News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Some religious fundamentalists try to disprove evolution, while others accept the the theory of evolution to a limited extent. My view is the latter. I don't see a conflict between the theory of evolution and the bible, as long as one places evolution in the proper context. To me, evolution means that through survival of the fittest, over generations creatures will adapt slightly to changes in the environment. This does not mean that apes will become men over time, but that apes will become slightly different apes over many generations due to changes in the environment. I don't see a conflict here, except when people try to extrapolate the theory of evolution to an unreasonable extent.

It reminds me of studies that were done which show that those who weigh less live longer. It is true that those who are overweight tend to on average have shorter life spans the more overweight they are, however expecting a 50 pound man to live longer than a 150 pound man wouldn't make sense. In the same way, evolution makes sense when it is considered within the relevant range, and one does not make extreme extrapolations.

So basically the bible puts the fear of god into you that you will burn, and makes people be good because of divine retribution?
That was ok in the dark ages or older times, when there was more anarchy, but now we have laws and more order (at least in the US) and it is not needed to follow an old book written by men to get you into heaven.
Im not saying just dont worry about it and go murder people if you feel like it, but you don't have to leave like a monk
I respect more christians that follow more the new testament rather than outdated passages in the bible.

Oh and the christians trying to disprove evolution, too many delude themselves into thinking that evolution destroys creationism, which is not true. Science is not even close to telling us how everything was created.

Well, if you read the new testament, Christ's words were particularly strong on Hell. He spoke more about Hell than Heaven. Not wishing that anybody should perish! So if you think the old testament is bad? You may not like what Christ has to say either.

Truth does not become old fashioned. God's word does not become outdated because you, I, or anybody else decides it's not fitting in with the current way of the world or suiting our lifestyle. God is limitless and more ancient and more modern than anybody you and I could imagine. Outside and not limited by time or the 'fads of the age" and the cities of Soddom and Gommorrah and Ninevah were also warned and no doubt they too thought they were far too modern and above God's laws and perhaps He ought to get "with it". No different today and the same warnings then, apply just as much to us today . It was said that in the last days there would come scoffers....... and so there are.

God does not condemn anybody, rather it is a deliberate persistance and hardness in sin that condemns a person. God's mercy awaits even the worst sinner and His offer of salvation is there to the last moment. Hoping that Christ did not die in vain for that soul.

Wow you respect someone that opts out of the first part of the bible, when the second part follows on and fits in with the first??

Jesus said "If they believe not Moses, how will they believe that one rose from the dead".... so Jesus Himself is referring to the importance of belief in the old testament. Here is another one - "as in the days of Noah, so will it be when the son of man returns".

the old testament is also full of prophecies that point to Christ before His time. Even describing what He would go through which turned out to be 100% accurate prophecy.

So if one chucks out the first part of the book, they might as well chuck out the second. They link up in so many ways. Christ changed some things by the redemption, but this did not alter the ten commandments, rather Christ confirmed them. However, his saving grace calls us to a new life in Him. To love our enemies and forgive others. "Blessed are you, when people persecute you, abuse you and speak all kinds of calamity about you for my sake, for your reward in Heaven will be great".

His suffering, death and ressurection as a sacrifice for all sinners speaks volumes about His love for us. Loving us literally to death.

Yep, Piltdown Man was a good one. Had people fooled for a long itime. Things like this will happen now and then. But if I'm supposed to tell my duaghter, while we are reading about dinosaurs, that humans were around at the same time, then I'm sorry but we're getting into fantasy here. No doubt people can convince themselves of anything if they want to, and make up all sorts of arguments that sound logical at first glance, but c'mon. What is wrong with us evolving from apes? What are those people like the Leakeys doing in Africa, unearthing australopithecus etc -- surely we can learn from this. I have no doubt we'll keep changing too, as will other animals, and it would be fascinating to see what life here is like millions of years into the future. But yes it's true, there's a lot left to learn, and probably things we think we know that we are mistaken about. That's why it's always so important to have an open mind.

I like the point that was made here about people doing good because it comes from their hearts, rather than because they fear divine punishment. But hey, both kinds of good still benefit society.

I know that it's easy to feel that way but God isn't making us suffer. We live in a fallen, sinful world and mankind is reaping what it has sown by turning it's back on God.

Russ did a good job of explaining why things work the way that they work in this world.

cool photos, I have never seen that before. Thanks for the video(s) also, excellent teaching.

Unfortunately it's probably not wise to attempt exorcism on a person or house or whatever unless you/they have the protection of and faith in a stronger spiritual force (eg; Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit).

Though it's possible some spirits may leave at your beckoning, they will usually always try to come back and often ten times worse to secure their stronghold.

