. Of course, the men promoting this rock-to-man myth (originally) invented it themselves to subvert the logic of the feeble-minded (as they put it). The more recent re-invention of the age-old evolution myth are promoting it for the same reason (evolution mythology is really quite old).

The ones capable of seeing through the illogic of the evolution myth will eventually be imprisoned and/or killed. Those who don't will be marked up with a bar-code of some kind which will doom them to eternity in hell (yes, the Bible strongly implies that those who receive this mark have taken the last step toward self-inflicted delusion—being "stupid on purpose" as Hovind calls it—and will therefore have no hope for eternal peace and joy).

For this reason, I—in love—reach out to people encouraging them to learn about these soon-coming events so they can escape from the lies of these evil people and instead have the peace and joy of a real relationship with the Creator, which is what He wants from us. Yes, I have this relationship and it is very real.

For more information about the mark that the Bible predicted centuries ago would come about, see this:
The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Concerning your statement about me not responding in a logical way, I would have to say this:

(1) I do not believe that rocks turned into highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproductive machines. It is simply not logical. Therefore, your statement is backwards. RAZD's arguments are illogical.

(2) Accusing me of not allowing others to post responses is contradictory because you just did.

...So let me ask (again)...

Is it the location of the allowed responses what you so strongly disagree with?

If so, I will tell you that I disagree with my inability to present profound prophetic and Biblical-numerological creationists viewpoints in public schools, museums, and textbooks. When these institutions begin debating ideas fairly, then I will not only allow evolutionists to post on this forum, as I already do, I may just allow them to respond to the "sticky" posts at the top of this forum directly beneath the post itself. For now, they'll have to create threads in the "normal" thread section.

Of course, I'm already being far more just than the global socialistic censors by allowing rock-to-man evolutionists to post their mythical ideas within inches of the "sticky" posts. Nevertheless, I will allow the viewers of this thread to judge who is being fair and who is not. I am open and honest about my behavior and beliefs.

Finally, I would wish for you to read the American Declaration of Independence because you may just realize that some of the old tactics that the globalists pulled in that day are in force today. Furthermore, you—as a socialist and evolutionist—are furthering the ideas and doing the work of the very ones who oppress you. That is not logical, but I realize you just haven't put the pieces together yet, but I sincerely hope you do. It will take humility and work.

Now I would have to ask you, in all respect and mindfulness of logic, considering the previous paragraph, who is really being logical here?

Please invest in yourself and do the homework necessary to find out if the things I say are true. It's truly worth it.

The Declaration of Independence


Did you watch any of the videos that I linked to in my previous post that have a differing viewpoint from your own?

All the best.

RAZD seems to think of himself as a dictionary of some sort. He has a love for scientific words, like your love for long words, big words. You both seem to think that is somehow impressive. Wow how impressive. So both of you try to use these methods to present these very haughty intricate arguments, that actually, say nothing, prove nothing. Despite all the big words, the arguments are quite shallow and generally meaningless. What's quite telling is your actual lack of knowledge, both of you, of the world around you and how things actually work. You've both got a hundred reasons for why evolution is this or that and a hundred different excuses for the most simple things occurring on a daily basis which obviously prove your theories wrong. Theories... very boring dumb theories and conjectures. They're not making the best seller list I guess. Demanding a response that suits you is hardly the way to make your point gain respectability. Especially considering the nonsense of the arguments so much of the time. What's most telling really is the way you completely ignore anything that proves you wrong, even concrete evidence and call it or anything or anyone that proves you wrong, a lie or a liar.

Reading Dr Suess is more fun, even more educational. I like the pictures too. Somewhere in the land of wanna be it was thought to be or believed to be or theorized or somehow maybe perhaps proposed...

It's very interesting though, the many different insane and illogical ways you go about your arguments. That, more than anything, teaches me pretty much everything i need to know about evolution.

No lessons learned from your conversations with RAZD then Russ? It's been pointed out to you ad nauseam that you are misrepresenting the ideas of evolution with strawman arguments (you seem to be particularly fond of the rocks-to-people rhetoric) and distractions (talking about globalism, socialism, whatever other things you think are evil, and lumping evolution in with them). I have not actually seen you engage with any of the recent posts from RAZD illustrating, for example, some of the ways that the earth is old.

I'll watch your videos when you read Buddika's Creationist Lies Index. Know thyself as you say -- or better still, know who's lying to you.

Poor persecuted Christians, not being allowed to claim creationism as science in schools or museums. Presumably there are no private Christian schools, and Ken Ham's museum is just a myth.

The bias here is clear and it is also clear that you intend to preach what you believe is the truth by posting locked lists and hoping to drown out the voice of the opposition with them.

You are of course free to choose the debate tactics you desire, and yes people can see what is happening here and make up their own minds.

SoSick, would you like to post anything substantial about creationism or evolution, i.e. what specifically happens every day to prove evolution wrong? A number of scientific points have been provided here, from different scientific disciplines, in support of evolution and particularly an old earth. So far the best refutation efforts we've seen can be summarised by:

-- these arguments aren't worth addressing anyway (avoidance)

-- we are just out to make people think we're smart (character assassination)

-- chunks copied and pasted from creationist websites (plagiarism)

-- claims that evolution is responsible for x number of evils in the world (strawman)

Bex had a good go at trying to refute some specific points about evolution. I admire her for that. Would you like to discuss some specific points? Seashells on top of mountains? The fossil record? Phylogenetics?

There aren't any specific points to discuss that haven't been discussed already.

You don't like the answers, sorry can't help ya.

Go live inside your inside your vaccum cleaner, it's safer there. Maybe there's even a black hole in the universe somewhere that awaits your destiny.

I'm truly sorry that you seem to feel so upset about this Linda. I honestly don't think you're grasping the premise of my previous response to you. Let me boil this down a bit.


You said...


If evolutionists don't believe in rock-to-man processes (i.e. "abiogenesis"), then just where did the raw material to make mankind come from (according to the evolution religion)?

This is a rhetorical question, but I think it is important for you to attempt to answer it so we can get to the truth regarding what evolution actually believes (i.e. - has a tremendous amount of faith in).

Here's a little help:

abio: Not Living ("a" prefixed to a word means "not")
genesis: Beginning or Source


You said...


