News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

adsf

This article is making a basic error, Russ. "Scientific" and "historically backed by scientists" are not the same thing.

Centuries ago, scientists did not have the knowledge we have today in fields such as geology, archaeology, biology, and genetics. They most certainly did not have the same sophisticated tools to give them access to this knowledge.

Newton was unaware that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. He was unaware of relativity and quantum mechanics. Does that somehow mean that these things are therefore invalidated?

Here is an article I read when I was researching angular unconformities for the Grand Canyon discussions. Interestingly, by way of discussing an angular unconformity in Scotland, it talks about a time when scientists were beginning to study the evidence carefully and notice certain things about it that suggested the earth was very old.



Creationism was the "science" of centuries past.

I have asked many times here for evidence that it is also the "science" of today, as has been claimed here, but none has yet been forthcoming.

I thought creationism was simply the assertation that the universe and all its complexities must be the work of a creator? In other words, a god. I didn't realize there was an entire science behind it. It's neat to hypothesize these things but I think it would more appropriately fall under the category of philosophy rather than science; one can't exactly perform tests or experiments in a lab. Admittedly, I know nothing about creationism so I can't be certain.

That aside, I do have one tiny point to nitpick about which was printed in the article. It seems to be insinuating that modern science rests upon creationism as its foundation due to the scientists of a bygone era. The trick is science, by definition, is prone to change and adaptation as new information is uncovered. According to this logic, it doesn't matter what the founding fathers (so to speak) of science knew in their time. There's absolutely no reason for us to stick to older scientific models if they are outdated and proved inaccurate. A case in point being, there's absolutely no way the Earth could be only 6,000 years old. I mean, not unless the designer in question deliberately set up the world to look like it's far more ancient when in reality it's very very young. A deception, if you will.

It's pretty neat stuff to discuss though. It raises the whole dream argument (are we even awake?), solipism, etc. I guess I just don't see how it can be scientific - scientific in the same sense as chemistry or physics, etc. But again I'm a bit naieve about this stuff. As I said, I don't fully know what creationism even is.

Feedback anyone?

This might give you an idea -- though I doubt if you'll meet a creationist who says they agree with every claim on the list; many of those claims have been made by creationist leaders, or creationists with some scientific knowledge who use that knowledge to make the actual claims sound convincing. I still don't have an idea of what a creationist in the generic sense does believe because there doesn't seem to be a great deal of consistency, though you can usually expect things like belief in the literalness of the Bible, a young earth, and instantaneous creation of all living things.

The fields of astronomy and geography were established by the Babylonians. Does this mean that their version of creation is scientific?

The fields of chemistry and medicine were significantly advanced through the efforts of the Chinese. Is their version of creation considered scientific because of this?

The point is that the successes of these scientists in one area says nothing about the validity of their beliefs in areas where they did no research.

Hey Mordred,

In a strict interpretation yes, which makes any comments by one kind of creationist about another kind being atheistic rather amusing.

For a bit of an overview of many of the different species of creationism that exist in the world look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_Christian_creationism

And the question is how do you validate concepts, how do you test for truth?

Especially when you get beyond the realm of testable scientific truth, into philosophy and religion.

Enjoy.

Thanks for the links, Lindalou and RAZD. I found Talkorigins particularly interesting. There's so much we don't know about the universe still that the many possibilities make it a fascinating topic. But eliminating certainties like the Earth being far older that 6,000 years, in my view, only make it that much more interesting. The numerous rebuttals on Talkorigins very clearly and soundly put to rest a great deal of outdated questions.

The list you directed me to, RAZD, just looks like religion to me; the only one particularly viable at all IMO being theistic evolution. And that isn't to say I'm opposed to discussing such things or that they aren't valid subjects in and of themselves. But I see nothing scientific about them. I'd be curious to know what would be on a creation science curriculum in school, for those who seek to put it alongside or even replace it with evolution.

Could I ask any of the creationist posters here to chime in? I'm eager to understand your viewpoint. For example, have you studied about carbon dating and/or tree rings? How do these scientific findings lead you to a 6,000 year old Earth (or are there no YEC posters here and it's more generalized)?

All the best!

Linear: The fields of astronomy and geography were established by the Babylonians. Does this mean that their version of creation is scientific?

Jeanie: I beg to differ here. Actually Abraham learned all about astronomy as direct revelation from God. He knew how endless the universe was...long before there were telescopes. I can back that up....

This is an excellent article which explains the religious aspect with Christ and the Creation, the "why's" of the creation and then a rundown on the actual physical creation. You have to read to the end....it starts really talking about the creation about halfway through. The apostle who wrote this was a very powerful person. He is dead now. He was a spiritual giant and genius. I've heard him speak. You may know what I mean by this, but when I heard him the spirit hit me like a ton of bricks. I KNOW this is true....


By Elder Bruce R. McConkie
of the Quorum of Twelve

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Tambuli, Sep 1983, 22

The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of the earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours.

God himself, the Father of us all, established a plan of salvation whereby his spirit children might progress and become like him. It is the gospel of God, the plan of Eternal Elohim, the system that saves and exalts, and it consists of three things. These three are the very pillars of eternity itself. They are the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.

Before we can even begin to understand the temporal creation of all things, we must know how these three eternal truths—the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement—are inseparably woven together. No one of them stands alone; each of them ties into the other two; and without a knowledge of all of them, it is not possible to know the truth about any one of them.

Salvation is in Christ and comes because of his atoning sacrifice. The Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is the heart of revealed religion. It ransoms men from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the Fall of Adam. All men will be resurrected because our blessed Lord himself died and rose again, becoming thus the first fruits of them that slept.

And further: Christ died to save sinners. He took upon himself the sins of all men on conditions of repentance. Eternal life, the greatest of all the gifts of God, is available because of what Christ did in Gethsemane and at Golgotha. He is both the resurrection and the life. Immortality and eternal life are the children of the Atonement. There is no language or power of expression given to man which can set forth the glory and wonder and infinite import of the ransoming power of the great Redeemer.

But, remember, the Atonement came because of the Fall. Christ paid the ransom for Adam’s transgression. If there had been no Fall, there would be no Atonement with its consequent immortality and eternal life. Thus, just as surely as salvation comes because of the Atonement, so also salvation comes because of the Fall.

Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. The tests and trials of a mortal probation began when our first parents were cast out of their Edenic home. “Because that Adam fell, we are,” Enoch said, “and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.” (Moses 6:48.) One of the most profound doctrinal declarations ever made fell from the lips of mother Eve. She said: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:11.)

Remember also that the Fall was made possible because an infinite Creator made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change, and thus was introduced the kind of existence needed to put into operation all of the terms of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation.

The first temporal creation of all things was paradisiacal in nature. In the Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world. Death would be Adam’s gift to man, and the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thus, existence came from God; death came by Adam; and immortality and eternal life come through Christ. In Lehi’s precise and eloquent language, all men are in “a state of probation” because of the Fall. And “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden.” He was then in a state of physical immortality; meaning he would have lived forever because there was as yet no death. “And they [our first parents] would have had no children”; they would have been denied the experiences of a mortal probation and a mortal death; and it is out of these two things—out of death and the tests of mortality—that eternal life comes. But—thanks be to God—“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.” (2 Ne. 2:21–26.)

Knowing all these things about the plan of salvation, we are in a position to consider the creation of this earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Knowing that the Creation is the father of the Fall, and that the Fall made possible the Atonement, and that salvation itself comes because of the Atonement, we are in a position to put the revealed knowledge about the Creation in a proper perspective.

Our knowledge about the Creation is limited. We do not know the how and the why and when of all things. Our limitations are such that we could not comprehend them if they were revealed to us in all their glory, fulness, and perfection. What has been revealed is that portion of the Lord’s word which we must believe and understand if we are to envision the truth about the Fall and Atonement and thus become heirs of salvation.

At some future time the Lord will expect more of his Saints in regard to the Creation than he does of us. “When the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things,” our latter-day revelations tell us—“Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof.” (D&C 101:32–33.) Pending the Millennium, it is our responsibility to believe and accept that portion of the truth about the Creation that has been dispensed to us.

Christ is the Creator and Redeemer of worlds so numerous that they cannot be numbered by man. As to his infinite and eternal creative and redemptive enterprises the divine word attests: “And worlds without number have I created,” saith the Father, “and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. … But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.” As to all of the other worlds of the Lord’s creating we know only that it is his work and his glory “to bring to pass”—through the Redeemer—“the immortality and eternal life” of all their inhabitants. (Moses 1:33, 35, 39.)

In what is probably the most glorious vision given to mortals in this dispensation, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw “the Son, on the right hand of the Father,” and “heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (D&C 76:20, 23–24.) Christ is thus the Creator and the Redeemer. By him the worlds were made, and through his infinite atonement the inhabitants of those worlds are adopted into the divine family as heirs with himself. It was of this vision and of this provision whereby the Saints become the sons of God by faith that the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote:

And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav’n
He’s the Saviour and Only Begotten of God;
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that careen in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the vaery same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons
By the very same truths and the very same powers.
(Millennial Star, vol. 4, pp. 49–55; cited in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 66.)


The infinite and eternal nature of creation and redemption are beyond mortal comprehension. We are grateful that the Lord has given us this glimpse of everlasting truth relative to his unending labors. But this earth is our concern. It is the truths about “our creation” that will chart the course for us in our efforts to gain eternal life.

Let us then, with Abraham, gaze upon the great host of “noble and great ones” in premortal existence. “Among them” stands one “like unto God.” He is the great Jehovah, the Firstborn of the Father. We hear him say “unto those who were with him,” unto Michael and a great host of valiant souls: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.” (Abr. 3:22, 24.)

And as we gaze and hear and ponder, our minds are enlightened and our understanding reaches to heaven. Truly Christ is the Creator of the future abode of the spirit children of the Father. But he does not work alone. The Creation is an organized venture; each of the other noble and great spirits plays his part. And the earth is created from matter that already exists. Truly the elements are eternal, and to create is to organize.

As the work goes forward we see the fulfillment of that which God spake to Moses in the Ten Commandments: “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” (Ex. 20:11.) It is of the creative events that took place on each of these “days” that we shall now speak.

But first, what is a day? It is a specified time period; it is an age, an eon, a division of eternity; it is the time between two identifiable events. And each day, of whatever length, has the duration needed for its purposes. One measuring rod is the time required for a celestial body to turn once on its axis. For instance, Abraham says that according to “the Lord’s time” a day is “one thousand years” long. This is “one revolution … of Kolob,” he says, and it is after the Lord’s “manner of reckoning.” (Abr. 3:4.)

There is no revealed recitation specifying that each of the “six days” involved in the Creation was of the same duration. Our three accounts of the creation are the Mosaic, the Abrahamic, and the one presented in the temples. Each of these stems back to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Mosaic and Abrahamic accounts place the creative events on the same successive days. We shall follow these scriptural recitations in our analysis. The temple account, for reasons that are apparent to those familiar with its teachings, has a different division of events. It seems clear that the “six days” are one continuing period and that there is no one place where the dividing lines between the successive events must of necessity be placed.

The Mosaic and the temple accounts set forth the physical creation, the actual organization of matter into tangible form. They are not accounts of the spirit creation. Abraham gives a blueprint of the Creation. He tells the plans of the holy beings who wrought the creative work. After reciting the events of the “six days” he says: “And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth.” (Abr. 5:3.)

Then he says they performed as they had planned, which means we can, by merely changing the verb tenses and without doing violence to the sense and meaning, also consider the Abrahamic account as one of the actual creation.

The First Day—Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, a host of noble and great ones—all these played their parts. “The Gods” created the atmospheric heavens and the temporal earth. It was “without form, and void”; as yet it could serve no useful purpose with respect to the salvation of man. It was “empty and desolate”; life could not yet exist on its surface; it was not yet a fit abiding place for the sons of God. The “waters” of the great “deep” were present, and “darkness reigned” until the divine decree: “Let there be light.” The light and the darkness were then “divided,” the one being called “Day” and the other “Night.” Clearly our planet was thus formed as a revolving orb and placed in its relationship to our sun. (See Moses 2:1–5; Abr. 4:1–5.)

The Second Day—On this day “the waters” were “divided” between the surface of the earth and the atmospheric heavens that surround it. A “firmament” or an “expanse” called “Heaven” was created to divide “the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse.” Thus, as the creative events unfold, provision seems to be made for clouds and rain and storms to give life to that which will yet grow and dwell upon the earth. (See Moses 2:6–8; Abr. 4:6–8.)

The Third Day—This is the day when life began. In it “the waters under the heaven” were “gathered together unto one place,” and the “dry land” appeared. The dry land was called “Earth,” and the assembled waters became “the Sea.” This is the day in which “the Gods organized the earth to bring forth” grass and herbs and plants and trees; and it is the day in which vegetation in all its varied forms actually came forth from the seeds planted by the Creators. This is the day when the decree went forth that grass, herbs, and trees could each grow only from “its own seed,” and that each could in turn bring forth only after its own “kind.” And thus the bounds of the plant and vegetable kingdoms were set by the hands of those by whom each varied plant and tree was made. (See Moses 2:9–13; Abr. 4:9–13.)