One of the most spiritually dangerous places a person can sit, in my opinion, is on the fence between two different systems of spiritual beliefs. God will not keep you from the things you love, even if that does not include himself. He may warn you, but he will not chain you and drag you like others might. Which is the root of the idea of freedom in Christ, spiritual freedom (from the influence of or being bound by other spirits). Not freedom to commit sin, as others here have tried to assert.

Haunting investigations huh? Good luck. Don't forget your lucky charms.

SoSick, I do my best to put up some of my own barriers when I go on an investigation. I don't want to bring anything home with me that I hadn't intended. But yes, sometimes I do feel a little vulnerable. I need to learn more about how to use my energy.

Aaron, look around. There are people who are happy and full of life and love. The world is not full of wickedness and it is not going to hell in a handbasket. Jeez get some perspective.

"I know that it's easy to feel that way but God isn't making us suffer. We live in a fallen, sinful world and mankind is reaping what it has sown by turning it's back on God." I know I'm struggling with this stuff, so forgive my ignorance everyone, but this is something else I struggle with. If this is the case then why isn't just the sinners that are struggling, not saying I live a saintly life obviously. I guess I'm going over the same point again, but why don't the people who commit the worst crimes reap more than the people who just live relatively normal lives and, like I say obviously make mistakes, but like some don't meaninfully go out to cause others grief. Sorry if I'm waffling Tracy x

I don;t know that you can get an answer to this from a theistic perspective Tracy. You are essentially asking why a loving god would let good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. It's one reason why I no longer personally believe in a divine being, it just doesn't make sense. Like I said, from my point of view, things just happen, and what matters is what we make of them.

Aaron, I see that you are having a hard time. I'm sorry I got snappy. I am having a "mercury moment" this evening and am in an irritable mood. However, I think your healing will be greatly facilitated if you take a look around and see the positives in the world. They will be easier to see when you are well.

Linda.

I don't know what you are talking about... God, Jesus has changed my life sooo much for the better, prior to which I struggled quite abit. Now I work 3 days a week, we live pretty good, things go well. My mercury poisoning, well I told you all before that I had asked God to teach me about doctors/vaccines in particular because I was thinking about taking my daughter in for one of the cervical cancer vaccines. 3 weeks later I got a tooth ache... went to the dentist... and you know the rest. God deals with me in a very realistic way. But I like that, someone else might not. I suffer through this mercury stuff but I actually do not think it will kill me, not unless God decides my time is up here. I am not suffering much anymore anyway, I know I have mercury poisoning still but my life is pretty normal. I feel strong and otherwise healthy. Guess the rule is, be careful what you ask for. He rarely fails to answer my prayers. Like where we live right now, isn't it pretty? I prayed for it one day... I had several kind of hard to meet requirements. like the river, they have all been met here.

We are kind of on extended vacation here... I do work some... for a few years I would go places the Lord asked me to go and pray over towns, little villages, call the destructive spirits out them. One time, a spirit tried to strangle me. I kid you not. I felt real hands around my neck, hard, only for about 5 seconds though and then I guess one of our angels took that one... another time one of them tried to kill me with a heart attack... I was young, mid thirties, no reason to have a hreat attack out of the blue... that only lasted about 5-10 seconds and then I guess our angel took that one too... what an experience though a heart attack, pretty wild, your heart feels like it is going to explode out of your chest beating wildly... oh other stuff. Anyway these spirits can be quite viscious and they do possess people, sometimes mildly, sometimes not. We are vessels just like the bible says, best to fill that space with the Holy Spirit.

Linda, some of the spirits are real big and quite powerful. They can be dangerous. A normal ghost even, not too powerful but you can't see it very well, why tread there unprotected and risk yourself? Your energy? It is non-existent. Anything you fool yourself into thinking you can do with your mind is simply the presence of a familar spirit you cannot see aiding you. The spirits may not bother you too much if they feel you already belong to them. It's when you try to break that bondage that they react maliciously.

Good deeds rarely go unpuinished.

"I don;t know that you can get an answer to this from a theistic perspective Tracy. You are essentially asking why a loving god would let good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people."

First of all, we as human buings with very limited knowledge can't see the whole picture. I can recall an incident in my life which at first I thought was a bad thing, but later it turned out to overall be a very good thing. Now imagine all the interactions of all humans.

The second reason is that of free will. imagine if everyone who focused on giving 10% of his earnings to charity became tremendously wealthy. Would giving charity then be a choice motivated by spiritual ideals, or just something that only fools wouldn't do because of the certain reward? There is much written in religious philosophy about free will. It is a fascinating topic.

I used to like talking to my psychic friend about spirits. She can see them and she does believe some are souls of people, some are different beings, and that we have protectors. She is Wiccan. Sometimes I found myself drawn into all that and really finding it plausible that these things are true. But usually I find I just don't know. I really am 50/50 about whether I do have beings protecting me. And about all I can say with confidence about spirits is that I think there is a variety of them, differnt kinds. What they are, I don't know. I do believe a poltergeist is a psychic manifestation, there's good evidence for this, but who can really be sure what is going on.