I truly hope you eventually make the connection between socialism, communism, satanism, and evolution. The fact is, evolution is the fundamental premise for these three systems. Until you are able to make that connection, you will be unable to logically see the true destructiveness in believing in evolution.

This process of seeing involves looking within yourself. Here's a very revealing hint. You are both a socialist and an evolutionist. There is a reason for this. It would be tremendously beneficial for you to look inside yourself and see if you can find out why. Truly, give it a go.


You said...


The rebuttals that RAZD made are on the same level as Dawkins—when he was asked (on video) why be believed that God could not exist outside the "system".

Dawkins response took, perhaps, several minutes; And among all of the "smart-sounding" phrases and "intelligent-sounding" words he used, in essence, his answer was this:

[color:"red"]"God is less likely to exist than man because He's more complicated".[/color]

I'm not kidding.

In watching this video, I am amazed at this response because it is literally on the intellectual level of a preteen, yet, evolutionists remain glued to these adolescent ideas like a religion. The dynamics of self delusion are astounding and fascinatingly ironic (The God Delusion = The Dawkins self-Delusion).

Any argument that attempts to rebut my statements by stating that man and animals evolved from rocks is a fantastically silly argument. The real "distractions" (as you put it) are the attempts to add credibility to these illogical ideas by mixing in scientific-sounding phrases and big words. Again, these processes of debate are the true "distraction" and [color:"blue"]when we boil down the phrases (like abiogenesis) into their true from, we end up with the clear truth that they claim that rocks turn into men and animals[/color].

As I said before, there is no need to rebut these types of man-made religious ideas provided by RAZD because a person who is self-deluded to the point where they believe rocks can turn into men and animals is beyond simple reason and—like a madman—cannot be reasoned with.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I have to be truthful. Well does the Bible speak of the "darkened" intellect:

[color:"brown"]"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their [color:"blue"]foolish heart[/color] was darkened. ... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..."[/color]

—Romans 1:21, 28

The word "foolish" here is Strong's #801: "unintelligent"

The word "heart" here is Strong's #2588: "mind"


You said...


How is it that you speak so eloquently yet claim to be "drowned out"?

I make no secret about my bias: It is toward true science and well-founded logic. It rejects junk science and as a person who loves science and loves people, I spend part of my day dispelling these myths that have been so ingrained into our society through endless mantra (schools, museums, magazines, television, etc.).

[color:"blue"]"If you repeat something long enough, people will believe it."[/color]

Evolution is incessantly promoted as is the global warming myth. Those who promote it are not particularly inventive as the methods are the same. Take a look and learn from their methods:

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted



"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

—James Conant, Chemist and former President, Harvard University, quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.


"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."

—S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).


[color:"blue"]"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."[/color]

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963), Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France.


The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Our Solor System

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

I'm not upset at all Russ, just bemused that you seem to have missed points that have been made to you over and over.

Abiogenesis, as has been explained (see RAZD's thread), is not part of the theory of evolution. Have you read what he has written there about that topic? I learned a lot myself from reading it. I haven't seen any comments there from you.

Evolution doesn't "believe" anything. Evolution IS. Life changes over time.


You've provided me with some good laughs today. I thank you for that. Please give me some clear evidence that this is logically so. Show me how evolution causes the evils of the world. Show me that it, above all other possibilities, is the evil culprit. Tell me how the fact that life changes over time is responsible for . . . what did you say . . . Satanism?

You also seem to be making the assumption that RAZD thinks like Dawkins does. Dawkins is an evangelical atheist. RAZD is not an atheist. He's made that point several times. Evolution does not equate with atheism. Evolution is the change in life over time. Plenty of evolutionists are theists.


Presumably this is your tactic in endlessly repeating "evolutionists think rocks turn into men" even though it has been explained in detail to you many times that this is not what the theory of evolution says at all.


Let's get back to talking about concrete, detailed science then. Show me how any creationist tenet -- pick any one you like -- is founded on science and logic. I asked SoSick to get back down to details but she doesn't seem to be interested in doing anything other than tossing out the usual insults. Would you like to talk about abiogenesis on the designated thread, or start a new one about something specific, like the fossil record? Of course you'd need to keep it unlocked so we can debate.

Watching this video will provide a good introductory explanation to this very valid truth:

Evolution's Moral Implications (video)

This post will also provide some enlightenment in this regard:

----

Evolution is possibly the grandest social deception ever devised. I cannot express how amazed I am that anyone—anyone at all—believes this ridiculous and completely illogical idea.

• Virtually ALL genetic mutations are harmful and destructive, not beneficial. This alone should give thinking persons an idea about how incredibly unlikely—virtually impossible—evolution really is.
• The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics.
• If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now.
• Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages.

The real reason for the promotion of evolution is to create a social climate for the centralization of power and the promotion of certain, otherwise, unethical activities. For these morally deplete power brokers, evolution solves all kinds of problems. It legitimizes:

• Killing weak and "undesirables" like unborn children or elderly persons (natural selection [survival of the fittest])
• Genetic engineering (If nature is a series of errors, we can certainly do better. However, if nature is by intelligent design, we better not mess with it.)
• Immunization (Again, they promote the idea that natural methods are not enough since they are the product of a series of "errors". Intelligent design says we can solve these issues with existing "natural" technology, like enhancing the immune system via diet and supplementation.)
• Democracy (rule—or government—of man. Hey, if there is no "Intelligent Designer", who else is going to rule or set the standard of morality?)
• Communism & socialism (Same)

There is much that can be said about that vastness of this deception, but one thing is certain:

It is not the depth or integrity of the idea of evolution that extends it's life, it is in fact, the broad and unrelenting promotion of the deception coupled with the human tendency to follow.

To accept that evolution is false is to—by implication—accept that there is a conspiracy (a group of people working together) to conceal the truth, and this is, by itself, the reason most cannot overcome the evolutionary absurdness. Americans have been well conditioned to believe that usage of this word (conspiracy) itself undermines credibility. It takes a leader to take a stand against common misconceptions, no matter how farcical.