The Fourth Day—After seeds in all their varieties had been planted on the earth; after these had sprouted and grown; after each variety was prepared to bring forth fruit and seed after its own kind—the Creators organized all things in such a way as to make their earthly garden a productive and beautiful place. They “organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven” so there would be “seasons” and a way of measuring “days” and “years.” We have no way of knowing what changes then took place, but during this period the sun, moon, and stars assumed the relationship to the earth that now is theirs. At least the light of each of them began to shine through the lifting hazes that enshrouded the newly created earth so they could play their parts with reference to life in all its forms as it soon would be upon the new orb. (See Moses 2:14–19; Abr. 4:14–19.)

The Fifth Day—Next came fish and fowl and “every living creature” whose abode is “the waters.” Their Creators placed them on the newly organized earth, and they were given the command: “Be fruitful, and miltiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth.” This command—as with a similar decree given to man and applicable to all animal life—they could not then keep, but they soon would be able to do so. Appended to this command to multiply was the heaven-sent restriction that the creatures in the waters could only bring forth “after their kind,” and that “every winged fowl” could only bring forth “after his kind.” There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another. (See Moses 2:20–23; Abr. 4:20–23.)

The Sixth Day—The crowning day of creation is at hand. In its early hours, the the great Creators “made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind.” And the same procreative restrictions applied to them that apply to all forms of life; they too are to reproduce only after their kind.

All that we have spoken of is now accomplished, but what of man? Is man found upon the earth? He is not. And so “the Gods,” having so counseled among themselves, said: “Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness … So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” They then did as they had counseled, and the most glorious of all the creative acts was accomplished. Man is the crowning creature to step forth according to the divine will. He is in the image and likeness of the Eternal Elohim, and to him is given “dominion” over all things. And, then, finally, that his purposes shall roll everlastingly onward, God blesses the “male and female” whom he has created and commands them: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” As the “sixth day” closes, the Creators, viewing their creative labors with satisfaction, see that “all things” which they have “made” are “very good.” (See Moses 2:24–31; Abr. 4:24–31.)

Such is the revealed account of the creation. Our summary has combined elements from the Mosaic, the Abrahamic, and the temple accounts. At this point in the Mosaic record the scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” The Lord then rests on the “seventh day.” (See Moses 3:1–3.)

Why did the Lord give us these revealed accounts of the Creation? What purposes do they serve? How does the knowledge in them help us to work out our salvation or to center our affection in Him whose we are and by whom all things were made?

It is self-evident that we have received no unneeded revelations. All that the Lord does has a purpose. He expects us to treasure up his word, to ponder in our hearts its deep and hidden meanings, and to understand its full import. Those who have done so know that the revealed accounts of the Creation are designed to accomplish two great purposes. Their general purpose is to enable us to understand the nature of our mortal probation, a probation in which all men are being tried and tested “to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” (Abr. 3:25.) Their specific purpose is to enable us to understand the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the very foundation upon which revealed religion rests.

It is only fair to say that a mere recitation of what took place during the “six days” and of the Lord’s resting on the “seventh day” do not of themselves set forth clearly the purposes of the creation accounts. And so the Lord, as recorded in chapter 3 of the Mosaic account, proceeds to explain the purpose and nature of the Creation. He comments about the Creation. He reveals some facts and principles without which we cannot envision what the true doctrine of the Creation is. His statements are inserted in the historical account to give us its true meaning and import. They are not chronological recitations, but are commentary about what he had already set forth in its sequential order.

The Lord introduces his commentary about the Creation by saying that the events of the “six days,” “are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth.” (Moses 3:4.) Thus, all things have been created; the work is finished; the account is revealed; but it can only be understood if some added truths are set forth. These deal with the premortal existence of all things and with the paradisiacal nature of the earth and of all created things when they first came from their Creator’s hand. Both of these concepts are interwoven in the same sentences, and in some instances the words used have a dual meaning and apply to both the premortal life and the paradisiacal creation.

And so the Lord says that he created “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. … And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them.” (Moses 3:5.) Clearly he is speaking of the premortal existence of all things. This earth, all men, animals, fish, fowls, plants, all things—all lived first as spirit entities. Their home was heaven, and the earth was created to be the place where they could take upon themselves mortality.

“For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.” Apply these words to the spirit creation, if you will, and they will be true in such a context. But they have a much more pointed and important meaning. They are followed by the statement: “For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth; … and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist [on the earth], and watered the whole face of the ground.” (Moses 3:5–6.) The Lord is here telling us about the events of which he has spoken, about the events of the “six days,” about the account of the physical or tangible or temporal creation set forth in chapter 2 of Moses. He says the things so made were “spiritually” created and were not “naturally upon the face of the earth,” for the reasons quoted.

At this point we must insert a statement from our tenth article of faith: “We believe … that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” [A of F 1:10] That is to say, when the earth was first created it was in an Edenic state in which there was no death. And when the Lord comes again, and the Millennial era is ushered in, the earth will return to its paradisiacal state. It will be made new again; it will become a new heaven and a new earth whereon dwelleth righteousness. In that day, “there shall be no sorrow because there is no death” as we know it. (D&C 101:29.)

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of immortality. It was of this day that Lehi said: “And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.” (2 Ne. 2:22.) If there is no death, all things of necessity must continue to live everlastingly and without end.

Continuing the divine commentary about the Creation, we read: “And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.” (Moses 3:7.) How filled with meaning are these words! The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His “spirit” enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created “spiritually,” as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is “the first flesh upon the earth.” And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward.

Thus, “all things” were created as spirit entities in heaven; then “all things” were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, “spiritually were they created,” for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisiacal in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

Thus, as the scripture explains, “I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.” (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall, “all things changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: “And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it.” (Moses 3:9; italics added.)

There is no evolving from one species to another in any of this. The account is speaking of “every tree” and of “all things.” Considering them as one collective unit, the account continues: “It remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food.” (Moses 3:9.)

The Lord’s commentary about the Creation also says: “Out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; … and they were also living souls; for I, God, breathed into them the breath of life.” (Moses 3:19.) It also says, speaking figuratively, that Eve was formed from Adam’s rib. And in that primeval day, when neither death nor the probationary experiences of mortality had entered the world, “they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (See Moses 3:21–25.)

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality.

Moses 4 gives the actual account of the Fall. Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit and the earth is cursed and begins to bring forth thorns and thistles; that is, the earth falls to its present natural state. Eve is identified as “the mother of all living” (Moses 4:26); and she and Adam begin to have “sons and daughters” (Moses 5:3).

Thus, man is created in such a way that he can fall. He falls and brings mortality and procreation and death into being so that he can be redeemed by the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. And he is ransomed from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the Fall of Adam so that he can have immortality and eternal life. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement are bound together as one.

These revealed verities about the creation of all things run counter to many of the speculations and theories of the world. They are, however, what the inspired word sets forth, and we are duty bound to accept them. We are frank to admit that our knowledge of the creation of the universe, of this earth, of man, and of all living things is meager—perhaps almost miniscule—as compared to what there is to learn. But the Lord has revealed to us as much about the mystery of creation as is necessary for us in our probationary estate.

He has revealed to us the basic verities which enable us to understand the true doctrine of creation. This doctrine is that the Lord Jesus Christ is both the Creator and the Redeemer of this earth and all that on it is, save only man. It is that the Lord God himself, the Father of us all, came down and created man, male and female, in his own image and likeness. It is that the earth and all else were created in a paradisiacal state so there could be a fall. It is that the Great Creator became the Redeemer so he could ransom men from the effects of the Fall, thereby bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. It is that the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement are the three pillars of eternity. It is that all who accept him as both the Creator and the Redeemer have power to become joint-heirs with him and thereby inherit all that his Father hath.

Truly Christ is both the Creator and the Redeemer, as is portrayed by the marble reproduction of Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Christus that stands in the rotunda of the visitors’ center on Temple Square. There we see the Creator in majestic marble standing in the midst of eternity. On the domed ceiling and the encircling walls are paintings of the heavens with their endless orbs, all moving though an organized cosmos. And as we gaze upon what the hand of mere man has made, our minds are opened to see in a limited manner the miracle of creation.

There we also see the nail marks in those blessed hands, the hands that healed and blessed, and also in the feet that trod the dusty lanes of that earth which his hands had made. We see the gash in his pierced side from whence came the blood and water as a sign that the Atonement had been wrought. And our minds are opened, again in a limited manner, to see the miracle of redemption.

And as we ponder upon the wonder of it all, our gaze and thoughts dwell upon the beautific face and we feel the beckoning power of the outstretched arms. And the marvel in marble seems to breathe the breath of life and say: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6.) “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28.) Come unto me and ye shall be saved. Come, inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world for all who accept me as the Creator and Redeemer. Come, be one with me; I am thy God.

You asked Mordred : ) All the answers are there.... Some things you cannot and will not prove "scientifically" and to try to do so is folly.... Spiritual matters come of faith. But it all makes sense anyway. Probably too deep for you guys : )

Sorry - had to throw that in. I know ALL of you are smart....

Really smart.

I don't see anything scientific in the long post above Jeanie, though maybe you can point out where you think the science is.

I don't see a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, so long as those beliefs don't conflict with what we know about reality. There is abundant evidence that the earth is old and that evolution occurs. A belief system must either take this into account, or deny it and call it lies in order to preserve the belief.

I wonder, what would also be the reason for someone to believe the above story, as opposed to these? They are all creation stories with no empirical evidence. How then does a person choose? (Another option, of course, would be not to take any of these stories literally, and focus on what they are teaching us about the nature of life.)

Hi Jeannie. I appreciate your wealth of replies but could you have a look at my questions and take a shot at those please? They're in my last post. I totally get the spirituality aspect of things. It's not something that science needs to explain. But science does explain some things, like the fact that the Earth is a whole heck of a lot older than 6,000 years, heh Do you think it is not? What has lead you to this belief?



But I thought that's what followers of Christ do anyway, no? I understand that there are people out there in the world today who believe obviously false things, such as extreme superstitions or that the sun revolves around the Earth. But I'd find it hard to believe that anyone actually posting on an internet forum in the year 2008 would believe things like: one man held every single living thing on the planet in a boat or that women come from the magical conjurings of a man's rib.

I get discussing the origin of the universe and such. You can't exactly prove that so it's open to a wide variety of beliefs. But most biblical stories are clearly lessons, not real tales. I would have to guess anyone trying to defend most of them (Noah's Ark, etc.) would be continually backed into a corner, using self-contradicting statements as evidence. At least, that is, I'm not sure how I would try to defend such things.

What I see in a lot of creationism/evolution debates is creationists defending the literal truth of Biblical stories, and evolutionists showing them how these stories cannot be literally true. In my opinion that's fair enough from a scientific point of view, but I think some crucial elements are being missed.

Many religious stories incorporate themes and imagery which have been repeated since time immemorial. They seem to be part of our collective unconscious. They connect with that part of us and make us think about what it is to be human, living in this world. The literalist does not appreciate the stories on this level, and an atheist would simply see them as stories which are not true -- fantasies. If you look at the Adam and Eve story though, you have things like the tree of life and the serpent -- themes which are also echoed in many other stories from other cultures. There's this idea that humans can become gods by eating fruit from the tree, but this was not meant to be. The serpent can represent many different things: eternity, evil, knowledge.

In my opinion, the authors of stories like this wanted them to resonate with people in this way. Taking them literally is like believing that Jesus' parables have to be factual histories, when in fact their historical accuracy is irrelevant to the point being made.

Linda - maybe I OVERestimated you guys.

I guess I should've known better and expected this. The point of the "science" is that the creative days were who knows how long. So you can't make your "creationists are stupid" stance. Other than that - your own reasons for denying your God are on YOU.

Mordred, Yes, I know about tree rings and carbon dating. I'm not a moron. I'm not an expert by any stretch on how carbon dating works, but I've read counter points on that. I am NOT a scientist and don't claim to be nor would I want to be if it does to people what it has to you on here.

Knowledge is not wisdom.

I think I really am done on here, now, unless anyone wants to talk to me personally about things of a more religious nature. Questions are welcome unless you get ignorant. I will not stand for belitting OUR Savior or OUR Father in Heaven. You guys really need to look inward.

(Ignorant in the sense of extreme rudeness referring to SS's rants and slander).

Linda, I don't give a ratt's butt what "you see" anymore. YOU "see" what you want to see.

Mordred, you are still sweet. At least you want to understand but aren't "quite" open minded. Linear is the only one on here who is truly questioning things from what I can see but from a rather embittered viewpoint. I wish you all the best. I'm just going to stay on this site, now, to continue working on my health. You evolutionists, though, have actually worked to strengthen my own faith in the creation and I thank you for that! No hard feelings, but I don't wish to discuss it anymore. I'd like to hear about you personally in other areas. I like you as people. But I don't care to try to try and help you understand things anymore. Things that matter.

Hey again there, Jeanie



And I would never even remotely try to imply that you are. My question about tree rings and carbon dating was an open question to any and all interested in partaking of this discussion (since these things stand as profound evidence for an old Earth. It was in no way an accusation, least of all one directed at any individual. If I may ask, does this mean you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? I've never met anyone with this viewpoint and I'm trying to determine what information has led them there.