I keep hoping I will find a guide or a teacher, someone who can help me learn about these things. When you need something like this, sometimes you find that it does come to pass. But maybe I've got another kind of learning to do right now, about the nature of depression, and physical health.

tracy, cause bad things always need to happen to good people, AIN'T THAT RIGHT EH GOD?!?!?

Hi Tracy. I have no idea what others have said in response - I am so busy these days I barely have time to come online! - but I wanted to give my own answer.

I do firmly believe that a God exists. To my way of thinking, God is a scientific necessity. My reason for this view is cause and effect. In Science, there always has to be cause and effect. For example. Paper comes from trees, trees come from a forest, a forest comes from a country, a country comes from the world, the world comes from the solar system, the solar system comes from the universe, the universe comes from "big bang", big bang comes from???? Scientifically, there could not have been nothing before big-bang. As it was an effect (a bang) it needed a trigger, a cause.

The chain of cause and effect has to have a beginning, which is the uncaused cause, which we will call "X" i.e. From X we have something, something, something, something, something, something, something to me typing this. As this X did not have a cause ( but is both cause and effect) it must always have existed. It must, therefore, have been eternal - always existed, not created, been forever. We can call this uncaused cause "X" or we can call it God.

Now, if this X was eternal, for there suddently to be a chain of events leading to the existence of humans, this sudden spark must have been intentional - something that exists forever by itself must consciously at some point set off a chain of events to result in existence of humans.

Therefore, to cap, we have this X as eternally alive and conscious. At some point this X decided to set off chain of events to result in humans. If we call it God, then we have an eternal and conscious God. We have creation deliberately created by X at some point during eternity. This is consistent with Christianity, which says God is alpha and omega - the beginning and the end - eternal, infinite.

Now, as to the personality of this X (God) we move out of the realm of science to religion. Various religions and sub-religions see God differently. If uncaused X (God) is the most scientifically logical explanation for universe (as uncaused cause) that does not follow through that this X (God) has to care a jot about us or help us etc. However, it is unlikely that this God would not care about his/her own creation, therefore it is reasonable that God does care about those he created.

My personal view of God is that while God does care about us greatly, he is limited to the extent he can intervene in our lives. Not by limited power, God has to have infinite power, but through respect of our free-will. If God controlled our minds and actions, we would be puppets. My belief is God gives the human race free will, which means the freedom to do what we want, but with that comes responsiibility and consequence. Again we are back to cause and effect. A sin is something that is damaging to individuals and society. If people sin, there are consequences i.e. people sleep around, steal, lie etc there are consequences. Not always, for when people do wrong things, some get away with it and others don't.

So, I believe that humans are responsible for much of the suffering in the world, not God. By not following God's moral code, they hurt themselves and others. Examples:

children are hurt if a marriage breaks up because one partner was unfaithful - this isn't God's fault, it's the adulterer's - God says adultery is wrong, people do it anyway.

People have their home robbed - not God's fault, God says not to steal, people do it anyway.

Someone is murdered - not God's fault, God says do not murder - people do it anyway.

Pornography, prostitution, unwanted baby, STD, abortion - none of these would happen if people followed God's sexual morals, which is to have sex only in a marriage that will welcome children People have sex with who they want to, regardless of what God says.

So, I think God is blamed for a lot of things that God actually tells people not to do - which is kind of like blaming a teacher for a child falling in a muddy pool and dirtying their clothes on a school trip, even though the teacher said don't go near the pool! Whose fault? Teacher or Pupil?

I don't meant to imply that everyone is responsible for the bad things that happen in their life. That is not true. People suffer through no fault of their own. But that doesn't mean responsibility doesn't lie somewhere i.e. if someone is killed in a car-crash caused by an intoxicated-driver, the drunk is responsible. Things can be complicated further i.e. drunk was a minor. Who is then responsible? The parents? Those who supplied alcohol to someone below age?

I do believe there is a God who cares for us, is hurt by human selfishness, but ultimately leaves this world in our hands. I kind of think this is harder to do than to just wave a wand and have us all disappear as though we never existed (certainly I believe within God's power). So, I see it like a situation all of us have been in at some point - can see people engaging in self-harmful behaviour, but nothing we can really do about it because it's their choice.

I have suffered a lot in my life, healthwise and otherwise, but I have always tried to be a responsible, caring, person. I have always followed God's sexual code (no sex out of marriage), not been drunk, am pro-life, and care for animals and our planet. Yet I have had to go to the doctor many times with femal health problems, had scans, tests, faced infertility and all the emotional pain of that, while those who sleep around have babies out of wedlock with different fathers etc. They have relationship after relationship, but I couldn't even get a date, even though for a time I wanted so badly to be married with a family of my own.