A simple mind conducting a little research would find that nearly all of the mass media in the United States (and most other industrialized nations) are owned by a handful of God-hating elitists with no morals and no accountability, and it is these who so actively promote the evolution theory.

"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers."

Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118

"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them...

Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

Mutation looks like a mole; Unorganized, shapeless, useless and destructive. However, intelligent creation displays very highly organized symmetry which is absolutely impossible to explain by mutation (and therefore evolution).

----




The term "evolution" is currently being taught the world over as the process that inorganic compounds (rocks eroded with water) turn into life which evolve into humans. This also happens to be the definition of abiogenesis.

I'm clear what is being missed here. Please explain what you are missing and I'll elaborate.




Evolution is being taught as fact (which it is not) and it teaches that rocks turned into humans over time. If you teach children that they evolved from animals how can you expect them to act morally.

Again, this is a simple point that I believe anyone reading this thread would have no problem grasping (with all due respect to you). Hovind does an excellent job explaining this in this video:

Evolution's Moral Implications (video)




Strawman alert.

Actually I believe all evolutionists think like Dawkins does, namealy, that it's impossible to believe in evolution without a preteen naivete. Dawkins makes arguments with the same mental acuity. That was my point. It was not specific to RAZD.




No. Actually this is yet another modification to the previous modification of the term evolution, and these modifications keep coming about because intelligent people are actually beginning to question the sanity of the idea of evolution as it has been taught for decades, namely, that rocks turn into humans over time.

This is what I was taught as the theory of evolution and this is what is currently taught in schools world wide.

This attempt to soften and generalize the myth of evolution is nothing more than another retreat from an idea that is finally being seen for what it is, namely, ridiculous.

[color:"blue"]"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."[/color]

—The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].




If we did that, evolution would never find its way into our discussion.




The problem with this approach as it relates to "science" is this: The things you have faith in as being science—as it relates to evolution—are actually perfectly akin to junk science.

Because we live in a time when integrity can be purchased and truth has a price, much scientific fraud exists and we are then required to wade through this fraud and determine what is valid and what is not.

This is the same issue that exists with the amalgam issue. It had been taught as safe for decades, but now we know this is a lie. The same can be said for numerous so-called scientific "truths".

In wading through this false scientific information, it is important to remember that some scientists are currently compromising scientific integrity for money. Again, this happened concerning NutraSweet as it relates to phenylalanine, for example, at a price of $30,000 (from "60 Minutes"), and the producer of NutraSweet has made untold billions because of this lie, and it continues even now.

We also watch as textbooks continue to increase the age of the Earth—teaching it as fact—over the past few decades. First a few million years, then a few hundred million, then a billion, then 2 billion, then 4 billion, now 6 billion. Of course, we can sensibly see that this number is being tweaked to attempt to make the already impossible odds of evolutionary processes seem more feasible in the mind of the naive. I mean no offense by this. It is simply the way the world works, and—with all due respect—you have shown incredible naivete over the past year in blindly believing that scientists nearly always have integrity. You clearly implied this by your statements in previous posts.

Scientists are human and subject to the same subjectivity as many of the rest of us. We must learn to know and accept this so we don't have more amalgam issues and more phenylalanine issues. Unfortunately, these myths are kept alive and are actually enabled by those who blindly have faith in the integrity of men who practice science. In truth, we should be constantly looking over their shoulders.

Here's an example of the NIH pulling funding for mercury research in order to promote their own agenda at the cost of the health of millions:

http://herballure.com/MediaCenter/HaleyOnAutism.html

You see, as a person who loves science, I detest what is happening to "science", nevertheless, I recognize these times as being dominated by those who know that false scientific studies can be used for the tremendous profit of the few.

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

Nevertheless, here are some issues that are perfectly supported by a logical creationist model and impossible with the evolutionary belief system:

(1) Symmetry

(2) Reproduction

(3) Irreducible Complexity (the eye, the brain)

(4) Population growth over time

(5) No intermediates

(6) Solar system anomalies:
Our Solor System

(7) Granite Halos

(8) Potassium/Argon Dating

(9) Biblical Prophecy

(10) Biblical Gematria


You may choose if you like.



[color:"blue"]"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."[/color]

—H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.


[color:"blue"]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .[/color]

[color:"blue"]"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."[/color]

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.


[color:"blue"]"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."[/color]

—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. (emphasis mine)


[color:"blue"]"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."[/color]

—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

Evolution is not a religion.

Rarely does one hear of a person believing in more than one religion, as this would be contradictory. Yet there are countless Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. who accept evolution.

That's like saying chemistry is a religion. Even if evolution is proved wrong tomorrow, it sure as heck isn't a religion.

I've had enough for now I think Pwcca, you know? Russ brings up several PRATTs, i.e. evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Scientists have already explained how this is not so and I explained it to Russ in another thread. And I'm not going to count how many times he's asserted yet again here that evolutionists believe rocks turn into humans. I think I'm looking at pure stonewalling, a total refusal to take in any info contrary to belief. It's pointless to carry on this discussion if Russ continues to misrepresent evolution because there is no desire here to engage with anything anyone else says. He refuses to acknowledge that evolution is the change in life over time and is determined to implicate it with what he sees as all the evils in the world. Russ you haven't offered a shred of proof for any of your assertions. And I'm not watching any of your videos. If you feel they make a pertinent point then summarise it here please.

When you want to discuss actual scientific points, let me know. I'd like to know how you'd explain the sorting of the fossil record, but any concrete point will do. Until then, I'm going to use my free time to carry on more productive conversations elsewhere.

I'm with you, Linda. The proof is in the pudding and it's there for all to see.

Failure to reply to extremely relevant comments followed by locking self-made threads so that no one can reply is bogus and unsportsmanlike. It shows an inability and abject refusal to enter an honest and open debate. It is certainly the absolute last thing I expect from a forum moderator.

But then, we’ve all been witness to the fact that Christians are permitted to excessively flame (even to the point of using profanity) other posters here whereas others are promptly halted in their tracks for so much as a single infraction. So I can’t say as I’m surprised at this new turn of events – i.e. locking threads so one’s opponents cannot reply.