I wasn't aware there were any counter arguments or even factions of people who stood in opposition to it. But as I've said, creationism is new territory for me so please excuse my ignorance in this avenue of the discussion. We're all a newbie at something

However, you mention having read counter arguments about carbon dating. Have you read arguments in favor of it and compared the difference? That's not an accusation either, just an inquiry



Yikes, Jeanie. What have I done or said? As I indicateded in as cordial a tone as possible when I first arrived, I'm not here to question anyone's religious beliefs. I make that stance first and foremost and stick to it. I would never say something like: your religion is wrong. From my vantage point, I don't see any religion as superior to any other. But I'm not discussing how people believe the universe came into existence or what happens to our spirit/soul/mind upon exiting this world. I'm discussing tangible facts, such as the age of our planet. If it's a sensitive subject, I'll certainly let it go. But I can't help but wonder... why? I know the anonymity and sterility of the internet makes it difficult to express tone and demeanor, but I am saying all of this in the kindest voice possible. I hope you know that.

Why would you say that to me? If there's anything in this world that I've ever credited myself with personally (and I'm not the type to toot his own horn, mind you) it's that I think of myself as open minded. That's probably my one single redeeming quality that I acknowledge.

Once, while I was visiting the Balkans in 2000, not long after the U.S. had bombarded a capital city therein, I sat in a bar with some of the locals and discussed the negative aspects of my country, the U.S. Most Americans I knew at the time would've just waved a flag, said 'God bless America' and excused every bloodthirsty deed our country has done. Sure, other countries are guilty of this or that. That's not my point. I'm saying I was open enough to talk as pragmatically as possible with these people, many of whom my fellow Americans would've dubbed 'the enemy'. I talked with them about what I felt was good about my homeland and humbly spoke about what I thought was bad.

When I was in high school I was dating an Indian girl. She invited me to her local Hindu temple and I accepted. I won't say I didn't feel slightly out of place there (it was weird for me to go, I admit) but I managed to overcome my fear of something foreign and out of the ordinary for my upbringing. And I reckon I grew as a result of it.

I could list many things but just to add, I've tried about every type of foreign, strange cuisine placed in front of me during my travels abroad (as of this post, I currently live abroad incidentally). I have literally tried haggis, sheep's brain, the jellied hooves of pig and goat and even snake's blood! And I've tried each so as not to offend my host. Oh, I'll admit, they were all pretty disgusting for my palate. But I tried.

And these are all things about my personality I take pride in. It's because of these things that I think I am very open minded. I've even openly admitted to a) knowing nothing about creationism and consequently b) asking creationist posters here for their input. And that's what I'm still asking. As I've said previously however, if it's somehow a hurtful topic I'll lay off. But I'd like to know about creationism and I hope that if you disagree with some point I've made you'll chime in and explain why. In turn, I hope you understand if you make a point I disagree with I might chime in and politely explain why. I'm certainly not out to hurt you and I'm sorry that my posting habits have led you to the conclusion that I am a close minded person. I had thought a close minded person in this debate would jump in and say that you're wrong and that your beliefs are silly. Period. I'm not saying that and I never will.

This isn't a chatroom; it's a forum. There are plenty of threads here discussing many topics. So long as a thread isn't "closed", you can post in it.

I have defended the history of the flood and other things. If you think I, or any other creationist can be "easily backed into a corner" there appears to be an easy way to find out.

In my experience, it has been the person who advances untrue stories who can be cornered. It often happens that untrue stories contradict themselves, and all one needs to do is point this out.

As the creation events took place in the past, the primary methods of investigating them are historic methods. http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34641#Post34641 is a thread where I have tried to make this clear. As a newcomer, it may seem strange that anticreationists are averse to history, even to the discussion of how history should be investigated. If you take the time to learn more about the issues, it will quickly become evident that evolutionism is incompatible with proper historic methods.

It is also incompatible with proper scientific methods, as we've demonstrated in many other threads, but this is harder to see because of the many smokescreens and nebulous terminologies that have evolved over the decades.

Well now hold on a second there, CTD. Someone made what I felt to be an attack (however mild) about my personality, my character. I responded in kind by defending it with an explanation.

I can fully understand being opposed to threads getting derailed. It happens in forums all over the internet. But if you're against derails of this sort I kindly ask that you direct them at the instigator, not the person defending themself.

If someone made a personal slander about you CTD (not that you really went that far with it Jeanie but a comment *was* made), how would you react?

I'm sorry Mordred. It's not you. I just shared every aspect of every question concerning the creation with the talk I sent in. This guy is hard to understand if you don't know the lingo, perhaps, but I have very clearly stated that the earth could not be 6,000 years old. Humans have been here 6,000 years, but the creation itself took at LEAST 6000 years so that would make the earth at LEAST 12,000 years old and likely much older from how I see things. I know, of course, there is something to the science out there. How could you not? I am not highly educated in science but my Associate degree is in Science. I missed some steps when we learned algebra not long after my dad had died so struggled with it - never learned it right at that time so got intimidated and afraid I wouldn't get into the nursing program at BYU where I had transferred (before even trying) switched over to Administrative Medical Assisting course at a business college. Wasn't looking at a serious career - just needed to support myself for the time being. (Short sited, but I may go into teaching now anyway) But this was 25 years ago. A lot has been learned and expounded on in that time as I learned when I subbed long term for a science collab teacher. It was only high school level, but things have come quite a way since then. I totally know my own limitations. I have brain fog, but am an intelligent person. I am just tired of all the inuendos direct and otherwise making us look like idiots. There is a lot of arrogance on here or at least with most a lack of open mindedness. I've been warned by others on here, but I'm seeing it now. You see the same argument...(that's not science, please stick to the thread even though THEY get off, etc. etc.) I have given these guys on here the benefit of the doubt that its a faith crisis of sorts and maybe it is.... If you carefully read the post of Bruce R. McConkie's above he explains in there the points about the creation. This is the most intelligent explanation out there from a religions standpoint. I've met a LOT of famous people in my life because my husband use to be in the music business. He lived in the same apt. building as The Eagles. He opened up for Ted Nugent and had lunch with him. (Learned some of his moves from him.. they both have long legs). He opend up for David Bowie and actually outperformed him during the Ziggy Stardust tour. He dragged friends out to Hollywood who waited it out longer than he did and are now famous drummers who are in the big time of their genres. He toured with Ambrosia. He had a hit record with Skylark (David Foster) called Wildflower. I've met a lot of people through his friends including Sir David Foster (google him) who introduced us to famous studio guys, Earth Wind and Fire band members, Enrique Iglesius, Babyface, and others. I've met and hung out with Vince Gill and his band. After one gig we hung out on their bus with them. John has countless stories about famous people. Paul Stanley even flew him out to audition per Ace Frehley's recommendation to replace Ace but his hair was the wrong color. (Not that I personally like KISS). My point is that NOTHING was more exciting to me than meeting this great man, Bruce R. McConkie's son...(the man who wrote the article I sent) or seeing other apostles (present day...apostles just like the ones Jesus had including Peter, James and John) on the street in SLC, UT. I have seen prophets of God...including the Presidents of the church. The spirit they emanate is undeniable. They are closer to God than any humans on the earth. You cannot deny this fact in hearing them. I went to a General conference in UT while a student there. The present prophet of the church spoke. I was so excited to hear him because I had taken an Old Testament class from his son at Brigham Young University when he was next in line to be the President and have always loved him. (The apostle with the most seniority is always next in line). When he walked on the stage just seeing him bowled me over. I was overcome with emotion. At this period of my life I was working in an "elite" petroleum laboraty section of our Army Reserve unit. We were looked up to because we all had to have scored a certain amount of points on the ASFAB test to be able to be in that MOS and all were smart. I could've chosen whatever I wanted to for a job in the reserves but only did it to pay off student loans. I chose this unit because my boyfriend (now husband) was in it. (When he got out of the music business he was starting all over - when KISS didn't pan out he decided to try another life which was when we met). Anyway, these guys, also LDS (Mormon) students at BYU were into science. One was a geology major. They were playing around with different theories which perverted the creation as told Biblically. I was confused by it. Anyway Pres. Ezra Taft Benson began speaking at this conference. I can't remember now what he was speaking about but it was NOT on the creation. However, out of the blue and out of context with what his talk was on, he looked in my direction (at me...I really believe that) and told me and the audience that these theories going around are false and that the creation happened as set out in the Bible. THAT is why I am so adamant about my feelings. These people on here can scoff all they want... I don't expect them to even accept or believe this because they don't believe even in God for sure. But I was told by God through a prophet. I cannot deny that. I have been a believer all my life. I've gone to one church or another since I was 3. I was an angelic child : ) Once my dad died when i was 12 (and with adolescence) I tried a few things at a young age and picked up quickly that it was not for me. I got back into religion but things weren't adding up to me either. Its why I feel for you guys. I understand. But I really have found all my answers about who I am, where we come from and why we are here and are going through the restored fullness of the Gospel. We have the same church as organized when Christ was on the earth. But as I keep saying on here I am not a "young earth creationist." But I do not accept Lucy or any other supposedly old bones as proof that man began or evolved as long ago as is thought. The history of man goes back 6,000 years give or take 20 years or so. Period. As far as the creation it took longer. The materials on the earth have always been in existence but we don't know how long it actually took to organize the earth into being habitable.

And yes, LL, if you are reading this - its a hard concept to grasp even for Latter-Day Saints, but Adam and Eve did what they had to for men to come to earth to be tested. Otherwise as stated, they would not have had seed....They would have remained in an immortal state. God had to warn them what would happen so they would CHOOSE to fall. They made the right choice. Note the 2nd Article of Faith below.

Mordred - I'm sorry. What I said is a result of posting on here for a long time to closed ears....I didn't mean to insult you. Obviously I don't know you. I'm just wary of the attitudes on here.

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Please give an example where you believe this to have happened. I don't see any evidence, for example, challenging the old age of the Grand Canyon, gradual uplift, or its having been carved by a river. I don't see any evidence challenging the correlation of the dates of tree rings, ice cores and varves. I don't see any evidence challenging the radiometric dates of rocks; that ongoing thread is fascinating, particularly the recent evidence of what would have happened if decay rates had been faster in the past (we'd be toast).



I can't remember this; please refresh my memory. I would enjoy talking about the feasibility of a flood if you'd like to start a thread on it.



Like "the Bible says so"? WHy is it not also logical to evaluate the scientific feasibility of creationist claims? See above.



As anyone can see who reads that thread, your idea of this seems to be to tar evolutionists past and present in hopes that this will also somehow invalidate their theories and all the science which supports them. This is a logical fallacy called ad hominem.



Please link to a place where you feel such a demonstration has been made. I don't see any evidence challenging . . . well, see above.

One final note: If you reply to any of my requests for evidence or a link with "scroll up", "I've already covered that so I won't do it again" "the answer's obvious to anyone who isn't stupid," "it's not my job to find things for you here," "why should I bother," "it's been proved so the subject's closed," "tough for you if you can't remember," etc, then I will take it as an admission that you are unable to provide said evidence or links.

Jeanie, you said

I would agree about the necessity for Adam and Eve not to share in knowledge of the tree, because it would have made them gods, and humankind was not destined for that. You know I don't personally believe in the literalness of this story, but it gives an interesting explanation of the fallibility of humans, as well as the potential they can aspire to. (Knowledge and wisdom can't be gained the easy way like that -- they take time, experience, and often pain to be achieved.)

The "testing" idea is one I had a problem with as a Catholic though. If God is omniscient, then he would know what the result of any test would be. Some pretty awful stuff happened to Job and Abraham. How did they feel when they were told God was testing them, even though he knew the outcome anyway? "Gee thanks God, for giving me a horrible life/making me think I had to kill my son"? What do you think, personally, such tests would achieve? People often explain adverse events in this way but it implies a bit of a sadistic streak on the part of the tester if you ask me.

LL: The "testing" idea is one I had a problem with as a Catholic though. If God is omniscient, then he would know what the result of any test would be. Some pretty awful stuff happened to Job and Abraham. How did they feel when they were told God was testing them, even though he knew the outcome anyway? "Gee thanks God, for giving me a horrible life/making me think I had to kill my son"? What do you think, personally, such tests would achieve? People often explain adverse events in this way but it implies a bit of a sadistic streak on the part of the tester if you ask me.

Jeanie: I can see how you would feel that way. My problems when I was struggling with my own faith early on (before becoming LDS) were that no one could give me any real feedback on what heaven was about. From what I was being told we would just praise God all day there. I use to think, well that would make him quite the egomaniac!! (Which I could not accept - I DO worship Him but believe my purpose is more than that). I asked this guy from church and he said "don't worry about it, just make sure you get there." (I was just an irritating teen ager to him).

But in answer to what you said, all I can say is that its about obedience and faith. But we are not proving ourselves to God, even, as much as we are to ourselves. I know in the case of Abraham he was taught a lot about the sacrifice God was going to be making of his own son so it was also an object lesson. He trusted in the Lord, though, so went along with it. Some people as in prophets, etc, have been shown such revelations and visions, etc. that they cannot deny...they have been shown more and as a result have a capacity to deal with a lot more than the average person. Even Christ had to learn who he really was to be able to endure what he had to suffer. He was ministered to by angels other than when he had to be left alone for a time. He was half human.