It is so easy to think when we are hurting that it's God's fault or that he cares more for them than us who are trying to do the right thing, but the way I see it now is back to cause and effect. I know now that I suffered so much because dentists put amalgam in my teeth as a child. Others had fillings too. but they didn't have the same problems. Why me? I don't know, but I don't blame God. Those who put poison in my teeth are responsible - when there is wrong-doing, there are victims. I was a victim, through not fault of my own, and I thank God that I finally know what caused it.

I do think that we can seek God in times of trial or we can reject God - sometimes we do that not because we don't believe but because we are angry at God. There have been times I have closed God out because I felt he didn't care about me. But I do believe God cares for all of us, had a plan for all of us, and can be a comfort to all of us, especially if we see God as the source of all that is good - love, hope, loyalty. I think we can get angry at God because we know God is all powerful and doesn't help, but if God did intervene all the time ( I do believe he does intervene sometimes) then humans would never have to take responsibility for their actions.

According to the bible, man has only existed for 6000 years. This is absurd. Also, if there were only a few people at the time of the alleged flood, there could'nt be several billion today.Dinosaurs were around 100,000,000 years ago . Were there people then?Bacteria were around one billion years ago although the bible says life began 6000 years ago.I am curious about your education Bex . Did you go to college and if so what science classes did you take?
Who is Ron Wyatt and how old are these "ancient" humans?
Do you not believe in scientific dating of fossils and if not ,why not? Do you think that constants such as the speed of light have changed over time?In other words,do you think there's no constancy in constants?If the speed of light varied, spectral lines in distant stars would be affected.The amount of energy ,# of neutrinos emitted, spectral lines of elements depend on the speed of light.If we assume that the speed of light varies,,that affects spectral lines in stars . It affects different lines differently and would be easy to see.Evolution is a complcated subject and once again I suggest people look at talkorigins.com 's "posts of the month" for interesting opinions both pro and con

Hi Demi,

Thanks for sharing that. It is really well reasoned and explained. It sounds like a version of Deism to me, where God creates everything and then lets it all happen. But you say he does intervene sometimes. When, then, and why? Why hasn't he intervened to help a good-hearted person who is sick through no fault of their own? To extrapolate, why does he let things like the Nazi holocaust happen, or hurricanes and floods that kill thousands; why does he let babies be born into poverty and hunger, and die of starvation in a matter of days? If a God is there to intervene, it seems an utter mystery as to why he makes the choices he does. There is no one responsible, no moral lesson to learn, if a tornado kills a family. And if God let millions of people die in concentration camps, it's a very costly lesson for humanity, couldn't the lesson have been learned without so much loss of life? Why does someone have to die or suffer so that someone else can learn how to take responsibility for their actions?

Just being devil's advocate, so to speak.

I was'nt talking about the bible Bex . I was talking about what priests today tell people vs what they told people before.

Jill, there's no logic in this. If people want to believe in something they will put the blinkers on no matter how much education theyve had. From what I understand, the creationists are rejecting part of their education, saying it is not valid, or not proven. You could list 100 seemingly self-evident facts that point toward evolution and you'd be told it's all made up, it's a conspiracy. Don't waste your time LOL.

Cancer cells mutate and evolve in response to chemotherapy. Talk origins.com talks about the evolution of one of this forum's favorite microbes, chlorella

Its'a nice to hear from you Demi, I was just thinking about you today and wondering how you are. I started this thread because I was interested in other people's beliefs and in some ways I'm glad I did, cos it's obviously a topic many people found interesting. Of course we had the usual Anons who don't seem to let anyone question anything without being reprimanded for it, but that's their problem. I still at the moment am keeping an open mind. As i've said earlier on the thread I would love to have a strong faith and believe. It must be such a comfort, but at the moment I just don't feel it. To be honest I think I'm pretty much still in shock from events that happened at my house last week. Apart from the illness, and I'm sure the Anons are going to give me ahard time again and say I'm whining, but something so terrible happened that I can't and I'm not sure I'll ever get over it. I know everyones going through their own pain and I don't think mine is any greater than anyone else's, but I'm not handling things well at all. I hate change in the family. Mum and dad have split after 53 years together and both are dying. My whole family has broken apart because of this. This caused me a great deal of pain, but what happened last week, shocked me and broke my heart. I won't go into detail but I have lost my son forever. I know things can never be mended and I just can't get my head around it. I remember him as my baby and child and now I don't know him at all. As i say I appreciate that many others on the forum have tragedies and painful things, I suppose it's just that I can't deal with things well at the moment. Thats why I wish I felt that faith , but for now I just can't and it's a very lonely place to be. I don't know what I'd do without my friends on here. I'm having a challenge test at the hospital tomorrow and 4 hours IV chelation. Pretty scared, but I know I've got to do something to get started. Lots of Love Tracy x

My arguments on organ transplant have to do with altruism . If a woman decides to continue a pregnancy , especially if it involves serious health risks, that is altruistic of her just as it is altruistic if someone gives another person a kidney or a bone marrow transplant.One should not be required to carry a fetus or give someone else a kidney or bone marrow, even if they die as a result . Killing a toddler because they are annoying or a financial burden is not analogous because you cant compare a financial burden to a situation in which one is deprived of the right to their own body.
If a person needs an organ transplant in order to survive , we don't force another person even a parent to save them,because altruism is optional ,but many people would like to force women into the altruism involved in continuing an unwanted pregnancy against her will.