Not technically, in that it doesn't offer churches or temples or mosques... but it does require an enormous amount of faith in a substiantially unaccountable set of ideas and provides a worldview for it's followers, uniting them, in a sense, whereas otherwise they were not united within any particular belief system prior. One of the biggest questions, probably the biggest, of all humankind has always been, why are we here, how did we get here? Creation answers that question for the Christian, the Muslim, the Hindu, etc. Evolution answers that question for those who believe that.

And actually, belief in more than one religion is not uncommon. There are even 'churches', known generally as Interfaith, which embrace pretty much all religions and their beliefs.

Since you actually cannot be a Christian, Muslim or Hindu and believe in evolution without tossing aside a good portion of the basic beliefs of those religions, persons of those faiths who believe in evolution are actually interfaith, a mixture of different beliefs or faiths but neither one or the other specifically.

Just returning the favor.

If you had a clue just half the time aboout what you were talking about things would be a lot easier. Many of your posts are very insulting to a person's basic intelligence, as others have also pointed out to you.

Hey Linda, don't be too surprised at Russ

{content deleted 20-Jan-08 4:47 est - my impression has been corrected - see below}

I always find it humorous that creationists can't understand how human life can develop from one cell when every every organism, not just human life, develops from one cell in a constand on-going process. Then they get in a knot about aborting a single cell. It's called selective myopia, and has to do with the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time and not see the contradiction.

Enjoy
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

For the record, RAZD, you have come to some very wrong conclusions, and have stated those conclusions as fact:



A "lie" is defined as "an inaccurate or false statement."

Let me correct these "lies" with the truth...

First, the few "herbal cures" (as you referred to them) that we sell in any given month, we sell at the same wholesale cost we buy them for. Hence, the income we make comes from a nominal commission we are paid from the manufacturer.

For example, we sell a bottle of Algin at $15.95 (the same wholesale price we buy it for from Nature's Sunshine). All our U.S. orders are dropped-shipped from Nature's Sunshine so they make any money from shipping/handling charges. Therefore, our gain is a 10-27% commission (depending on monthly sales volume) paid to us directly from Nature's Sunshine (we don't make anything from the customer). So, if you do the math, we make a top commission of $4.31 on a bottle of Algin.

However, we have to pay $11.95 per month just to have a drop-ship web account with Nature's Sunshine, plus, we have to purchase at least $100 of supplements each month ourselves in order to receive any commission from the sales we make.

Plus, we pay over $75 a month for our bandwidth to provide the very forums you boldly state are here only to "sell herbal cures".

Of course, then you have to calculate the cost of Russ' time which he spends daily on the phone with people or online answering emails or posts about mercury removal and detoxing, etc. Many, if not most, of the phone calls are made on our "dime", so to speak.

There's also the time Russ spends doing technical upgrades and providing new features for the forums.

And don't forget, you have to also add the amount of time I spend to help people from the forum, since some people call or email me directly asking for help about mercury detox and other health problems.

And, I haven't even begun to include our operating costs, taxes, licensing fees and dues, etc.

RAZD, the truth is, the small amount of money we make from "selling herbal cures" DOESN'T REMOTELY APPROACH THE COST TO US TO PROVIDE AND PARTICIPATE IN THESE FORUMS.

Let me put it more plainly, we LOSE money providing these forums, but we believe the good that these forums provide to others is worth it.

You're welcome to falsely accuse Russ of a lot of things, but these, friend, are false accusations (LIES), that I'm not going to sit by and let go unanswered.

Thank you Laura Clement for the explanation. My apologies for any false accusations.

Told with the intent to deceive.
My intent was not to deceive, thus the worst you can accuse me of is a falsehood.

You have corrected the false impression that I had. Thank you.

Meanwhile the issue of Russ' non-response to defend his position/s remains. It's one only he can answer.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Pwcca,

Concerning your response to Linda about "stonewalling", you said:


Frankly, your conclusions are completely wrong.

First, Russ has not "failed" to make replies to others' comments...have you read any of his posts? I don't think I need to count the number of replies Russ has made to prove your statement false. And, if you're making reference to his absence of late, he's been extremely busy with other more pressing matters. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the luxury of being able to respond to everything taking place on this forum.

Second, Russ' has posted many videos lately (the "self-made threads") you must be referring to. As he explained already, these videos are posted as "stickies" at the top and by technical necessity, have to be locked in order to stay in the order in which he posted them (see he previous comments about this if you'd like). You, or anyone else, is welcome to create a thread or post comments about these videos in an existing thread, as I believe has already been done.

Thirdly, Russ has displayed a very apt ability and willingness to debate with many people, past and present, on this forum. Again, his absence of late has nothing to do with any "inability or abject refusal." Just as RAZD's "time is limited" (per his/her signature phrase)," so is Russ'. Let's not be so quick to be hypocritical.

So, let's recap... 1) Russ has NOT failed to reply to comments, and 2) Russ has posted videos as stickies at the top and people are free to make comments in response to these videos in the threads below, and 3) Russ has displayed BOTH the ability and the willingness to engage in debates on this forum.

Therefore, Pwcca, just what is "bogus and unsportsmanlike", as you've accused him of? I really think you're reaching here and thus far, I have to conclude that it is your accusations that are "bogus."

But, let's consider your next point:

You continued your diatribe by saying:


First, Russ has previously responded to you that people on this forum are not banned simply for saying bad things about other people. (If he did, Linda Lou and others would have been banned long ago for their continual character assassinations of Kent Hovind.)

In fact, Russ' exact quote to you on this matter was:

Second, Russ also said (and I'll paraphrase here) that he doesn't reprimand or threaten banning people if they actually contribute useful information (usually). I can only deduce that your above comments are referring to the warning "Browncoat" received a few months ago in response to his/her trolling.

I remind you that Russ answered you back then,

As a matter of fact, Browncoat is still a registered user and has never been banned. He/she appears to have accepted the warning and has not "trolled" since.

Third, your accusation that Russ is "locking threads so one’s opponents cannot reply" is simply "inaccurate", "a false statement", and therefore, by definition, a lie.

Let's not lie, shall we. Pwcca, you've proven yourself in the past to be an intelligent poster.

Let me also add, Pwcca, these forums are what you and everyone else make of them. People can use these forums to educate and encourage others or simply share recipes, "gab," etc. (i.e. for entertainment). Or, as the case has been at times, people can use these forums to make false statements and accusations, insult others, or otherwise display infantile behavior.