Some things most definitely don't seem fair in this life. I honestly think, though, that we knew before we came into our various situations that we had an idea, at least, what we would have to go through in our lives. Coming to the earth to get a body was a good thing no matter what, albeit, scary.

One author put it into analogy form in a fictional story about a person born very crippled. This poem from the book is simplistic, but kind of puts it in perspective.

The Monument

God
Before He sent His children to earth
Gave each of them
A very carefully selected package

These:
He promised, smiling
Are yours alone. No one
Else may have the blessings
These problems will bring you

And only you
Have the special talents and abilities
That will be needed
To make these problems
Your servants

Now go down to your birth
And to your forgetfulness. Know that
I love you beyond measure.
These problems that I give you
Are a symbol of that love.

The monument you make of your life
With the help of your problems
Will be a symbol of your
love for me,

Your Father
- Blaine M. Yorgason

Its a children's book, but it meant a lot to me when I read it. It helped me quit questioning why everything in my life had to be so hard. I did not have an easy childhood nor an easy time becoming a member of the church, but became strong from what I dealt with. Mostly I learned myself how strong I am. But, of course, we have to endure to the end. I've had one of the hardest times of testing in my life this past few years. Losing my brother was one of those tests not even a year after my beloved grandmother died. Its part of life, and I know I will see them again, but now at the same time my mother is not well. These 2 last blows at 76 now, for her, with all the other losses she has suffered have sent her into a mental state. She couldn't even dress herself for my brother's funeral. I went by to pick her up and she hadn't even bathed. She couldn't face reality. And she wasn't like that till she saw how bad off he was when she saw him in the hospital before he died. There are sad things in this life. (She doesn't have the gospel so doesn't have it in perspective). I have felt both my grandmother and brother's presence... I even use to be told we would not know each other in the next life!! I don't believe that! We believe families and relationships can endure through the eternities.

There is hardship all over the world above and beyond anything I can comprehend, but this earth is only a temporary realm in the perspective of eternity. People's traumas will be healed and things lost restored. Remember, too, the great rewards that Abraham was promised and given. After the trial of his faith.....

LindaLou, I've been thinking about all this a lot. Remember the majority of man's suffering we bring on or is at the hands of other people's bad choices... God doesn't torture us to test us. But the Savior is not just about saving us from the effects of sin... he heals ALL wounds....

The right of any creature to defend itself has no more dedicated advocate than myself.

I pointed out that this is a forum because your posts included challenges to present cases and trash talk about creationism being unable to withstand evaluation. This is a very strong indicator that you either haven't reviewed the threads, or do not care to address the issues contained therein therein.

Creationism is both a doctrine which guides one in understanding spiritual issues, and a scientific pursuit. Although even a good number of creationists may not have given it sufficient thought, creationism implicitly denies the false dichotomy between "science" and all matters supernatural.

I request, Jeanie, that you reevaluate the part in bold. It can never be the right choice to disobey God. Facts don't come any more self-evident than this. I hope this error is simply the result of haste, and you have not been seriously misled by some spirit or bogus teacher.

God's intention was that all would live forever. He gave one test to the two first people for obedience and they failed him. Even though He had given them everything. Who knows how long they enjoyed their bliss in eden before they did this.

No it was not God's intention that death/suffering enter His perfect world. God made all things good and He intended all live forever. To imagine this curse was all "wanted" or part of His original plan does not add up and would make of God a liar. Thanks to the original fall/sin, all mankind has suffered as a result (including animals). Suffering and death entered the world, which was not God's original intention if you read Genesis. They came as a result of sin. They may not be "evil" in and of themselves, but they are the results of a cursed world and again, were NOT part of His original intention.

Thanks to such disobedience, the first two people wrought a curse upon themselves and all earth and its inhabitants and future offspring. Sounds cruel yes, but thankfully God provided the remedy "Christ" and we know, that even through such suffering, temptations in sin, death etc, we have hope of the ressurrection. He could have wiped us all out and given up, but instead He gave a remedy.

This need not have ever occured, but thanks to their pride, it did. How can pride and disobedience ever be "good"? We should learn from the error of Adam and Eve and avoid the same error and observe Christ and His ways, which is the remedy to what our first parents brought upon all.

Because of what they did, God required a sacrifice for us. He sent His only begotten Son to earth and become that sacrifice for us. Causing Him to die a cruel/wretched suffering and death on the cross. One of which could have been avoided had human beings remained faithful from the start and loved Him as He loved us! Pride is a terrible thing and none of this would ever have been necessary if they had only obeyed from the start.

One only has to read the bible to see the grief of the Creator as His creatures so often fall in similar manner to their first parents. How patient He is and merciful to so many ungrateful human beings. Even then He still extends His hand of mercy and gives hope to all sinners of a new beginning and a victorious afterlife. Is it much to ask for us to obey Him in return? The commandments were set forth for our good, not our undoing and misery. Something necessary due to our sin natures.

Even animals and plants? Please provide Biblical support for this statement.

He gave them a test that He knew they would fail...it was designed to fail, so the He could send His Son to suffer and die....so the He could get the keys to Hell which, apparently He did not possess.

Why? Please point out where in the Bible it says that God didn't plan for Adam to fall. To think otherwise would make God unable to see the future (not omniscient?) and unable to make the universe work the way He wanted it to (not omnipotent?).

Please provide Biblical support for the addition of physical death for animals and plants at the time of Adam's first sin.

It certainly doesn't sound like justice to cause the suffering of all animals, who cannot sin by the way, for the actions one man. However, we don't get to determine the parameters of justice since we're not in charge. Additionally, God is apparently not holding Himself to the same rules that He requires of us.

This is patently obvious. To torture someone for eternity because they stole or lied or murdered and then didn't believe His Son was able to forgive all that, is like punishing parking violators with the death penalty. Like I said, His version of justice doesn't seem to line up with what He requires of us.

Thanks for your concern CTD, but I have put a lot of "evaluation" into this concept. We disagree on this, apparently. I only have limited time on here tonight as I worked today and got to bed @ 1:30 am and then got up and 6:00 am and am torched so heading to bed soon. But I'm going to try to explain a little with Bex's post.

Linear, thanks for helping me out....or at least seeing how it makes sense. I was wondering if you could explain what you meant on this part of your post:

You Said: He gave them a test that He knew they would fail...it was designed to fail, so the He could send His Son to suffer and die....so the He could get the keys to Hell which, apparently He did not possess.

Jeanie: I've got a big ?????? here as far as what this means. I never heard of Him wanting the keys to hell? Could you explain? That's not quite my concept of Him..

My post was sort-of tongue in cheek...see Revelation 1:17-18
[quote] 17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.[quote]

Christ has the keys...

He probably was given them by the Father but it is kinda cool to think that He wrestled with Satan for them and won.

I think I saw a cartoon of Christ wrestling with Satan for some keys when I went to a Baptist church. It made me laugh because their faces looked like they were both really struggling.

Bex: God's intention was that all would live forever. He gave one test to the two first people for obedience and they failed him. Even though He had given them everything. Who knows how long they enjoyed their bliss in eden before they did this.

Jeanie: We WILL all live forever. Every single one of us is going to be resurrected. But we would never have been born and Adam and Eve would have remained immortal and innocent if not for their choice. God had to warn them of what would happen so it would be their choice. People have a misconception of them.... Adam was Michael in the pre-existence. Both of them were given a great trust as our original father and mother of this earth. They were given the Gospel and lived it faithfully.

You can't really understand this concept, however, without understanding that we lived in a pre-mortal state as spirits. We all participated in choosing "the plan" to come to earth to get bodies. satan rebelled against it and was then cast to the earth with 1/3 of the original hosts of heaven. He knew what would happen and Jesus Christ being our savior was the plan from the beginning. Jesus actually volunteered for it...which made it all the more noble. satan wanted to do it only differently. He wanted all the glory himself and did not want us to have free agency. He claimed he'd get us all back to return (to life with Heavenly Father) but no one truly grows when they don't make these choices of their own free will. he rebelled and took an entire 1/3 of the hosts of heaven with him. they are now here on the earth tempting us. they are miserable. And this is their day..but not for much longer.

The earth itself fell, too, when Adam and Eve did. But it, too, will be redeemed. The flood was its baptism... It will also be cleansed with fire and then become celestialized again.

He is our Father.....Of course he's sad when we make choices that hurt us. But there is a way back. That is THE WHOLE POINT of the Gospel is it not?????

I may need to qualify that truly LIVING however, as in eternal life, (which means life in God's presence with complete self-actualization) requires adherence to His commandments and acceptance of His gospel. But everyone will live again....excepting satan and his followers who never got bodies in the first place and never will. That is why they want to possess people or even pigs....(Remember example in the NT). They hate us - they are miserable - insanely jealous and want the same for us.

Thanks Linear....glad I didn't offend you. Wow - you know your scriptures! I just looked that up. There it is!

Our disagreement could not be more certain. That any "evaluation" could result in advocating defiance of God tells me all I need to know about its validity. You'll sooner produce valid equations demonstrating 1+1 = -55327 than valid reasoning that gives such results.

That you praise anyone for openly attempting to slander God Himself clearly indicates we serve different masters. If you really enjoy such, you find much more at http://positiveatheism.org/ and others.

Oh your charm sir....

Your hypocrisy is astounding. I can see how you have acquired such a reputation on here.

CTD, I've cooled off now, but I would warn you to watch yourself. This is not the Gospel according to CTD, or Ikester or Russ or even Jeanie. I answer to a higher God - we alldds. You really don't know what you are talking about on this. Argue all you want. Insult me all you want. Its your style. But it ain't gonna change the truth. You just don't understand. That is not meant insultingly. You really just don't. I can teach you exactly what we DO believe if you want to get the whole picture...We were actually going to discuss that privately at one time. In fact, if you do have any more "concerns" please do it in private so we can just keep this between us. Better for the forum and us. No more public mud slinging. Isn't that what flaming is?

CTD: That you praise anyone for openly attempting to slander God Himself clearly indicates we serve different masters.

Jeanie: Are you talking about Linear?? Did I not state I didn't like how that sounded? Then he told me what he meant. He DOES know his scriptures!!! Sheesh - why do you hate everybody who doesn't see things like you do? Your attitude sure wouldn't make them want to see it any differently... That is why there is this constant tit for tat thing going on between you and some of them. And if someone seems to know more scientifically let it go. It doesn't bother me.... I know it will, some day, all make sense. Just calling them liars....????? Are you just young or is this a male pride thing? Grow up!

But why did you accuse me then for defending myself? You said you're the number one advocate for defensive standpoints. I don't get why you would accuse me the way you did then.



OK, now this is really an unfair statement. I've always been the sort of person to mind his p's and q's. I'm very careful how I word things (call it a professional habit due to the nature of my job). If there's anything - ANYTHING - I've said here which can be construed as trash talk, I'd like to know.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I know very little about creationism and am here asking for feedback on the subject. If I want to know about evolution, the library in the insitution I work for is chock full of them. If I want to read up on creationism, however, my sources are surprisingly sparse (or more aptly put, nonexistent). It is for this reason that I am not challenging creationism, per se, so much as questioning it. I apologize that you take offense to my asking questions about this subject.



Well there are literally tens of thousands of threads here. Please understand that a great deal of it is rather daunting and much of it is filled with argumentative diatribes. It's not uncommon on discussion forums for old topics to crop up and be rehashed, particularly when new arrivals show up. That being said, I am reading some of the discussions here and trying to catch up (hence my silence) but I do ask that you cut me some slack. If I ask something that has already been raised, I humbly ask that you forgive my ignorance as I clearly may have overlooked something (likely a needle in a haystack).



Now see, this last clause here in your final sentence is what makes me pause. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems to imply that creationism is not science. And this is the very question I am trying to come up with here.

I get the desire to have creationism in school. That's fair enough. It's a topic and people may want to know about it. What I don't understand and am trying to get an answer to is why it should be labeled science when, more appropriately, it would fall under the category of either religion or philosophy. What part about creationism is scientific?

As always, I ask these questions in the politest tones, even if they don't "sound" that way. A text based format is often sterile and a poor conveyor of emotions. Be that as it may, I am saying this to reassure readers that I am asking questions openly and politely. These are not challenges, they are not accusations.

All the best.

Mordred:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I know very little about creationism and am here asking for feedback on the subject.

Jeanie: Its good to see you back Mordred. My hormones are kind of whacked out and I was PMSing and didn't know it during our last conversation.... No excuse, but sorry if I made you feel put off. I've shared a lot of things on here and to then feel its being belittled is a little disheartening, but I'm over it. It wasn't you, you just came in right then.

Creationism is basically belief that we and the earth were literally created by God. There are different viewpoints on it, though. Some take the days of creation as literally a day as we know it, some as each day being as 1,000 days (God's "time" although actually being eternal he doesn't have "time.") or, as we see it or its taught, no one knows how long each "day" or creative period was. From where I sit, at least, (and I'm the only Mormon on here which is why CTD is on MY case) I believe the latter. But as far as human history we believe that human history started the 6,000 years ago as stated. And that the first man was Adam. Some (not LDS but I can't speak for all) who are more into science believe we could've evolved, but I don't believe that was necessary. I think more on here are more literalists. Not sure who is young earth...