Hi Linda and everyone (good morning from my side of the world) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Linda, just wanted to respond to you over Australopithecus. Because this was/is very ape-like, evolutionists no longer consider it to be a transitional form.

Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" have had detailed studies done of the inner ear, skull/bones etc and show that "Lucy" and those like "her" are not part human transitions. They may have walked differently to most apes, but not in the human manner. Very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo.

If people really wish to believe that we came from apes based on little to no evidence, they are free to this belief, but to refer to it as a scientific fact and not up for question is actually giving science a bad name. So until they have solid proof of an undeniable missing link between men and apes, it remains just that "missing" and possibly non existant.

I dont agree that the idea of dinosaurs and people roaming the earth at the sametime is necessarily fanciful, as you do not believe the idea that we come from apes is.....there have been many many reports even to this day and age of sightings of dinosaurs,.

Some key passages in the bible describe them long before the name dinosaur even came into existance in 1840 by a guy called Sir Robert Owen.

One of the oldest british books in history "The anglo saxon chronicles" records encounters people had with dragons throughout the ages "Dont forget the name Dinosaur had not yet been invented". This goes for the rock drawings also, plus they have discovered ancient vases with dinosaur and man crafted into it together interacting (sometimes being killed). These drawings/carvings are literally identical representations of the dinosaurs we see on full display in our day and age.

I doubt that is all coincidental and I doubt very much all the dragon legends in cultures around the world are all based on fantasy. Certainly it seems clear that our ancient ancestors knew of these beasts long before us. No fossils were necessary for them, they drew them as they were.

Jill, no matter how the argument goes, we are still talking here about an unborn child. Let's not lose perspective here. I understand there are some circumstances that create a moral dilemma and a horrible decision for any Mother to make.

If a baby and a Mother are on a boat (just an analogy here) and one of them has to be sacrificed in order to keep the boat afloat.....which one should be thrown from the boat?

But you are talking here about the exception rather than the rule (life and death). The majority of abortions, far from being done to save the Mother from dying, are done rather to rid of her of a "burden".

Take a look at the statstics and you will find that the main excuse for abortion has been inconvenience, whether financially or the person simply did not want a baby or "another baby" or the timing they felt was just not "right". So this then means the doctor and Mother both have the apparent right to kill the child (or let's give it the term they prefer to use "terminate"). And if it comes out still half alive? They drown it/smother it.

You seem here to be emphasising the exception rather than the rule in an attempt to justify it as a whole. But you are dealing with a life who has as many rights as you and I. We have already had that right given to us and been born...so now we can turn around and take away the rights of those that havent?.....

The evolutionary depiction of a developing baby - starting as embreyo in a fish stage (with gill slits) was proven false many years ago, but was yet another attempt at degrading the human being, and reducing the unborn child to not much more than a developing fish, going through the processes from fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and finally "human". All very much with an agenda behind it. The developing human baby starts of fully human and does not suddenly "become" human after 8 weeks....people abort the babies long after this point anyway. so either way they must know what they're doing.

Though this depiction was proven false and the man in question Ernst Haeckel was found out, his false "findings" were still left in many science textbooks long after.

You'd be surprised at how many hang onto long since disproven missing links irrespective of them being proven false. There was a museum that had the horse evolution up LONG after this theory had been rubbished (even by evolutionsts, it was the same one I got taught in primary school).. The Museum were informed that this had been proven false many years ago and they were pressured from many people in the town to remove it from their display...finally they took it down because it got into the local paper. NOt long after, when things died down? it was put back up again...why? because students were coming in to view the museum and why lose an opportunity like that? And there, as far as I know, it remains ot this day. I guess those people who complained gave up trying for a second time.

So believe me, if you think evolution is clear cut, with no bias and no agendas, you are much mistaken. It does not particuarly bother me if people wish to believe in this, that is their choice, but it does bother me when they leave long since disproven theories in the textbooks or up on displays. That is pretty deceptive and unfair and certainly does an injustice to the student/viewer and to science itself.