The choice is up to each individual how they conduct themselves. Think of it as a coin having two sides: the one side represents Freedom, the other side represents Personal Responsibility. People are free to express themselves, but like the two-sided coin, they bear the personal responsibility for their expressions.

As long as people contribute something useful, the way in which they contribute is their responsibility. Society as a whole, or in this case, the readers and onlookers of these forums, will judge these people's posts and the content they contribute in light of the way they present themselves and their content. Some people may find posters' comments offensive and therefore judge their content unworthy. Others may choose to look past certain comments and find value in the remaining content.

I should also point out that your statement that, and I quote, "Christians are permitted to excessively flame" is simply another lie. Ironically, there have been more professing non-Christians engaging in insults, character assassination, name-calling, and the like, than have professing Christians.

So, I suggest we all grow up, take personal responsibility for our conduct, and stop blaming Russ for not making Bobby or Susan play nice. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />

Russ has not, and will not, play the role of a parent or babysitter on these forums. Everyone can either play nicely together or not.

RAZD, it would appear you know full well (since you posted definition #1) that the noun "lie" has more than one meaning. As per Dictionary.com a lie (noun) is defined as:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying

By definition, the false statements you made about the purpose of this forum and the purpose of Russ' posts are, in fact, lies. Thus, I assert that I am correct in holding you accountable for posting lies.

If you want to split hairs and say you didn't post a lie, only a "falsehood", then perhaps I should point out to you that the word you chose is plainly another meaning, a synonym, for "an intentional untruth" or "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." By your own choice of definitions, you can't escape the fact that you posted lies.

I'm not going to let you get away with doing one thing, yet calling it another. You obviously put much time and thought into preparing your posts (usually), and by your own actions, you hold other posters to quite high standards. It is only fair that you adhere to these standards yourself.

You say that the intent of your statements was not to deceive. However, many philosophers have cautioned man on knowing his own heart (i.e. his intentions) and being careful not to be self-deceived.

Only Yahweh (this is the name of God) knows a man's heart and the extent to which men are prone to self-deception, as the Bible truthfully states:



Since I, like others, cannot know your intentions (unless you clearly express them), we can only come to conclusions based on what you say.

Given the fact that you started your statements off with the sarcastic remark, "Hey Linda, don't be too surprised at Russ," I believe anyone would read the ensuing statements in the same disdainful tone and conclude that your intentions were of some level less than honorable. Let's not kid (deceive) ourselves, shall we?

Nevertheless, I accept your apologies and will also accept that, as you stated, your intent was not to deceive.

However, in regards to intentions and deception, I would like to make this point. While you may have thought it noble to delete your previous statements, I am disappointed that you did, as I am fully confident that anyone reading what you posted would have come to a correct and true conclusion upon reading my response.

It is important to let the record of events (i.e. posts made on these forums) reflect for itself, since in real life, there are no "do-overs." Now, by deleting what your previously posted, you have denied others the opportunity to reflect on your statements. The only way others on this forum can judge the value of a poster's content and, in essence, the very integrity of the poster himself/herself, is by reading the content someone posts and the manner in which it is posted.

Furthermore, by deleting your previously posted statements and denying others the opportunity to respond, you are, by your own actions, doing the very thing that other evolutionists are falsely accusing Russ of doing.

The discovery of hypocrisy is an opportunity for the eradication of self-deception.

I do hope that in the future, your posts about evolution will be made with more discernment and careful attention to researching the facts than that displayed in your post about Russ and this forum.

Charming Laura, thanks again for your input.

I apologized for making a false statement. That covers definition #3 and definition #4 does not apply. I also note that general usage is to use the first definitions of words.

This would be why I apologized. I don't need others to hold me to the standards I expect.

Now if you are going to use definition #3 to say I lied, then it is not - by definition - splitting hairs to say it is a falsehood, as that is what definition #3 says. However now you seem to move to the other definitions and imply intent. That is known as equivocation, a logical fallacy.

To use any other definition you are going to have to prove intent, or YOU are engaging in falsehood. Good luck with that.

And I will now take note of when you take other posters to task for their behavior.

Such as Russ' continued false portrayal of evolution. Is there some valid reason not to use the definition used in teaching the science?

You will note that it does not match a single one of these definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
You will also note that definition #3 (your favorite?) is the biological definition that applies to biological science.

Do we understand each other now?

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Really RAZD, you're reminding me of a politician...you didn't inhale... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/oldsmoker.gif" alt="" />

No, we obviously do not understand each other.

You stated lies about the purpose of our forum and the purpose of Russ' posts (whatever your intent) and I held you accountable. You apologized but added the disclaimer that your statements weren't lies because part of definition #1 for the word "lie" includes the intent to deceive. Yet, you ignore the fact that the other part of definition #1 includes a "falsehood" (which by its own definition #1 is a false statement; a lie) and there is no intent attached.

Now, you're claiming that I have to prove your intent in order to satisfy the first part of definition #1?

RAZD, if anyone has any responsibility of proof here it is you. You stated the lies (i.e. the false statements, the falsehoods, the false impressions).

You argue that definition #3 isn't the general usage of the word, you contradict definition #1 yourself, so that only leaves definition #2. However, the problem you have now is that this meaning includes both initial purpose (i.e. intent) AND end result, so even if you initial purpose was not to convey a false impression, the end result was that your statements conveyed a false impression thereby fulfilling the requirement for the definition of a lie.

Honestly, I simply find it quite ridiculous and a waste of my time that you are quibbling over half parts of definitions.

Let's be absolutely clear here. When you made these statements you knew that you didn't know if they were true, yet you willingly made these statements as though they were true. Therefore, you did in fact show intent by making statements that you knew you did not know whether or not they were true. This concretely fits the definition of a lie, including definition #1, and thus, your statements were lies.

Moving on...

I've accepted your apology and told you that I also accepted your claim that your intent was not to deceive. But I'm not going to accept your attempts to tell me that making statements that are lies is not really making statements that are lies because you didn't intend to deceive anyone (see my previous paragraph).

