News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Why Debates Among Us?

If we all had access to—or were willing to view—the same evidence regarding amalgam fillings, we all—including dentists—would never have used them. The same stands true for many things, including the use of mercury in vaccines.

The problem here is that we are exposed to information that is diametrically opposed. Some see one side of the information. Others only see the other. The smart thing to do in this situation is to try and find out why so much information is so completely opposite.

I went on a journey to answer this question and found out how this could happen, and why.

Simply put, there is a small group of very powerful people with an agenda. They use lies in many forms, including falsified research, to achieve their agenda. This polarized information divides us which also serves their purpose. They realized from the beginning of their plans that control of information is the most powerful form of control.

People covet, and that coveting is used against them by these conspirators.

If you put poison out that tastes like candy, most people will eat it despite knowing it's poison.

Now, I know this statement is not literally true, but if you create an endless debate about whether or not the candy is poison, most people will give in to their desires and eat it, using the debate as an "excuse".

For this reason, people are not conducive to friendly debate because they are coveting that candy. Don't you dare get between them and that candy. They will become quite cruel. Only as long as you remain non-threatening to their desires will they consider you a "friend".

Quite a sad statement about people, and this conflict is what the Bible is about, in the most profound way.

Paul speaks about the war in our members (body), and about greed (through coveting) being the source of violence in the world.

When we understand the conditions we live under, and we are willing to sacrifice our desires (idols and coveting) for the truth, only then can truth be understood by us.

These revelations that we experience when reading the Bible are a result of this. These are the experiences we have when we read the same thing again but for the first time, discover that there is a deeper truth in it that we didn't see when we read it previously.

Our eyes are being opened, so long as we continue to be willing to give up our personal desires (our coveting) to know the truth. Coveting blinds us to the truth. It literally keeps us from being able to see it.

So, those who do their research and are willing to look at all of the information soon discover this conspiracy to change, alter, or otherwise fabricate information. These become conspiracy researchers and then continually have deeper and deeper revelations about how the world really works.

In contrast, those who are not willing to look at conflicting information are protecting their desires. In effect, their own coveting is preventing them from seeing the whole truth.

This is the reason there is so much division, even among medical professionals.

Some still don't recognize the threat and damage that mercury has caused through countless diseases because they don't want to believe it. They don't want to believe that they've been a party to this activity, so they refuse to look at the conflicting information, that is, the information that is on the other side of the debate.

It takes courage to admit you're wrong, because it takes courage to have humility, and admitting you're wrong requires humility. Pride causes the refusal to have the courage to experience humility. Pride manifests as a feeling. Pride is one of the most coveted emotions/experiences humans have. It is the cause of the downfall of angels.

One of the most mature things humans can do is to put away their pride and examine all information, regardless of they way it makes them feel. In this way, we can put away the debates among us.

After all, pride is a short-term experience. Truth through humility, and the peace it brings, lasts forever.


Dr. David Youb gives an excellent demonstration of how falsified science is used to support an agenda:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M001U

Hi Russ. Hi everyone else.



Unfortunately if you study evolution - the scientific definition, not some self-conjured idea used in hopes to build straw men - one discovers that it doesn't matter who is secretly pulling the strings on high or what maelific plutocrats may be doing behind closed doors to lead us astray. They can be doing their worst and yet we can still verify the existence of evolution (according to the scientific definition) and thereby separate fact from fiction.

What precisely is untrue about claiming that the genetic traits of organisms change from generation to generation? If this were not the case we would be exact duplicates (clones) of our parents. Mother Nature has been set up so that this does not occur. This is why we die and why we procreate, afterlife and our own gods notwithstanding. (I am, incidentally, a religious person with a belief in gods and something akin to what we call the afterlife, so please don't take my last remark as an atheistic one.)

At this stage of the discussion I am not talking about mud turning into men (nor do I intend to, because I don't believe that) or humans once existing in a monkey-like form. I'm talking about one thing and one thing only: the change in genetic traits from generation to generation. If you want to use a different word for this phenomenon fine - for the sake of argument (and so that one of these conversations can at long last move forward) pick a name for it and let's then discuss how it operates and how we can see, with our own eyes, that this is indeed a reality, regardless of what scurrilous miscreants controlling the world may or may not be doing in secret.

Blessed be.

Hi Pwcca, welcome back.