Hi. I personally believe that God intervenes indirectly i.e. never to change a person's mind - that imposes on our individuality and free-will. So, for example, if a child was to pray "Please God make my father and mother be nicer to each other so they won't divorce" is, in my belief, a prayer that God can't really answer directly because it would involve changing the personality of the adults - which imposes on their individuality. So, if the parents don't change, the child might mistakenly attribute this to God not answerting the prayer rather than realising it's not possible without God imposing on personality. If God can change people to be kinder to each other, why not stop violent crimes and so forth. So, in this kind of situation, I think that God can lay "bread crumbs" i.e. might present opportunities to the parents to address their relationship - maybe tweak things so a marriage guidance therapy leaflet comes in the mail, or some other resource that might help their relationship, but whether the couple take the presented opportunity is up to them. God might tweak things so that certain people meet at certain times in life so that they can, if they act on it, be of help/comfort to each other. But I do think it depends on the prayer aswell - if the object of the prayer is righteous and within God's scope (i.e not impose on anyone's individuality) then it's more likely to be answered.


He might have, for all we know. For example, so many people have suffered because of mercury exposure in fillings. It's not their fault, but it's biological consequence of having a toxin in a body. God might have exposed them to info on the effect of mercury, but they might not have acted on that info and thus continued to suffer.

We know that the laws of physics are precise i.e.the laws of the universe are precise. Everything is ordered. Cause such and such has such an effect. The same is true of biological laws. If we were not mortal we would be immortal i.e eternal. But we are mortal and therefore we die. Death is a biological effect that occurs after a cause i.e heart failure in old age or brain trauma in infancy.

Chrsitianity teaches that mortality is the consequence of free-will i.e. because human beings frequently chose to do wrong God ordains it that we cannot live forever(imagine forever of what exists now?) Every human being is subject to the same biological laws - if such and such happens to the body, then death occurs, no matter what the age.

Now, God could intervene and prevent death occuring to every person who is "good", but I'm sure you can see how that would be contravening the laws of physics that govern the world as well as playing "favourites". And as we are all God's children, it would be like (in my opiniion) asking a parent to chose which children to heal etc. A parent might give more attention to a delinquent child beacuse they need it more i.e. as Jesus said "the well don't need a doctor". Also, from God's persepective, what comes after death for that person might be better than this worldy life (though rarely from the human perspective is that view appreciated as we have no confirmed knowledge of what occurs at death)


Letting something happen and condoning what is happening are two different things. A lot of attrocities have happened in history, the holocaust is just one. Towns have been sacked, people have been slaughtered in their homes, thousands have been killed in the name of something or other. If God stopped every single attrocity there would be no world because he'd have to continuously intervene. I think we try to think what we would do if we were God rather than to think what it is like for God i.e. silent invisible observer who has the power to wipe us all out but lets us live despite humanities wickedness. According to the Bible God does get upset at the cruelty of humanity, but allows us to exist regardless because he does love us and rejoices when we show kindness and love to others.


This I don't understand myself. Some of it I understand i.e. some places don't prepare for bad weather and thus when it comes are devastated etc but why they have tohappen I don't know. But the world is subject to laws of physics too, and the world is dying, as are we all, and so earthquakes and so forth may be a consequence. I don't know, but I do believe God is in control of the universe and there are answers.


We have to look at the circumstances of the child's birth. Biologically, the consequence of sex is pregnancy, and so if a couple are intimate, it is no surprise a baby results. If they are poor and know they cannot afford another child, some of the responsibility at least is on the parents for bringing a child into poverty (and I am not suggesting abortion is a solution, but that sexuality comes with responsibility of a possible new life that people should take seriously, even if it means abstinence for a time). Now in some African tribes, women are treated badly. The husbands sleep around, giving HIV to the wife in th e process aswell as fathering children with HIV. The poverty, one could argue is not the father's fault. This behaviour certainly is. A possible reason for poverty is warfare - caused by humans, not God. Another reason is that those countries that can help prefer to buy DVD's and things rather than unite and eradicate poverty.The whole world is our reponsibility, not just our families or countries. God created life to live, which I believe is true of all life (I'm vegetarian) and so I can't believe it's God will babies die - it's a consequence of moratality and humanity.


No there isn't. I don't know why that happens. Maybe God has nothing to do with it. If God does, we have to trust it's for the best because God didn't create us to suffer but to love, be loved, and be happy. I don't know why natural disasters happen. But maybe there are lessons that can be learnt - how precious life is and how important family is.


I don't think God was trying to teach us a lesson by the holocaust etc - it was just a consequence of evil action - humanity at it's worst. I do believe all suffering people inflict on others, and on animals, hurts God because everything is God's precious creation.


Again, I wouldn't say it's God trying to teach humanity a lesson, just that it's an effect of a cause - that certain things happen when certain things happen - which is the foundation of science.