Furthermore, trying to shift the focus away from yourself and onto someone else is simply a poor attempt at distraction. This is what my 5-year-old nephew tries when he gets caught doing something wrong that he knows he shouldn't have done.

Finally, neither Russ' statements on evolution nor the plethora of definitions for the word evolution are the subject of this discussion. If you want to change the subject, then I suggest you start a new thread.

RAZD - A Lesson in Life

It's time to face yourself.

How do we face ourselves?

We look at something we've done that is obviously wrong and then realize that something within us is imperfect (illogical). If we have the strength (faith and humility), we can then face ourselves and admit, work, change, and overcome these things. If we don't have the strength (fear and pride), we will move forward without taking the time to admit our faults to ourself (lie to ourself / denial / self-deception) simply lying to ourself digging our own grave deeper and deeper with each new episode of self-deception.

This denial will—over time—interfere with our ability to reason logically. To make a long story short, continued denial will produce an emotionally-based, selfish, self-serving, self-focused person with little regard for truth and less for the rights of others.

This continued denial, because of the way it interferes with our ability to reason logically, will—over time—cause us to become assumptive. This trait is usually found in people who have become frustrated with this inability to comprehend the deeper processes in life or life's situations and they give in to the explanations provided to them by others over time (blind faith). So, this continued denial creates a personality that is particularly vulnerable to being controlled by philosophies of other people because they are unable to make sense of their world on their own.

This explanation (above) is a steeply abridged explanation of the mechanism that causes nearly all evolutionists that I have ever known (many) to have a certain similar set of personality traits.

Even though these traits may not be apparent externally, they become apparent once you get to know a person well enough to predict their behavior patterns.

Some of these attributes are:

Self Preservation
They may be nice people, but when push come to shove, they are going to do what benefits them the most without regard to the affect it has on others. In short, they are unable to make a true sacrifice unless they see how it benefits themselves. They often end up in a relationship that ends in a hateful divorce or continues in co-dependency with someone they actually don't respect.

Assumptive
They come to conclusions without realizing that they have not checked out all of the facts. They are unusually biased but will—in many cases—appear to be just the opposite, but this behavior is only a mechanism of over compensation used to attempt to continually convince themselves (self-delusion) that they are smart and logically minded.

There are other attributes of people with a history of denial, but it is this second feature that I want to focus on.


Know Yourself

The best most effective way to know yourself is by what you do and how it affects others. If you understand that others are very real and are very much affected by the things you do to them just as you are by things they do to you, you can use the standard that measures how you affect other people through harm or benefit to determine if what you do is positive or not positive and therefore to measure your morality as a person.

(Don't let the word morality confuse you. There is a lot more to this than you realize. I'm only giving you the short version.)

Now for the sake of time, I'm going to recap what you did on this thread and how it relates to your fanaticism toward evolution.

A few posts ago, you said:

[color:"magenta"]"The purpose of Russ's posts therefore are to attract customers, not debate with non-customers"[/color]

Laura then pointed out to you that this is a lie and demonstrated to your just how far from the truth it is. Post 249305

You then apologized but attempted to correct her stating that what you stated was a "falsehood" and not a "lie". However, you then did something very interesting. You deleted your original statement.

The saga continues, but I want to use this opportunity to do something that only true friends usually have the guts to do. I'm going to show you yourself.


The Double-Edged Sword

When people conduct processes (do things), they normally do them in a way that is related to the way they do other things. For example, someone who is impatient with children would often turn out to be impatient while driving.

In your case, you jumped to a conclusion (about me) and then, after realizing that you were being called on it by Laura, you retracted. You then went on to make this interesting statement:

[color:"magenta"]"I don't need others to hold me to the standards I expect."[/color]

This is a clear indication that you don't know yourself.

How?

Because you didn't apologize until after Laura had called you on your lie/falsehood. Therefore, it's logical to assume that you would have allowed the fallacy (your statement about me) to remain unless you were called on it, so skillfully, as Laura had.

Once again, you're logic is simply not existent here in that you in fact do need to be held to standards "you expect", because without that accountability, you lie (tell falsehoods) and, could be be so honest to say—"jump to conclusions quickly"—are assumptive?

Well, it's not surprising that you do exactly the same thing when you choose to believe in evolution. You are blindly believing what you are being told by someone else and assuming it is true (assumptive). This is a poor method of developing a faith, especially in something as evasive as evolution. You would do better to do more correlating and checking before blindly accepting what you are told.

So, to continue, what this tells me as one who knows people is this:

You have a distorted view about who you are, and this fact alone undermines my confidence in your ability to do research. Again, you are assumptive.

Remember, you would be willing to hurt others (my reputation) for the benefit of your own self-delusion while all the time believing that you would do no such thing. You clearly market yourself as a smart researcher. By analyzing your history on this forum, I would predict that probably the opposite is true. More likely, you're a parrot.

Now, I've known a lot of evolutionists in my life (most of my family are as well) and can tell you that this collection of traits that make them unable to know themselves accurately (thinking of themselves as more moral than their actions demonstrate) and making unfounded assumptions about anything from people to the way the world works...are amazingly consistent traits that I find associated with the evolutionary mindset.

Observing this for myself, I can see how clearly this set of traits lead people into believing things that are simply not true. People with this assumptive mindset (especially when mixed with a little pride) is just was is necessary to deceive a person into believing that something can happen even when all common logic declares the opposite. These people become, in fact, emotionally-based people, allowing vast assumptions to override logic and reason.

It is truly amazing how consistent this set of observations has been, but again, it should not surprise me. Denial, assumptiveness, and a propensity to believe anything that sounds credible and appeals to the pride are traits that are very often found together.


Facing The Truth

I have often told Linda that when anyone comes up against truth, they will end up being stripped naked (in the intellectual sense). They will be faced with the age-old dilemma/opportunity to face their flaws, selfishness and pride within themselves.

If they face this opportunity with humility and courage, they will be changed for the better. If they face this dilemma with pride and self-righteousness, they will become further entrenched in the limestone of their own design.

The choice is yours, but the truth is for everyone who has the strength to receive it.