I don't know how you can account for the bones found, but I don't accept them as evidence personally. There is no debating, to me, that this earth is old, however... Even from a religious stand point our leaders teach that matter is eternal and that the materials that were already in existence were organized and in time made habitable... We (Mormons) believe, too, in a pre-existent state...that we all existed before in heaven WITH GOD and JESUS...as spirits and that God is literally the father of our spirits. We came to earth to get bodies to prove ourselves without remembering our past in the spirit world... Since God knew we would need the help the Plan of Salvation was instituted...

Anyway, right now CTD doesn't like that we believe Adam and Eve were supposed to fall...so he is calling me an athiest : ) Things, including evolutionists, are pretty black and white to him... We bad - he good...

So in light of what I've learned, now, on here, I don't even think creationism should be taught as science....Too many viewpoints. If people want it to be they should home school in my opinion which is what I did for 7 years with my 2 girls (now 17 and 20). Or they can go to private Christian schools of their various faiths. I went round and round with this one with LindaLou because we both actually work within the school systems in our respective countries (although it turns out she's American!) but even if it were put into schools it would just be taught as another option along with the other viewpoints. My stance is that it should at least be represented, but then again, maybe not. I just don't want evolution taught as absolute fact...at least not to the point that says we evolved from apes or bacteria. Because THAT is theory and will never be proven... Obviously there is evolution in some ways...adaption, all that. But if God is a GOD... that would not be necessary. So you do need to be a believer to see it that way.

Personally I think people don't understand the true nature of who or what God is, though.... It's our belief we are literally made in His image...that He has a body like ours only immortal and that Jesus Christ and he (and the holy ghost) are 3 separate beings...

That concept in and of itself (not knowing who or what God is) would make it harder to understand creation as we believe in the Biblical sense as creationists....

Oh I never really went anywhere I'm more the listening type who likes to throw his two cents out every now and again. Plus I think I've got my answers as far as creationism goes, what it is (and what it isn't).



Not so. Creationism is the belief that the universe, life, reality, etc. are too complex to have been conjured into existence all on their own and that they require a creator. Who that creator is is open for debate, since creation does not represent any one religion. When you say it's the belief that we were literally created by God (with a capital 'g') you seem to be suggesting the Christian god (correct me if I'm wrong). Arguably speaking, you could believe in the Ancient Greek deities (not that anyone does in this day and age) and still be a creationist. This much I know. It's how creation claims to be a science and what is scientific about it which I haven't yet acquired an answer to yet.



Yeah, but Jeanie, you're still using creation to represent Christianity and this simply isn't so. For the sake of argument, an entire panel of religious people, including Moslems, Hindus, Christians and many more, could represent one single creationist organization.



Whoa, wait a second. Why do you believe this? Please don't interpret this as rudeness on my part but as I'm sure RAZD has mentioned in previous posts, there's a difference between reality and what we want things to be. There is so much evidence of civilizations (not just pre-civilization hunter/gatherer tribes but CIVILIZATIONS) of people predating 6,000 years. To deny that is like saying every historian, archeologist and anthropologist is a deceietful liar or somehow spent their entire education misinformed. In order to back up this sort of assertation (saying that humans have only existed for 6,00 years) you'd have to come up with a whole heck of a lot of facts! AND you'd have to disprove all the historians, geologists, and so on. I'm not being rude when I say that you must undersand how far fetched this is to me. If humans did not exist more than 6,000 years ago than God (of some religion or other) deliberately designed things to look like they existed more than 6,000 years ago.

I wholly respect your belief in God. I would never try to sway you from that. I, personally, don't believe in a god (though I don't really /not/ believe in one either - it's never been a big thing for me, though I like discussing it, which is why I'm here). However, when certain details come into play, like how clouds are formed or whether the sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa, and so on, which can very clearly be demonstrated, you have to respect that fact. So I ask you, politely and with kindness, why do you believe something like this about humans allegedly being only 6,000 years old as a species? Is it because you want to? I've met some people who openly say: Hey, you know what - I believe this and I don't really feel like looking deeper into the matter. This is what I believe and that's the end of it. Period.

And that's fair enough. But these people aren't the type to come on discussion boards and try to prove everyone else how they're right. They quitely hold their beliefs to themselves. This is what I mean about me not wanting to come across as though I'm questioning someone's religion. I'm not questioning yours, I promise I never will. It's the small details (or, well, not so small if you ask me), like saying humans have only been around 6,000 years. How can you disprove the mountain of evidence which indicates the contrary?

I don't believe in Jesus Christ. I see more historical evidence for Caligula and historical figures far predating the the common era than I do for Jesus Christ. But I will never say someone is wrong and try to disprove them in this way. That's their religion, their belief, just as I have mine. Nor do I believe there was ever one man and one woman whose names were Adam and Eve. That's my personal belief, I ask that you respect it, just as I respect your belief that they did exist. These are the things I'm not here to discuss. It's details which can be scientifically proven (is the Earth flat, and so on) which I think need to be addressed.



You don't know how to account for them but refuse to accept them as evidence? Why? Have you done any research in that regard? If it's just something you don't feel like pursuing and are happy with your own beliefs, I think that's quite acceptable. But then I wouldn't recommend coming onto a discussion board and announcing that fact. Because someone else will show up and account for whichever bones we're discussing, and they might show you things which stray past your comfort zone. Honestly, Jeanie, and with no disrespect, it sounds as though you're basically saying you don't know how 'x' got here but you refuse to acknowledge it.

All the best.

Mordred

Well..thanks. Honestly I'm kind of tired of this uphill swim now... You believe what you want there. Not trying to stop you. Just trying to be nice. Never mind. I've wasting my time on here anymore although have grown fond of Linear, Pwcca, RAZD, LindaLou.... You all take care.... I'm being called an atheist by CTD...and told what I believe personally by you now. I don't have the heart to argue anymore so carry on CTD... You're a better man than me........ Seriously, though, fight the fight.... I've had my say. I've wasted too much time already. I learned a lot on here...... C y'all.... I'm done with this forum for now at least.

If you did, it wasn't in this thread. One needn't know much at all about scripture to parrot dated atheist propaganda.

I don't. Why do you say such a thing?
Right... My attitude won't make anyone open tightly closed eye no matter what. But I think I know what "attitude" you'd prefer me to have.

Are you saying evolutionism or calling God wrong are "scientific"? I may or may not "let it go".

Indeed, those who employ the argument-from-spam are always complaining when I let the weakest junk go. Doesn't look like I'm going to please everyone, and it should be clear that my goals are otherwise.

I didn't accuse you. I pointed out something that's frequently overlooked.

I also note that your paraphrase is inaccurate concerning what I said about self-defense. I hope this isn't a symptom.





http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39982#Post39982
I fail to see how this can be construed as anything other than trash talk. You even included straw men: "one man held every single living thing on the planet in a boat or that women come from the magical conjurings of a man's rib."

Your story already contradicts itself. You claim you don't know this & don't know that, yet you produce this conclusion: "But most biblical stories are clearly lessons, not real tales." If you know half enough to reach such a conclusion, you're aware that your straw men do not accurately reflect the history contained in the bible.
I don't take offense to people asking questions. I advocate seeking truth, and asking honest questions is one of the best ways to learn things.

I count 88 threads at present in the Creation vs. Evolution forum here. Reading all of them would take most people quite a while; but one doesn't need to read every last thread to get a pretty good idea what some of the issues and evidence are about.

The job of doing this in the future (the task of those who may arrive later) is made easier when folks discuss things in the appropriate thread. It is made more difficult when they dart from topic to topic within one thread. If your task is more difficult than it needs to be, we know one practice which bears a lot of the responsibility.
You're reading it wrong. There is nothing inherently unscientific about investigating things just because they're labeled "supernatural".

Again you present a conclusion without anything backing it up. I have not said I want creationism in school; this is something you assume.

The scientific aspects of creationism include historical research, scientific models, hypotheses, laws, theories, and the applications of all of these.
I try not to concern myself with 'tones' when they're unclear; but focus on content.

Well, that was quick!

Actually, it's both a 'belief' and a valid scientific conclusion. One can become a creationist by either accepting it as sound teaching, or by investigating the evidence. Many prefer both methods.

The broad definition (perfectly proper) of creationism encompasses 'Intelligent Design'. It is a convention that 'ID' be used to refer to the broader creationism, and 'creationism', 'OEC' or 'YEC' be used for narrower purposes. Not everyone complies.

There are even agnostic IDers. They acknowledge the scientific conclusion that a creator must exist, but claim the identity cannot be discovered/proven/whatever...

We have a thread entitled "History Rules". I should be interested in seeing you back up your assertion that "every historian" believes in evotime.

Parroting such old propaganda? You don't seem to be very objective, if I may offer an observation.

Ah! One of the mythical "mountains of evidence" we keep hearing about.

Just to save some time, you might want to review some definitions of evidence. For some reason, some people maintain conclusions are evidence. Others are fond of advancing assumptions as evidence, and some prefer circular reasoning. If you have actual evidence evidence supporting evolutionism or evodates, you may be hailed by quite a few as a hero. If you have more of the same old sham evidence, I personally would prefer that you present it in one of the threads that's already hopelessly derailed.
Did you happen to catch our Flat Earth thread?

A symptom? Why do you belittle other posters to the extent that you do?



But most biblical stories are clearly lessons and not real tales. What I don't know "this or that" about is how creationism is scientific in nature. I know what creationism itself is (and what it isn't). Moreover, the bible in no way correlates with creationism. There are numerous other posters here who have all indicated that creationism serves as an umbrella for multiple religions. Given that you use the bible as evidence to support a non-Christian ideology (creationism), I can't help but get the impression that you do not know about creationism.



The vast majority of said 88 threads consist of you going off on a tirade rather than trying to discuss the matter at hand, including flaming other posters - the very thing which the new moderator has said (s)he wishes to put a stop to.



With all due respect, who said I was talking to you when I mentioned creationism in school. The creationism movement wishes to position it in the public school system and that is what I was addressing.



History is not a scientific aspect. It's history. That's a different subject.



What is evotime?



Yes but the initial post doesn't really mean much. It seems to be attempting to invalidate evolution by finding fault with specific individuals. I could very well point out atrocities done by specific Christians and conclude that all Christians are bad. But they aren't all bad, nor are all evolutionists or any other group.

Isn't there a term in the debating world for people who employ this method of arguing, trying to make their opposition look bad by pointing out a few bad apples? There's also another thread about how Geoffrey Dahlmer (sp?) was an evolutionist. This in no way invalidates evolution anymore than bad Christians invalidate the Christian religion.

Maybe I don't know much at all about atheist propaganda. Could you point out where I parroted it instead of just calling me an atheist, which I don't claim to be.

Your responses are the fruit that make it look like you despise, or at least look down on, others that don't see things the way you do.

Well, I don't know what attitude she would prefer. However, a Christian attitude toward those to whom you communicate would be more becoming of a follower of Christ.

I disagree with Jeanie on this one. I don't think you should "let it go" at all. However, the energy required to respond would be much better spent in providing a reasoned and substantive argument with facts to back it up.


It appears that your goals are to word your responses as if you had previously provided a substantive rebuttal. Additionally, you provide ample evidence of your disdain for and your low opinion of the intelligence level your fellow human beings who are creations of God that He loved enough to have Christ take on their sins at the cross.

This is just my opinion garnered from my observations of your posts.

I'd like to back up Linearaq on this one. Though I suspect, CTD, you will translate this as people ganging up on you, the fact remains that the posts of yours which I've read (including posts where you are responding to me personally) are heavily laced with contempt. When I arrived to this forum I came with the intent to word things very carefully so as not to offend anyone because I know for some it can be a delicate subject, yet I seem to have done the exact opposite in your instance. However, while other posters make their statements rather bluntly and I struggle to walk on eggshells, I suspect they have been dealing with your angry diatribes for some time. There is no need to be angry at anyone here because nobody is out to get you, even if some share different beliefs from you.

You know that famous quote by Gandhi where he says something to the effect of, I like your Christ but not your Christians - your Christians are nothing like your Christ? His quote makes me think of people like you. And that may sound incredibly rude and condescending but I think if you take an honest look at the way you choose to respond to people you'll see that there's nothing nice about it, nothing polite, nothing mature even and surprisingly of all for someone arguing for a Christian agenda: nothing Christian about it. And every time Linearaq points this out to you you seem to post more angrily and less Christian. Nobody is telling you to do anything, nobody is telling you to post politely - they're just pointing it out. You're only making it that much more of a reality by elevating the hosility when it *is* pointed out.



IMO if your intent was to show people what you believe to be the truth, and that that truth was something you beleived in your heart of hearts, you would adopt a more congenial attitude rather than a hostile one. There have been numerous times in my life where someone I knew tried to convert me to Christianity. I suspect that they did this because they felt that this was the right path to be on and that I too should follow. I remember one guy even saying these words to me when having a discussion on the matter, 'I'm trying to tell you, Mordred,' (except he used my real name of course,) 'to come on in, the water's fine'. All of these people approached me with kindness and affection, not hostilty. I think these people found something warm and heartfelt in their faith. If your history of posts are at all a representation of who you are, I'd have to say you find only bitterness and contempt in yours.

Yeah but if Ghandi had ever known Christ he would not have died a Hindu.