The genetics in offspring, as you know, is inherited from a gene pool of information from both parents/families/ancestors. Information that already exists. This is observable, it's common sense.....

I would like to know how any process of evolution is involved? Since this is caused by the inheritance of already available information down through the parents....and only reproduction can produce anything! whatever traits there are, are inherited.

This is not in conflict with creation, but is exactly what creation has taught. It's not time that has produced this as such, or a process over time, but the event of reproduction (which takes time, but time itself produces nothing). Reproducing after ones own kind, just as the bible has preached all along - with a gene pool of information within that person's family. It is no wonder that children have such interesting similarities and differences. So far the outcome for every creature is the same. They reproduce after their own kind and continue to produce exactly that.

If you can explain this by any other process? I'd like to hear it. Since this is basic biology, basic common sense and an observable fact.

For me, what I have seen is - If evolution can get one to agree/admit to any changes in populations/living systems, which is an observable fact, they can then state things like - "Ahh, so you agree then that evolution is happening?". But if you look at this more clearly - we are talking here about people who believe in a process of evolution responsible for our world, ourselves and the outcome. What creationists are talking about is the inheritance of information passed down through our ancestors - human beings. Starting with human beings and continuing with human beings. And the same with every other creature.

If evolutionists can put across basic biological fact, whilst side-stepping the molecules-to-man idea (at first), then hopefully they'll have a person considering they've been mistaken and "perhaps evolution really is true afterall". Just part of the same process right? WRONG!

Since it is denied that evolution is an atheistic belief system, then would you please let me know of ONE textbook that attributes any such beginnings to the possibility of a creator of any kind? Let's be fair here. We didn't observe the beginnings either way and a theory of a designer is certainly no worse or more unbelieveable than the theories to explain the wonders of the universe and mathmatical precision and perfection. Since other theories of our beginnings are suggested without evidence/observance, why then is God not mentioned in textbooks also as a possible theory/explanation? Or is it too religious an idea to ever suggest such a possibility?

Let me know if I'm mistaken and you can point me to one that does. I will apologise if that is the case. I am not saying that evolution prevents people taking onboard a religious belief of any kind - but I am talking about the belief system of evolution itself as a theory.

It is interesting to note that one of the most well known atheistic evolutionists's, has indeed climbed right down of the idea of there being no designer. But here is what he said once:

Taken from:
AN ATTEMPTED ATHEISTIC SNOW JOB ON BELIEVERS

Quote

So it is with an "incognito creator" ostensibly hiding behind a purposeless evolutionary process. Again, stress the fact that NO form of evolutionary theory finds ANY need for ANY kind of external being involved in the process, not even an "incognito creator". So, for those who imagine that God could be an "incognito creator" within the evolutionary process, point out that AN "INCOGNITO CREATOR" IS ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM A NONEXISTENT CREATOR. As a result, this brings the truth back to the surface: the inescapably and inherently atheistic nature of evolution--something which again the evolutionists are trying to cover up with their chicanery.

Pwcca! You're back!!! I agree..... Someday if not even in private I wish you would fill me in on just what you do believe.

Hey hey, Jeanie Thanks.

Believe regarding what, specifically? I had a personal policy when I first arrived here never to go into detail for one reason only. One of our fellow posters. It was evident in a short period of time that anything one says, particularly things which are of a personal nature (even the most benign things such as age, sex, location, etc.), would be used as cannon fodder for this person to berate, belittle and otherwise demean other posters with.

I'm pretty certain (but wouldn't bet my life on it) that that era of the forum has ended. And if it hasn't, well I've decided I can take the insults anyway.

So, ask what you wish. I can't promise you'll like what you hear or find it meets your approval. However, I don't tell other people that their religion is false and ask the same courtesy in return (not that I think you, of all posters, would say such a thing - because I don't - I'm just saying it so it's been said).

Its good to see you back!! I only want to understand how you see things. I've always suspected it wasn't what others have accused you of. I think you're a good guy : ) I have this theory that sometimes we tend to use different terminology but, in essence, end up believing pretty much the same things. We get caught up in detail. Of course it is important and, of course, truth is not static...but we all have to start somewhere with it. But I wouldn't ask it to put you down. You may be opening up yourself for a bit of debate, perhaps, just like I am when I state things, though, so its up to you.... I guess I just wonder what you do believe about life after death, deity, the creation, scripture, and just your general belief system.... Whatever you're comfortable with sharing.