Conspiracy

In post #248625, you make some interesting statements:

[color:"magenta"]"What's interesting about this is that I didn't call the Phelps or Koresh terrorists or an 'extremist militant terrorist christian group' -- you did. I said they were dangerous, deluded and fanatic people".[/color]

Once again, you are making grand assumptive statements about things you know nothing about.

And how do I know this?

The facts about the events at Waco concerning Koresh have been lied about and completely twisted until they no longer resemble anything close to truth. In fact, they are mostly backwards.

Here's an example.

I was involved in a political group that investigated things relating to law and current events at the time the Waco massacre occurred. This experience and research was one of the gradual turning points in my life concerning the way I viewed at the world.

I'll give you only one example of the type of disinformation that the public has been fed about what the U.S. Government did that day.

I personally watched CNN as they incessantly declared that this crazy guy Koresh was a child molester and that he believed that he was Jesus Christ. The way they made their point was by playing a video of Koresh with a Bible in his hand saying "I am God."

By the time they started playing this story on CNN, our organization already had in our possession teaching videos from Koresh's group. I had already watched them so when I saw the clip CNN kept playing over and over where Koresh was saying he was God, I recognized it immediately.

So, we went back and watched the video again to establish what Koresh's context was in making this statement. To our shock, Koresh was actually saying (as closely as I remember it), "If I could move mountains; If I could do miracles; If I could foretell the future, than I am God".

Yes, CNN had omitted the first part of the statement completely removing the context because Koresh was actually saying that he was NOT God, as demonstrated by that fact that he could not do these things. Yes, we caught CNN in a direct lie.

Through the ensuing months and years as my work progressed, we discovered instances over and over where mainstream media completely lied about events, sometimes grossly exaggerating, other times telling outright lies. Sometimes making things up. Other times leaving things out. Whatever they did, it always served the anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, anti-freedom, anti-life agenda, never serving any beneficial purpose for the opposite cause, and certainly not for the truth.

I also saw (and continue to see) lie after lie about the Bible and Christ on television, especially on channels owned by the Discovery network (Discovery Channel, etc.). The Bible and Christ are incessantly slandered over and over again.

Finally, I've been in the alternative health movement collecting research related to herbs and vitamins for over 10 years now and the same thing has been happening in the medical field all along. Lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, even known fraudulent studies have been publicized on national news without any mention of the known fraud involved. It's so astounding and so beyond the paradigm of most people belief system that they just continue with their lives going into some kind of denial about the evil that is occurring all around them.

[color:"brown"]Example: A Couple years ago a study was conducted that compared 2 very popular mainstream pharmaceutical antidepressants and St. John's Wort. The news spouted the outcome of the study for days. It was on all major news outlets, all media types and in many other countries. They announced that St. John's Wort, the popular natural anti-depressant has no effectiveness against depression. None.[/color]

[color:"brown"]Well, when we finally read the study, the truth was that NONE of the three items tested showed any effectiveness whatsoever against depression, but the news and all of the media outlets conveniently omitted this information.[/color]

[color:"brown"]So, either all items have no effectiveness or the study is fatally flawed. Now, we have many other studies on St. Jone's Wort and they are all very positive about it's effectiveness. This is another in a long line of disinformation events I've witnessed.[/color]

Now, people live in a country that has some semblance of freedom that actually originated nearly entirely from Biblical law and principles while the so-called leaders whip people into a frenzy about giving up their rights for the sake of security and freedom all the while creating the very disasters that seem to justify sacrificing freedom while slandering the Bible—the very source of freedom. What an irony.

Again, too much for most people to handle. It was for me in the beginning, but I'm different in one way from most people. I don't stop. I continued with my research even though it seemed unbelievable to me emotionally. Looking back on all my work, I would not trade my place with anyone. I'm so glad to know what I know, even if I'm among only a few that do.

My world view actually works.


Mirror

I tell you all these things because I plainly recognize that you are a "sucker". You defend this all stuff you barely understand and become the shoulder-parrot for the very ones who use your own ignorance to enslave you.

Oh, I know, knowing you, you may make light of this and belittle my work and research, but the ultimate joke will be on you, when the curtain finally falls and the wizard is revealed, you will be found nipping at his heals for a morsel of food.

You know nothing about Bible prophecy, numerology, history, archeology. Yes, those you serve would rather you don't know about these things. And again, the great irony is that you will end up serving those (actually already are) who you believe empower you while opposing those who brought you the truth that could have kept you free.

So, as you devise a response and work to come up with the next piece of junk science or personal imagination to waste my time and the time of those reading along seeking truth, just remember that in my eyes, you are as lost, confused, deluded, and suckered as a person can possibly be. You are a rank amateur jumping from website to website believing you actually know something.

Not to be disrespectful in any way. I only tell the truth so that at some time in the future, when you are afraid enough, humble enough, and are willing to begin listening to the logic that has been annoying you all along, you just may remember this conversation and may—perhaps—try looking on the other side of the curtain before assuming you're being told the truth.


Enron is Hiring



[color:"brown"]"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."[/color]

—D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times,
England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].



[color:"brown"]"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "[/color]

—Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

Laura, thanks again, however I disagree, and must disagree.

Let me put it as simply as I can:


My last line above was the reason I had used lie(1) in the previous post.

What I said was that I admitted to lie(3) = an inaccurate or false statement. Which is the definition you applied in your message above:

lie(3) is not the same as lie(1) because there is no intent and to equate one with the other is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

This is another logical fallacy, here the "all A is B" fallacy:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wyjbammegu.jpg">

Where B represents falsehoods, and A the falsehoods with intent.

B is not the same as A
lie(3) is not the same as lie(1)

Then don't.

Don't waste my time with logical fallacies and implications that are not true either. You are now trying to imply intent, and the only way you can do that is to make arguments based on logical fallacies, as shown above.

You accused me of lie(3), not of lie(1), and I apologized for lie(3).

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Russ, you are just too amusing.

Time to face your own lies then Russ. The definition of abiogenesis and evolution for starters.[/quote]
added by edit:

Let's be clear about this. One can distinguish between lie(1) and lie(3) by using falsehood in place of lie(3), as they are synonyms, and only using lie(1) when there is intent. You two have lowered the standard here so that only falsehood is required. Fair enough, and I have taken this definition to use on this website.