And that is why Jesus said about teachers like Ghandi.. they would be better off with a rock tied around their necks and cast into the sea.

and that is why Jesus also said about people like Ghandi.. don't throw pearls at swine... because they will only chew it up and spit back out.

I actually don't think Ghandi ever really read the bible, if he did he skipped over a lot of things just like you do. It's one thing to read the bible and imagine whatever you like, from a carnal point of view, it's another to know Jesus.

You really should seek Jesus it would help you understand the bible a lot better. Until then, most of your ramblings are pretty much in vain.

But nothing in that part is responseworthy.
Yeah right...

The context indicates that you were.

See what I mean?

There are some creationists who want creationism taught. There are some who want ID presented. There are some who want lies removed from textbooks. All face determined resistance. You have made some of your own desires clear. I get them.

History most certainly is a scientific subject. Your contention that it isn't is utterly baseless.

Take a guess. If you make an honest effort, I think you'll probably get it right.

But nothing. You still brought up "flat earth" as if it's legitimately associated with creationism. You know it isn't, and we all know you know it isn't. What have you accomplished by doing this?

It seems to be setting the record straight, and exposing a fraud. A fraud which you... well, your actions have spoken, haven't they?

It can only serve to invalidate the teachings of evolutionists if his actions were consistent with evolutionists' teaching.

No. It's a matter of supporting your side, not matter what. You're just hoping someone will stumble across this & take your word.You've transformed overnight from someone who didn't know what creationism was, etc. to a veteran of forums with extensive knowledge of the threads here. Congratulations on your "promotion", or "coming out", whichever applies.

Your post contains a lot of advice, along with the typical attempts to misportray the situation. How about some practical real-world advice? How would you have me respond when evolutionists put false words in peoples mouths? How would you have me respond to obviously feigned stupidity? How would you have me respond to outright in-everyone's-face LIES?

If you are anything at all like the typical evoposter found in forum after forum, you'd have me take the crap. You'd have me defend any stupid straw man misrepresentation, too timid to call anyone on anything. You'd have me remain mute while my brethren are slandered, and certainly myself. You'd have the evolutionists free to put any stupid words they want in creationists' mouths.

I know all too well how that works. It ain't my style. I call the lies, the slander, the straw men, the countless logical fallacies, all of it. I don't let much slide. When I see mud slung, I call it. You can call that "flaming" all you want. And if I do it on a website you own, I fully expect I'll be banned and my posts will disappear.

The feature that makes this place an evolutionist's nightmare is the time limit on edits. All I have to do is wait for the time to expire, and when I call some crap, they can't go back and edit it away. Boo-hoo! Poor widdle slanderers! Poor widdle punks who don't get to put lies in other people's mouths! I know what kind of heart weeps for them.

And my cruelest trick of all: Since I know that these cowardly tactics also serve to divert discussions, I make it a point to return to topic.

I shall be honest and state that I have solicited your advice primarily for amusement purposes. I don't follow many suggestions from entities unless I believe them to be qualified and in possession of good intentions. Your openly biased, Pwcca-style assessments have not contributed to such faith.

That's dated atheist propaganda. As in Old, moldy, stale. But it was rotten to begin with, so that much hasn't changed.

I sure could point it out. Could you point out where I called you an atheist instead of just calling me an atheist-caller.
Oh? Show me one post where I make it look like I despise Moslems or Buddhists.

Or is that what you mean by "see"? You could easily be talking about persons with selective vision.
If any follower of Christ has suggestions or recommendations for me, I will consider them carefully. It is only proper that I should.
Quite the contrary. I'm counting on my fellow man to be smart enough to see through some of the spam on his own; and smart enough to see that if critical elements of evolutionism are false, the whole pile must be worthless. I've said as much before; most folks would be able to remember.

Well, I see you've not only befriended the local evocrew; you've begun to adopt their ways.

(I haven't called Jeanie an atheist, in case anyone hasn't figured it out.)

SoSick, welcome back! Good to see a friendly face around here.

Blessed be and may the Goddess shine upon you!

Well, it maybe easier and a little less intimidating to get on the evolutionists side by being almost "over friendly" perhaps? and "joining in" the CTD bashing tactic game. I personally feel it's a rather cowardly response. I apologise if this offends, but this is what I am observing on here. Perfection cannot be expected by anybody on here and certainly (I can attest tot his) it is very very difficult to respond to false accusations/provocations and words being put in ones mouth, without showing some kind of contempt/anger on occassion.

Yes it's probably a safer feeling to gain allies from the "enemy side" (if one wants to refer to it as that or opposition) since Satan is VERY much on the side of anything that undermines/waters down/twists scripture, even if the person in question maybe totally ignorant of this. Even the bible points out the easy road is travelled by the multitude. Standing up for God's word is at times, a rather lonely and difficult task. Satan doesn't make it easy

Consider Satan too is a master of scripture. Knowledge of scripture is NO indication of a person's holiness. I'd challenge anybody here to outdo Satan in scriptual knowledge. He even tried to tempt Christ Himself by using scripture also. I wonder if anybody could confidentally claim they have more knowledge than he?

Since we are all only human, it is not unexpected for a person to show human emotions and anger either. Even Christ showed anger! Justified it was. Those who respond to evolutionists on here on behalf of defending God's word are certainly not going to have a smooth road.

Well CTD, not that you've shown the least concern about the team effort required to "initimdate" or "put you off", I do want you to know that the behaviours have not gone unnoticed and there is more behind you than you realise Just a pity not enough scientific individuals ready and willing to engage in the debates long term. It is most certainly a draining task and one that most sick people on these forums refrain from getting involved in.

Pwcca, it seems you have free reign to engage once again in your sarcasm. Best of luck to you!

Yeah it's clearly evident some people either read a different bible or a very condensed version of the bible.

I have difficulty overlooking Jesus' loving words and actions when he chased the money changers from the temple... or when he was run out of town after demons caused a herd of swine to jump off a cliff.. wow I have so many different examples I could list... no doubt his loving words to the pharisees and sadducees were cherished...

One of my favorite quotes of Jesus is 'let the dead bury the dead'.

I think Ghandi must have missed that one too. I don't recall him ever repeating it. I really have to wonder what Jesus he was so fond of. It can't possibly be the one that was crucified for causing so much trouble in Jerusalem or the one that told the apostles not to even bother with trying to evangelize in Asia.

Exactly! This is what makes posters like LinearAq who profess to be Christian while still serving his false evogods so evil. He is unwittingly serving Satan. So are all the other posters on here defending evolution.

And people on here complain when we show anger and emotion. How are we supposed to react to the literal word of God if everyone around us is defying His word!? Of course we're angry!



Oooooh, I've always loved that one. God bless, SoSick

And, yes, Gandhi missed a great deal. But then most heathens do. Thankfully the end times are upon us and soon the world will be wholly Christian and Satan's evil fires (and evil evolution) will be doused!

By the way, is it just me or is is it kind of amusing how CTD outwits all the evolutionist posters on here? Three to one, baby, and still winning. You go, CTD! Anyway, I'm glad there are more true Christians back and posting on this forum again.

To those of you standing in the light, God bless. To the others, your loss.

Bex: Well, it maybe easier and a little less intimidating to get on the evolutionists side by being almost "over friendly" perhaps? and "joining in" the CTD bashing tactic game. I personally feel it's a rather cowardly response. I apologise if this offends, but this is what I am observing on here. Perfection cannot be expected by anybody on here and certainly (I can attest tot his) it is very very difficult to respond to false accusations/provocations and words being put in ones mouth, without showing some kind of contempt/anger on occassion.

Jeanie: Excuse me Bex....but I'm the one who's beliefs have been distorted and attacked which CTD started. You at least put it more nicely.... That is fine, but CTD just went further and further with it. I do think his "methods" are extremely childish. And I don't see how any of you can judge someone like Linear....or anyone on here. You have no idea who anyone is. Yah - shows a lot of courage to get on and gang up on people as a group. I pretty much stand alone.

SoSick: I have difficulty overlooking Jesus' loving words and actions when he chased the money changers from the temple... or when he was run out of town after demons caused a herd of swine to jump off a cliff.. wow I have so many different examples I could list... no doubt his loving words to the pharisees and sadducees were cherished..

Jeanie: Using Christ's righteous indignation gives you no excuse to be so rude. How about "Father forgive them for they know not what they do?" You seem to be forgetting the "whole" picture. You guys are so much ruder than the evo's on here its astounding.... What happened to love thine enemies?? Oh yah - you DO love them, cause you're "warning" them.... That mantra is kind of falling flat with your delivery..... All of yours on here. I'm not impressed. And no, CTD, I'm not becoming an Evo. I think they will be held much less accountable in the day of judgment, though, than someone like you. At least they are kind hearted. LL may not have come off that way....but she is struggling with depression. I believe in people. And I don't judge them for where they are now. They could be light years ahead of me down the road. How about just "teaching" what is right about creationism rather than constantly condemning and putting others down as evil?? You REALLY have no right to judge. It is really nothing but a contest on here for who can outwit the other. It has veered from being about truth. Hope you "ladies" feel good, now, after patting each other on the back.... CTD - you are a real putz.

Signing off....

I understood the adjective. I didn't see where you pointed out how my post was "parroting" anything...much less dated atheist propaganda.


In post #40407 your statement that I was parroting atheist propaganda implied strongly that I was an atheist. Are you saying that you didn't mean to imply that I am an atheist?

I pointed out where I thought you were calling me an atheist. So, will you now point out the atheist propaganda that I was "parroting"?


Ok...let me qualify my statement. Your posts make it look like you despise anyone who doesn't agree with you in regards to the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on Earth.


Are you saying that you don't believe that I am a follower of Christ?


Are you saying that you don't have a low opinion of the intelligence level of evolutionists?

Are you saying that your posts, which drip with sarcasm about, and implied insults of evolutionists, are not indicative of your feelings about evolutionists?

Alia Atreides,

I take offense at your calling me "evil" and that I am a servant of false gods.

Can you quote any of my posts where I am shown serving false gods or being evil? I have claimed to be a follower of Christ. Although I have failed to be completely civil in my exchanges with CTD, I believe I have succeeded more than he has. I am trying to treat others fairly and with respect.

Christ says that it is by their fruit that we shall know His followers. What fruit is that....fruit of the Spirit? Is CTD showing the fruit of the Spirit in his dealings with evolutionists? Does it look like he is even trying to do that?

Are we to use your example as an indicator of the personality of the Christ that you serve?

I'm not saying that you have to agree with my position on the interpretation of the Bible. However, there is no reason to post to me with such vehemence, especially in the light of the One you have chosen to follow.

Let's just stick with the facts and evidence, Biblical or scientific, and leave the name-calling behind.

Who am I judging Jeanie?...because I've decided to support a creationist on here who is continually having a team effort worth of evos jumping on him for anything and everything? I'm wondering why on earth you're completely one eyed when it comes to the evolutionists on this forum all of a sudden? please recognise that I did not mention names, but rather "beliefs" and I have every right describe them as I see them, as they have done "fundamentalists" on this forum.

Um, no I have no idea who anybody is, and neither do you or they....But we do have a much longer history on this forum than you do Jeanie...I recall how you were treated when you first arrived. Have you forgotten? You didn't particularly enjoy the response. You were VERY offended if I recall. Who backed you when that occured?

Perhaps you are not so familiar with the posting history on this forum and the amount of false accusations and words being put in mouths by the opposition? The contempt towards fundamentalists on here? Have you suddenly turned a convenient blind eye to it all and donned a pair of rose coloured specs all of a sudden? And now it's "creationists" that are always wrong....It is very very difficult to keep ones composure in the face of what has continually occured on here and should have been moderated a long time ago (from the start).

I can well understand the effort to respect and speak more kindly to the opposition, which is a commendable thing to do, but difficult to achieve and anybody who can do that is a rare person indeed. But to do a 180 on us is rather surprising to say the least. Perhaps you should quit trying to turn us into the enemy Jeanie in some attempt to make yourself look good to the evolutionists. Is that honestly important? Are we are on this forum to stand up for the glory of God's creation? we are human also, don't expect us to be perfect either. Your sudden judgements of our side seem to be very harsh all of a sudden, as though you expect us to respond to provocations in a loving manner. That's very tough to achieve, I'm no saint. We can try harder, but this is a debate forum. Everybody will be judged for their own personal sins and who you decide is "good" on here, may not be quite what God thinks either.

If one thinks that tickling the ears of the opposition is being a good "Christian" then we're much mistaken. Christ was hated because He did not tell them what they wanted to hear, nor did he water any of it down. It is never easy to preach it as it is, and certainly I've seen enough contempt on this forum towards "fundamentalists" simply because we've stood for God's word as He told it....

And as for us "ladies" patting eachother on the back. It's refreshing to see a few creationists on here in support from time to time, which I think is needed or one too easily gives up. If that irritates you, should I apologise?

That would be good. I do think the forum needs moderation. It's a debate forum and to be honest, I know of no other debate form that does not have a moderator. It is always required, because no matter what the age, adults on the internet will always, without fail, hit out at eachother when emotions/passions are aroused by opposing beliefs.

I almost wish there could be a clean slate and start on here, but WITH a moderator from the beginning. No it won't be perfect, but it might be hopeful! However, in saying that, the removal of some of the wonderful posts, pictures, videos, material etc would not be worth losing. And even cleaning it up and editing out the bad bits would be painstaking, because much of that has been dotted through some of the good material.