I do believe absolutely there is a God, that this God is all knowing and all-powerful, but as to understanding everything about God, I think it's beyond our comprehension to be honest. But I find atheism - the idea that us and the world evolved through chance to be very hard to believe. Firstly, all life comes from life, secondly nothing comes from nothing, and thirdly there must have been an intelligent eternal uncaused cause that at some point made the infinite finite - resulting in the intelligent design of the universe: a universe of order, precision, cause and effect, but one that is finite. For something to not exist i.e. the universe and then to suddenly exist, requires factor X. Something that did not exist, but then does exist, is not eternal. To exist when previously did not means it had a cause. In the case of the universe, this was either accidental i.e. random chance or intelligent design. If big bang, which caused the universe (so we are told) was random chance, then so too would the events preceeding big-bang have to be random chance. In that way, all we have are endless finites i.e. events with a life-span. All must eventually have an uncaused eternal cause - for what is eternal cannot be transitory.

The idea that we all "just happened" by cosmic accident really is as hard for me to believe as I'm sure God is to other people.

I just have to set the record straight about a few of Jill's comments.



The Bible does not say this. This is a common misunderstanding that originates from not understanding the time difference between the first and second sentences in the Bible.







These misconceptions are not even accepted by honest evolutionists anymore. I adjure you to see out a broader range of information than the talkorigins website.



I don't disbelieve evolution because I'm a Christian. I disbelieve it because it's absolutely ridiculous, and I mean that in all honestly and without sarcasm. There is no idea I've encountered in my life that is as absurd as evolution. Think symmetry, reproduction, protein folding, DNA origins, etc., etc.

I would gladly accept evolution as a viable alternative it if there was any real evidence supporting it, however, if you give this subject an intellectually honest evaluation, you will find that the evolution myth is being promoted only because it is a great source of revenue for those funding it's promotion.

The reason evolution is complicated is because it has to be that way to induce the human emotions merit throwing common sense and true science out the window. Complication of the facts also makes it more appealing to the human sense of price. Complicating the subject is a common debate tactic, and in the context of evolution, it is nothing more.

I'll write more on this at another time. You can also visit the Evolution/Creation forum for more information.

I'm sorry to say that the education system has fed you a bunch of lies and misinformation just as it continues to educate new dentists with the false idea that mercury from amalgam fillings is harmless. Like doctors and dentists, you are being used as an intellectually as a distributor of false information by those who profit from your sense of pride. Yes, you have been purchased by people who know you better then you know yourself. There is a reason I constantly tell people to know themselves.

Jill, you have to realize that just because something is in a text book does not mean that it's true. If you put your research skills to work, you will uncover the fact that textbooks are full of junk science, lies, opinions and are largely funded by corporations that profit from the people's faith in the evolution myth.

If you are a truly intellectually honest person, you will accept when I challenge you to watch this video which will be a good starting point to reintroducing real science into your corporately-funded textbook propaganda.

In the following video, Hovind will plainly show you the lies that are in existence throughout the educational system. I have seen his work and I consider his information flawless except that he does believe in a 6000 year old earth. Other than this, the information he presents is outstanding.

I challenge you to watch the video all the way through.

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks


[color:"brown"]Remember, textbooks are the "new" press...[/color]


"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit."

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


"Our printers raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb."

—Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1811. ME 13:59


"From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice."

—Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816. ME 14:430


"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

—Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224


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

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


"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

—Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179


"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."

—Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

Thanks, Tracy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Good to hear from you too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I think about you and everyone here a lot, just don't have the time to participate as much as I used to. As to my health, I have good days and bad days. I was doing really great for about 6 months after having some fillings removed, but for the past few months not so good - probably the "dump" that happens, and I also slacked in my diet. I definitely have had improvement, though - just smalll things, but every little I am thankful for.


I do believe one should always keep an open-mind.



I have had ups and downs with my faith. I've generally always beieved in a God - there have been times I've doubted- but have often questioned the nature of that God, if he really cared for me, if I mattered to him etc. But I think those times I was angry with God, or afraid of God.


I'm so sorry for what has happened. I know from my own life that emotional pain on top of dealing with the mercury issues is very tough. I also know it is hard to feel close to God when bad things are happening, maybe because we blame God in some way, or want him to make all the problems disappear etc. If you have half-a-faith maybe you could try talking to God, or to Jesus, as you would to a friend. I do believe God always listens. Even though I've always believed, there have been times I've been very depressed, discouraged and despaired of the future. But faith can be a comfort, so having it definitely can enrich someone's life and help with the loneliness. But it's also not something we can force. We either believe or we don't. Try to stay positive and remember that everything comes to pass and the pain of today will soon belong to yesterday.

Demi, saying just "things happen" or "god works in mysterious way" seems like a cop out.

Personally I think people saying that because bad things happen, it disproves god are wrong too, you don't take personal occurrences and extrapolate it to mankind and reach a conclusion, that is just bad science.

But we were supposedly created in god's image, and obviously a large part of humanity are evil creatures roaming the earth.