You set the standards on your forum. It is also fairly obvious that you don't apply your standards to yourselves. [/quote]Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Is there some reason my privilege to post new threads has been removed?

Just curious how you justify it.

I thought you were talking about honesty.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

This applies to everybody. I too cannot post a new topic. I think there is more than enough topics on this forum that would enable anybody to fit in more of what they wish to say or add/respond.

If you read the rules at the bottom of this forum, it says the following.

Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You can reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled



Enjoy what?

feels more like mercy to me.

I think if you want to be the boss, RAZD or Linda, you need to buy your own swingset. whining is unbecoming.

sorry to bump your new post russ, you'll have to bump it back up.

This is interesting.

What RAZD is used to, which he'd probably explain to you, is a forum divided into many different topics covering aspects of creationism, evolution, Bible study, all sorts of things. It's obviously much bigger than this forum and its main purpose is for creationists and evolutionists to discuss their views. EvC forum

Having said that, I can't see how the discussions here are taking up that much space. Russ if you don't want to run this part of the forum anymore, or if you want to turn it into a creationists area and exclude all other views, why not just be honest and say so? First you lock threads, then you lock the Post option; what next I wonder?

Thanks Bex, for the information If that is the case then no foul.

Enjoy

Hey Linda, it's not a biggie.
Or something perfectly innocent. However not being able to open new threads just means that existing ones will tend to ramble and be off topic. It won't save bandwidth, and it won't save time monitoring what is said on the topics that are open.

I am also used to that on another forum. One that is completely unmonitored and anarchy reins. Curiously people are generally better behaved than SoSick ...

Enjoy.

Responses have been allowed to continue, accusations included. Not all owners/moderators are so accommodating....new threads may help start things off afresh again on a clean slate....though I'd imagine it will be a case of history repeating itself somehow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But I understand your point.

Creation is the belief held by the owner, the locked threads reflect that. Disabling of new posting is his business and starting new ones up is obviously in his hands (who holds the reins?). Certainly the bias in the science room doesn't allow nearly as much freedom of speech as Russ does here....but if you find other creation/evolution forums more to your liking, then you got the pick of many over the net.

Monitoring on these forums is difficult if the owner's time is also limited. Bear that in mind too.

But regardless, he's the boss applesauce <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

While we're chatting here, I wouldn't mind going back to EvC now and again. I haven't been there since I started my new job because my views are a bit . . . alternative, and the (pathological, in my view) skeptics/materialistic reductionists/whatever you want to call them jump when I talk there. They keep me so busy on one thread that it can feel quite overhwhelming. However, I do actually enjoy talking there. Any tips for how to deal with the inevitable pile-ups, RAZD? It looks to me like this forum is going to the creationists LOL.

Maybe RAZD and yourself would be happier there than here. The main purpose of this board is quite obviously alternative medicine, herbs and stuff, mercury poisoning... maybe that would explain it.


Maybe if you and RAZD just view yourselves as mutant zygotes the feeling that your birthing attempts toward control and power have been aborted won't seem as offensive to you. The doctor seems to think it was a defective conception anyway so what difference does it make? If you think of Russ as comparable to the NHS in a sense, Linda, then it should even comfort you to know someone else is in control of your life here.

you've been on here responding to posts all this time and having the freedom to do so without censoring or deletion. That's not bad, considering the owner is a strong creation believer.

Russ hasn't even responded yet. Perhaps we could give the premature protesting <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smilieprotest.gif" alt="" /> or assumptions a break until he does?

Thanks again for the information Bex. Looks like the problem is fixed.

I agree that Russ and Laura get to set the agenda and the operation of their website, no problem. At the moment I don't have anything that would be better on a new thread, so it is not that big a deal.

As I said I also participate on another forum where rambling is the usual course of action, and there is no thread that stays on topic. Anarchy reins, but in a generally jocular bantering manner that restores one's faith in humanity (ie no major flame wars). It's not a problem as long as you understand how the forum works

I've also known creationist forums that shut down any dissent from the creationist position, even from other christians, and am happy to see that (so far) this site does not follow that pattern.

I've also been on forums where the number of posts on any one thread is limited, and staying on topic is fairly strictly controlled, and that isn't always easy to comply with either.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

No problem. Glad Russ cleared things up. I had a feeling there was a logical explanation for it.



This is perfectly understandable, given that not all forums are debate forums. You get the same on health forums as well. I was banned from two for recommending other protocols, or challenging the information on there, fair enough I guess.

There are plenty of debate forums where people can bash it out if they want. Seen enough of those on curezone <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shiftyeyes.gif" alt="" />

Just to clarify some of my earlier statements, since Laura had asked about them..

It is my view that a forum moderator (on any type of forum) should feel free to express their opinions in any thread - it is, after all, their forum. That being said, whilst managing the forum itself a neutral view must be adopted. Especially when you have forum names like Creation and Evolution: What do You Think? A title like this suggests open mindedness and an interest in offering all sides to an argument. If you have a hard time accepting this, ask yourself how you would react if the situation were reverse (you enter a forum of the same name and only evolution threads are made and locked, posted there as advertisements designed to dominate one specific side of the argument and diminish all others).

When you post one-sided arguments and summarily lock them to prevent anyone from pointing out their potential fallicies, you're not a "Creation and Evolution" forum any longer. You're simply a Creation forum. Perhaps what really needs to take place here is a renaming of the forum so that many of the posters here don't get upset when things like this happen. It's a matter of fairness and communication. Right now the image we're being presented with is an unfairly ran forum which, initially, is designed to show all views - whether that is the intention of the moderator or not. If the forum name were changed (i.e, naming it simply Creation), it would not be an unfairly ran forum. The other alternative is to keep the name and treat it as such - that is, show both sides of the argument or, if you don't want to defend one side, at least permit others as audible a voice as your own.

An honest and open media (news channel/paper), for example, must always portray a neutral standpoint. That's not to say that the individual journalists and news reporters don't have their own points of view - most certainly they do - but not when serving information to the public. So too is it the same with forum moderators. Say anything and everything in any given thread, but maintain strict neutrality with the forum itself (i.e.., which threads get locked, censoring of some posters over others, etc.)

I don't think anything I've said here is wildly outrageous or unreasonable.