It's pretty late where you are Bex. I hope you are not losing sleep.

Yes, "fundamentalists" have been lumped into one pile and treated with judgmental generalized accusations. This can come across as contempt.

I have looked at my past posts and I realize that I have tended to post in that same manner. I'm sure I can make "excuses" for my behavior in each post. However, that is not what I should do.

Lately, I am trying to treat each poster as an individual worthy of respect. That doesn't mean I will stop asking pointed questions. It also doesn't mean I will avoid providing evidence for my position in the debate. I will attempt to avoid name calling, generalization of another's position, and judgment of another's intent or intelligence.

My real problem is the format. I can't hear any tone of voice in the written statements and some people write in a manner that can be taken two ways. Perhaps I do to.

I intend to follow ikester's advice and not react to a post by firing back. Instead, I will ask the poster his/her intent in writing the statement that I may have felt insulted me. That will keep me from looking like I am putting words in anyone's mouth.

Ephesians 4:26
"In your anger do not sin" : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,

Hi Linear, yes it is late (or rather early). I can't sleep at the moment, so I tend to get on the net. Thanks for the concern.

I couldn't agree more with your post. Not sure I can add much. I simply hope that if I post on here and get involved in any of the debates (that I understand a bit about), that I will attempt to do likewise. It is much easier to respond to a person that posts without much provocation. Do you find you can read their post easier too when that's done?

I find that when I see provocations, that I actually cease to absorb the material properly in the post and instead I'm churned up, angry and provoked and my post often reflects that. How difficult it is to be "christ like". You may find that even with effort, you will be tested! It's a battle to achieve and often even harder to maintain, but here's hoping we can at least try to moderate ourselves! Perhaps in doing that, it will affect others.

Look at this.. all I have do is show my face, repeat the words of Jesus and I am called rude. Is it not what you wanted to hear today, Jeanie?

Notice the bolded text in the statement. Notice the words which precede it. Notice the utter confusion.

You've called more people more names in your short time here than any of us, the evos' included, have done in a period of several months. Put a cork in it. And if you are unable to do that, if you are unable to have rational discussion without falling off the edge of your chair and yanking your hair out, then perhaps it's proper for everyone else to assume that your intentions are to do as exactly as you have been doing, for some strange reason. Maybe perhaps it's also proper for them to assume that you enjoy being called the same names you call others. Scary thought, huh?

Though I doubt any of them has the time or inclination to bother ruining their days like you do yours.

I hope I am wrong Bex. Honestly it felt like you and CTD were coming in on other side of me like a couple of raptors about the Adam & Eve thing. I know you guys email privately. You both have emailed me! YOU have been respectful, but CTD hasn't. Honestly I felt let down by you more than anyone cause I thought you were different.... and thought (Still do) some of that was directed at me above. If it wasn't, I apologize. SoSick was also very hostile and unfair toward me and I guess I'm not over that. I'm not "tickling" someone's ears either, LOL. I am not straddling the fence...I just don't see it as black or white with this issue. However, CTD's constant blatant attacks on character have gotten the best of me. No, I haven't been on here that long. It seems to repeat itself on here anyway, though. I have not seen the mean things OTHER than from CTD and SoSick toward me, but I REALLY appreciate the humility with which you posted how it should be.... Anyone who has been rude to me on the evo side has more than made up for it since then. But it just continues on the other side.... How am I supposed to feel?? You are more than entitled to disagree with aspects of Mormonism, but I feel the same for you taking up for CTD as you do ME taking up for the evos. CTD owes me an apology and, frankly, so does SoSick. To see inunendos on there pretty much puts you in THEIR camp. I'm sorry....I don't see them as Christian any more than they do me. I don't care how it "looks." I see good in these people whether I believe in what they do or not. Linear was just very kind to you... How is anyone even getting that he doesn't try to be Christian??? Define Christian..... or how about Christlike?? Cause, seriously, I'm confused. I have to go to work....

Nobody has been hostile to you Jeanie. You do however, have a quite hostile reaction to anyone or anything that disagrees with your viewpoint or opinion.

You somehow will have to come to terms with the fact, fact, not my opinion, that most Christians do not agree with Joseph's Smith's or other mormon theology. Most Christians are NOT followers of Joseph Smith's doctrines.

CTD's opinion on the matter is very much the Christian norm. How is it that you perceive that you should be allowed to ramble on forever with what most Christians perceive as heretical Christian doctrine but no one else should be allowed to be speak?

And if they do speak they are rude, or negative, or snide or a putz or something that gets censored or offensive or whatever else you have used many terms to describe people whose views are not the same as your yours.

But you have never provided a substantial argument to prove your views are correct. You use your cries of offense instead as a smokescreen to avoid the discussion.

It's really boring already.

No one owes you an apology. You might considr apologizing to CTD for the name calling though. You might consider apologizing to me also for the same. And Bex... and another i forget the name...

Hi SoSick,


I perceive it as being the Young Earth Creationist Christian norm. I don't mean that as a slam in any way. I just want to point out that there are Christians that don't hold that point of view.
His reactions and opinions are normal for a YEC Christian. He doesn't believe the Earth is billions of years old and he says so. The problem is not his opinions but his manner in expressing them. He says that evolution is pure bunk but rarely provides anything beyond his assertion regarding that matter. Basically, he talks a lot but provides little information to support his case.


This is a difficult point to contend with because it is about beliefs. Sometimes those beliefs get in the way of good analysis of the facts. You have said so yourself that evolutionists fail to see the Bible as authoritative regarding origins because their beliefs get in the way. The same could be said of Mormons or of believers such as yourself. That is called confirmation bias....we tend to see the things that confirm our belief and ignore those things that don't fit.

Just because you (and most Christians here) believe that a belief is heretical, doesn't mean that she should be given that label in a public forum. She would rightly take that as an insult and probably pay little attention to anything else you had to say. Besides, cries of "heretic" tend to be taken as an intimidation tactic to drive unwanted people away. Is that yours or CTD's intent?

I can't prove if Joseph Smith really saw God and Jesus in that field when he was 14 or if he made it up. You don't have proof either way yourself, but we both believe that it was not God that Joseph saw. So, what. Do our beliefs give us the right to treat other's with disrespect because of their beliefs?

From my point of view, if you want to talk about Jeanie's beliefs with her then provide quotes that show a contradiction between Mormon beliefs what the Bible says. Then let her tell her point of view about the contradiction.

I'm sure neither of you will be convinced to change to the other's beliefs but this is not about that.

Just my opinion

But what is causing the argument is not CTD's YEC stance. What is causing distress, here and other places on the board, are Jeanie's hostile reactions to views, even facts, that that are either contradictory to her own or, it would even appear, facts she does not want to made public.

When I made the statement above it was about CTD's comment about serving different masters, not about his YEC perspective. And I actually only started following this thread at about that point because I knew it was sure to draw blood from Jeanie.

I always keep in mind this little disclaimer at the bottom of the page...
By using this system, you understand that the information displayed here is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only.



That's true, undoubtedly... however accusing people of rude behavior for posting views that oppose my own has never been something I have ever done. I have however been accused mant times of being rude for posting views, many times facts no less, that oppose the views of someone else. CTD has been accused of the same, Bex also... I don;t thuink any of us have ever done the same to any of the evo's here... I am not saying you have ever done it either. But there are some who use that ploy to disrail discussions time and time again. rather than simply discuss things, they scream offense. and sad to say.... it really is just a smokescreen at that point for those people who are unable to rationallt defend themselves. Beliefs are a touchy matter agreed, and I can assure you that even Christians differ as individuals one to the other about the very particulars of their beliefs. But somehow, we manage to find a place of agreement within it all. A common thread of belief if you will... unlike the various warring sects of islam or other religions we have chosen to find common ground and work together.

Every now and then a person comes along, here or anywhere, claiming to be a Christian and yet vocally opposing many of the values and beliefs that Christians hold as true, attempting to even cause division among the ranks. The plan usually backfires. It takes some time for outsiders who have not had much contact with christians as a whole to realize this I am well aware of that.






And neither did I give her that label. However it would be far from me to disagree with CTD about the matter of certain doctrines which claim to be Christian but which truly are heretical to biblical teaching as far as most Christains are concerned, and which opinion I do fully agree with CTD about.

We could even have this discussion without ever mentioning Jeanie's name... because the discussion of those things does not concern her as an individual but rather concerns well published doctrines of another religion which bases itself upon Christian teachings. Many of Ghandi's ideas were also based upon Christian teachings yet we do not call him a Christian do we?

so basically, I think there is a need for recognizing hostile reactions as being a separate thing apart from true hostile intent, especially when none was intended.

I am not real sure I have gotten the impression that anyone here wants to really discuss jeanie's beliefs with her. she has posted plenty of them and gotten very lttle response. when she does get a response.. she gets angry. I imagine CTD is even quite alarmed that someone could come waltzing innocently along, and group him in with Jeanie's beliefs, which he does not share, simply because both call themselves Christians.

It's a legitimate concern.

There is a need to separate the item of discussion and views or opinions about those things, from the individual who might hold such views which might find certain things under scrutiny. This is a webboard. On the internet. This is not your home or my home or Bex's home or Jeanie's home. Neither of us are obliged to speak only about things which make the other person feel good. Most of the information persented is not meant as a personal attack unless perceived as such by someone. As far as I can tell, much of the anti-christian sentiment that wanders in is pretty much just sport. This board offers a place for non-christians or God haters to attack christians without much reprisal. Just sport for them really. I would very much enjoy seeing these same people employ their tactics at a muslim webboard. But I doubt they are brave enough.

anyway I only popped to lend CTD support. as you know, I wearied long ago of the circular arguments concerning evolution. If I need a lesson in rehash I can turn on the nightly news and just lay on the couch like a sponge.

By using this system, you understand that the information displayed here is intended for .... entertainment purposes only.

Thanks for your response Jeanie. Um yes, I hope you're wrong too. Would you please point out in my adam and Eve post on here where I came at you like a raptor? I am concerned if I have personally insulted you and not been aware of it. I seem to recall letting you have the last word on that one, even though I did not agree with you. I did not see the point in continuing, as I often do on here. I simply gave it from what I believe was a biblical perspective and if people do not like what I have to say, in the end, I realise I have to let it go sometimes. I don't recall any personal attacks towards you from my post.

It seems to me it's ok for everybody else on this forum to express their views passionately/strongly, but if I or any other creationist even give a hint of doing so, and it happens to be contrary to what you have posted... we're being hostile....

Yes I have emailed you, I have emailed CTD and a few evolutionists on here before. Others on other forums on here too....Just because I may not agree with somebody's views on here and may get into some angry retorts with someone, (even some very strong ones)does not mean I carry it around with me on every other forum, in every other aspect, particularly if I get along with someone on other issues. That depends on whether I find the person unpleasant nearly everytime I have corresponded with them. And usually this is not the case. I have in fact gotten into some very strong arguments with someone regarding some health issues too, even on pm....Do you think that I have no right to like a person and be kind to them if I have ever disagreed and gotten angry? That I should either be black or white? Sorry, but for me, it's not so cut and dry. And if it was that way, I wonder would any of us have any friends/family left to talk to?

I dont' believe I have let you down Jeanie. I think your own posts haven't exactly been squeaky clean either. I don't see that CTD addressed them as venomously as you have suggested. I do see he has strongly disagreed with you. But have you not done the same thing? Hasn't everybody? I've seen where sosick is constantly exposed on this forum with conveniently cherry picked "insults" by Pwcca (who constantly digs up the long distance past to do so), but you will also note that Pwcca conveniently fails to give the entire quote, or even the ongoing provocations from the opposition (himself included). One would really need to read the conversation a bit more to get a clearer idea. And this is conveniently not done. This comes from an individual by the way who compares the value of an unborn child to that of a rodent....this is also someone who has laughed and degraded the bible and reduced to that of "jabber wocky". Who has done an extreme sarcastic imitation of a Christian in a state of accusing someone of blasphemy (which hasnt' even been done) and even used foul language to do so. Those are all contained somewhere on this forum. So if you want to sit on here and pretend that the likes of Pwcca are "good, kind, honest" people who have been badly wronged by the 'bad creationists", I suggest you do a bit more homework on here and start reading.

Yes, Linear has been kind and respectful recently and I hope I have returned the compliment on occassion. But Linear will likely have enough humility (and has) to admit he has also been passionate and at times rather emotional and sharp (as have I) in many past posts on here. Both of us have frequently come to loggerheads. And there have been times where i have worded my post in a manner I regret and other times I have worded it more respectfully and more kindly to Linear. Which you have totally failed to acknowledge. Is this an honest mistake or is it a convenient "ommission" to support your angry stance towards myself and other creationists?

It is again evident that you have clearly not observed many other provocative and difficult posts. Nor have you been on here long enough to understand the history between posters on here and what each have endured by the opposition. You have instead decided to take a bias stance based on little history and experience on this forum.

Still, that's your decision. I am also well aware that you are not very well (seeing you on the amalgam forum and what you suffer), and I must point out that mercury toxicity and/or other illnesses make a person FAR more vulnerable than they would otherwise. This is no insult or offense to you, this is an absolute reality. Russ is well aware of how this can impact a person. To get on a debate forum with a toxic/ill condition is a real big ask. One in such a condition can perceive another person's attitude and intention to be far worse than what it may actually be. I am someone who has done this frequently. Though not always, I think at times I've seen it for exactly what it is. And with the support of others, it helps to view it a bit more clearly.

SoSick, save it.... I'm sure CTD needs his cheering section, but you act like you know what you're talking about and don't.

I just wrote a long post and got a lot off my chest...(then saved it elsewhere) but don't really feel the need to defend myself at this point. Nothing to defend.

You know - its funny.. I came on to learn about health issues and get remotivated to work on mercury issues and happened to see this interesting site where I innocently posted my viewpoints. I didn't even talk about being LDS for some time till asked outright by Pwcca how I REALLY see things more than once. I know most of you don't understand how we believe...but you, SS, are not even open to understanding, so there is no reason to put my beliefs up for your ridicule. You already know it all, anyway, from the anti-Mormon crap on the internet right? Do you think I'm not aware that others don't believe the same? Why do you think I even hesitated going there? I can't deny what I know to be true, though. Whether you or anyone else believes it or not....

This is not even about me. Its about the rudeness I've witnessed. Pwcca blew off (I hope) what that Alia A. person said about how "witches shall be killed" (not a direct quote but pretty much what she said) toward him. What if Pwcca happened to be suicidal? What if that really hurt him? Doesn't he matter? I am NOT equating Pwcca with the troubled kids at school, but lots of them are goths or "emo." My daughter even acted like that for a while. Pwcca grew up this way. I have no idea what his "faith" practices or believes, but a blanket statement like that is MEAN. The goth kids are among the sweetest at school. I doubt I'd approve of their lifestyles (my daughter didn't go there....she was wearing her "Purity, Saved for my Spouse hoodie today : ) but as far as judging them or, worse, condemning them? Or for that matter doing the same about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.... What gives yout the right???? I've never gone with appearances... THAT is what really ticked me off. You might want to watch yourselves, too on speaking about the church. You REALLY don't know what you are talking about and if you have any regard for things holy...or God himself....

I also have a right to defend myself against both you and CTD. Anyone else I've just debated it through with or at least cried Uncle. The only reason it bothered me with Bex is cause I thought she was different so it actually hurt me. I expect it from you or CTD, but that threw me.

You're right though... This really isn't worth it anymore.

Who is known to parrot atheist propaganda?

Until you point out where I called you an atheist, I don't intend to point out the obvious.

Really? Which of my posts indicates I despise students for trusting their teachers and accepting evolutionism, when it is preached at them from kindergarten on up?

Since you're asking my opinion, I'll tell you. I do not believe you are a follower of Christ. Neither do I see how anyone could believe anything of the sort. Hypothetically, if RAZD or LindaLou were to say they believe this, I think they'd answer for the lie come judgment day.

That's what I think.

I also think you'll attempt to make an issue of my opinion, and fail. God knows hearts; I don't. If I did, I wouldn't state my opinion as opinion - I'd state it as fact.
I wasn't saying anything at all about the intelligence level of evolutionists. I have in the past maintained that involvement in evolutionism results in stupification, and I am somewhat astonished at how true this insight has proven to be.

Are you saying I don't know a loaded question when I see one? Why would I lump evolutionists together into one group? Have all evolutionists slandered honest people? Have all evolutionists put words in peoples mouths? Have all evolutionists posed on forums as something they are not? Have all evolutionists engaged in cowardly behaviour to such an extent that it's become a matter of reflex?

I sincerely believe the answer to these questions is obviously and emphatically NO. If you think I'm mistaken about this, please present any arguments & evidence you have.

Speaking of answers, I'll provide the answer to my first question in this post. I asked "Who is known to parrot atheist propaganda?" I know that Satan-worshippers, pagans, atheists, agnostics, and "christian" theology professors parrot the junk. I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I know of, and I'm confident a good percentage of folks know of them too.

Bex, I really appreciate the insights and honesty you show. I do see what you are saying. The only thing I meant as far as raptors was that you both came at me with it at once and I was just picturing a 2 sided attack....(velociraptors.... : )

No I am not innocent either of retort and have not been sqeaky clean... : ) I am not expecting people to agree with me... I totally respect other's right NOT to, but I only ask I not be told WHAT I believe or am by others and that they, at least, approach me personally with a desire to understand rather than hurl insults. You are not guilty of that... I feel dumb even being upset about it on an online forum where I may never see faces, but it really did bother me to think of YOU ganging up on me along with them. I am new to this...fray..as its called. I've had fun with it at times, but I am not a game player. I pretty much wear my heart on my sleeve. In a guarded way, perhaps. I do have smart aleck tendencies.... (And rebel tendencies...I buck the "system" whatever it may be. Definitely not a conformist!!). Ironically, I've gotten a kick out of SS's posts and her smart aleck comments. I just think they need to be tempered.

I can see where some members have shown more than one face.... There are some mind games being played on here because being online gives you that luxury. CTD tried to warn me, but I'm not stupid. I can see that. I just figure they have their reasons if truly doing that. And as far as CTD.... I have been kind of mean. He didn't so much hurt me as royally piss me off with how he talked to me. I would've slapped him if I'd been in his presence. My husband pretty much treats me like a queen and I really don't think any of us women deserve any less than that. To be talked to by a guy like that I will not stand for! But, CTD, if you read this, I'm sorry for my part in provoking you....

Personally I'm letting this go. I have kind of swung in each direction and I'm pretty much ending up in the middle again where my hormones are also right now : )

I'm going out of town alone with my husband tomorrow. That will do me good.... I apologize if I've seemed a bit schizo lately : ) Yes - being ill does impact negatively sometimes. I have to be so careful working. I'm responsible for these kids self esteem in some ways. They are so precious... They soak love up like a sponge and I don't think any of us deserve any less than to be careful of how we affect each other. I will be more careful on here and think we all should be. I doubt it will get me anywhere with SS, but I am sorry for any heartburn I've caused her as well. It was not my intent to get her in trouble. I just wanted the falsehoods and, yes, persecution, to stop. I did not deserve it.

Anyway - I appreciate the tone of your email Bex. You melted my heart : ) Thank you.....

Is it even possible for you to post a comment without making some sort of false accusations about my character, Jeanie?

You know what?

I think if I had to choose the strangest heated argument on this entire webboard this thread would, without a doubt, take first place.

I have not posted on this evolution creation forum in months and yet you say this about me waaaay up above, Jeanie:



I'm sure you do not find your own words offensive. I am also quite sure you are probably very alone in your view since you do it to just about everyone.

I cannot even find a hint of Bex or CTD or anyone coming at you concerning Adam and Eve either. your apologies are really late jeanie... you should have simply used some tact upfront.

But I am not your slave master to tell you what to do or call you names, jeanie, in hopes that I will break your heart or persuade you behave better by example... but I do have a solution to all of this that you might find some logic in.

Let us all take the Mormon stance that Jeanie has promoted here in her wisdom... Since it was actually God's plan for Adam to be disobedient to Him and sin so that we could all be born and come into glory (somehow) then likewise it must also be God's plan and foreknowledge that the rest of us should never follow any of his commandments either. We all need to sin as much as possible and be disobedient to God in every way we can and then we'll really be proving something. Perhaps even, God will turn us into a great archangel like Michael as a reward.

So, despite everyone's requests and accusations, being Christlike, whatever that means to you, is not really part of God's plan according to the logic of this very special theology and the examples of our own behavior. Jesus told us to love one another. He gave us a commandment. We must therefore, break it. How can we ever learn to love if we do not hate? Know every detail of hate... How can we ever know good if we do not know evil? Every detail of evil?


Perhaps these views are a contradiction in themselves. Perhaps some will tell us so. So what, they just don't understand. Perhaps we will find ourselves trapped within a downward spiral of self destruction. But nevermind, it's really is God's plan. And others just don't understand God's plan like we do.


I know this for sure btw, because that is a private revelation i just got from an angel. A very bright angel. you weren't here with me so how do you know it didn't really happen?

if anyone has any problems with any of my suggestions, please refer to the posters above who originally inisted that these views are valid. and biblical. and worthy of respect.

There you go ranting and slandering again : ) Seriously, how do you expect me to respond to that? Am I supposed to SERIOUSLY really try and explain that when you put it that way? Cause you have warped the hell out of it. If you would like I will come back and try to actually explain when i get back cause I have wasted my evening on line. I think I needed to address what I did, though. I'll save this for another time, ok? I really don't want to fight anymore, but since you asked so nicely I will explain it. I just kind of doubt your sincerity with how you pose the question. But i would like it to make sense. It, as I said previously, is hard for even members to grasp. Linda Lou picked up on it, though... Actually Linear did, too. Even if he doesn't believe it. (or her). Tell me, though....what would be so bad about angels being on the earth oh you who believes in the bible? Is that limited to biblical times? Has it not happened before or not? Why couldn't it again? Seriously - if you believe in the Bible, why not? And why would not anyone want to entertain the amazing idea of God himself visiting the earth to introduce His son and show his true nature as our Father??? Literally?? What is not "biblical" about that??? God walked with Adam...he walked with Enoch. He HAS shown himself in times past. Except since Christ was born has only appeared or been heard to introduce His son. (case in point after Jesus was baptized). It escapes me how people who believe in the Bible would not be open to such things. My brother in law and I use to read these stories in the Bible and wish, so bad, to have such an experience. He since gave up on organized religion (but still reads his Bible) and just when i was about to, found the church. I searched this out and have proved it over the years. But I will have to get back to you. I really have to pack... Going out of town for the night tomorrow. Thanks for trying to be civil : ) I mean that....

No problem Jeanie. No, I did not intend it to be a 2 sided attack when I answered your post regarding Adam and Eve. I just responded to your post coming from what I thought was a biblical perspective, rather than to gang attack you or tell you what to believe. I have no authority to do that anyway and who does the convicting? The Holy Spirit.



Thanks. Debate forums do not bring out the best in anybody. It can often bring out he worst of even the best person. I don't believe it's all deliberate malice (well in the majority of people), rather I think it's reactive most of the time. In fact, I used to be on a curzone iodine forum and was accused by a few fanatical iodine guys on there of being many people at once under one handle (name) and they all thought that these people were male. Plus they thought I was part of a pharmaceutical spy compaigne attacking natural medicine. It was unbelievable. In the end I gave up defending myself and put up a private eye and the theme song from "mission impossible" and told them that they were "onto me" and called myself "Farmer Sue Tickle" and after that they were convinced. Yes they were serious. Sometimes defending oneself doesn't always make much difference. And trying to just made them consider I was trying to get them "off my trail".

So yes, sometimes it can be amusing, but also frustrating and rather painful. I think Linear is right, we ought to try and direct the topic back to the original intention.

Take care of yourself and have a good weekend.

Is it "putting someone down as evil" to expose logical fallacies and bogus tactics?

...says the one who is doing what?

Not at all. The truth, reality, all the facts - they're very good at defending themselves... if people see them clearly. The truth cannot be outwitted, so evolutionism targets the audience. Assumptions are smuggled in; terms are blurred; all manner of distractions are offered. That which is certain is portrayed as iffy, and that which is iffy is portrayed as certain. My strategy is to clarify - to remove the smokescreens. Whenever folks actually know the deal, we win.

Wit, to the extent I am able to employ it, serves many purposes. People learn better when they're happy or amused. People also pay more attention. It shows how unfounded the arrogance of the religion actually is. (I've seen it claimed that believing in evolutionism adds 20 I.Q. points.) It is also a deterrent to open, blatant stupidity & lies; albeit some manage to become utterly immune. (This does not help there cause, IMO.)

And, there's another potential to increase the attention paid by the audience: "Let me see if I can spot the mistakes too!" I like to imagine folks play this game. If they do, they'll soon become good at it, for there are many glaring errors to be found.

I think folks could well be overestimating my 'wit'. I mean just look at the material they give me to work with for cryin' out loud!
Well that took guts...

Not that it merits it, but while I'm posting I might as well set the record straight. After being invited to do so, I PM'd Jeanie. I was never disrespectful to her in any way, and nothing I typed could even accidentally be taken that way.

Jeanie, your actions have spoken more clearly to me than any of your erratic gibberish ever could.
If SoSick is acting, she's doing a better job than a few people I could name.

As for SoSick being a "cheering section"? You don't know the history. SoSick contributed quite a bit before retiring. A fair sight more than you, I must add.
If your views have been distorted, it should be a simple matter to set the record straight.

Oops! My bad. It's too late to edit. Guess your views are just going to have to remain the same.

Them's the breaks...

One suggestion: you're "spiritual superiority" complex is not so different from the evosickness symptom that makes them think themselves smarter than everyone else. Although nobody's come out & said so, I'm confident people can see right through it. You're digging yourself into a hole with that affectation/delusion.

As for the "Mormon issue(s)", I still prefer to leave the Mormons be. That I have a dispute with an internet entity who claims to be a Mormon should not be taken as evidence that I support, or could be persuaded to support any of the recent attempts to persecute these people and their families. I am steadfastly opposed to the establishment's campaign against them.

Well, I'm reading it now & I'm willing to make such peace as we can. I don't honestly know what to expect, but in time we'll find out.