I don't believe in god because I personally believe this is just not a test, my mind could not conceive that god is an omnipotent loving entity when it is this way

When you believe this is it, you try to enjoy the most of the time you have.
Sure it might seem darker and harder, specially not having religion to fallback on when you lose a loved one for example. You won't think "oh hes just going to a better place". But everything is more beautiful because everything will be long gone after we die. Life is more important, a balance of pain and love.


Just because we don't know something, we can't attribute it to god. That is how much of the natural phenomena was described in the past. Rain? its the gods. Earthquake? its the gods.
Science is ever-evolving, and Einstein proved the laws of thermodynamics can change in different conditions with special relativity. Now we have quantum physics trying to explain the Paradox of the behavior of matters such as gravitons and light.
Your statement about life has to come from life is wrong and has been proven with abiogenesis and the primordial soup.
I don't know why is so mind boggling to think that the universe or matter could have always existed. It seems easier to attribute the creation paradox to god, and if you ask then what created god, the easy answer (cop out to me)is "he is omnipotent" he can do anything.
If you read some of the hypothesis that come with the super string theory and quantum physics you could hypothesize this "god entity" is just a being from a type 3 civilization. Sure to us he might be a god, but to him and his civilization he is just a being with super technological advance.

Anyways we could debate this forever and never find an answer, the important thing is keeping to your beliefs, just don't come saturday morning at 7:00 am trying to "convert me" to whatever religion you believe in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

God does warn us of danger headed our way... bad weather, hurricanes, floods tornados... other disasters, some even human caused liked 9/11.

He warns us sometimes months and even years in advance, no way did you get the idea to move from accuweather. But it should be obvious just from reading this forum that only a small percentage are interested in listening.

Very nice thoughts, Demi.

"According to the bible, man has only existed for 6000 years.

"

5767 years. This was calculated from adding up the ages of the people in the bible back to creation.

I see this thread is now titled "Evolution myth." Creation myth more like, which is what it is and ought to be seen as. There's nothing wrong with that, creation myths have existed as long as people have been around to question.

Demi, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts here. Whether or not I personally agree with someone, I admire a well-thought-out belief system. You've considered some of the difficult points of religion, rather than sweeping them under the carpet and ignoring them.

Kriminal, some nice points and some sanity <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

OK so if we didn't evolve from apes, and we do share 99% of our genetics with chimpanzees, then how did we get here? (I'm OK with the possibility that the Loch Ness monster might be a dinosaur remnant, but they're not exactly wandering down the streets of the towns.) Oh right, God created us the way we are. When was that then, because the vast majority of dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and I'm sorry but it makes me laugh when anyone suggests people were contemporary with them. Life changes all the time, why is it so fanciful that we evolved? Because it somehow takes our "specialness" away as beings who are better than anything else on earth? I might have a look at Russ' video, depending on how long it is, because I'm fine with listening to others' ideas, but really I've got better things to do than to try to rebut creationist arguments. Last night I was listening to an astronomy podcast about the possibility of life on other planets, and the possibility that the life here began because it was "seeded" by a source from another planet, or that we are "seeding" other planets. It would be impossible to even think of things like this, surely, if you were a creationist. How would beliefs change if life were found on other worlds?

I thought I would add that the conversation between Bex and Jill here got me thinking. I find that some of my views about abortion have changed since I've gone through the process of becoming a mother. I don't want to try to persuade anyone, but the subject has come up here (including a menion by me), and I thought I'd just share my personal thoughts.

When I was pregnant, I thought about this too. I believe a fetus starts to have a heartbeat at about 6 weeks. I remember thinking then, "this is a little person. I could never stop a little life like this." But then you have to ask, when does this bundle of cells actually become a human being? Any line that we drew morally, or in the law, would be arbitrary surely. If I ask the question of myself, I'd have to say that at the moment of conception, that is where you have a growing life rather than a couple of gametes. If someone told me I had just now become pregnant, I would consider that a human life was growing inside of me. Under normal circumstances I don't think I would ever want to stop that life. I used to have the view that a bundle of a few cells, while having the potential to become a human, is not actually the same as a human. I think I've shifted a little from that now, and while I would not give a small bundle of cells the same rights as an actual baby, I also would feel personally that if it was growing inside me, that it was my baby, even if it had no consciousness yet. Maybe it's nature's design, working on me as a parent to protect and nurture my offspring, I don't know.

Here is where things need to be qualified though. These are my personal beliefs, but what about others who feel differently? OK, let's say a woman carelessly has a one-night stand and becomes pregnant. She neither wants a baby nor is in a position to be able to raise one. Should she be stopped from having an abortion as soon as possible? You could say that if she took the pregnancy to term and gave the baby up for adoption, and this was generally the norm, then people wouldn't be so careless about having unprotected sex in the first place.

However, there will always be some women who will seek abortions illegally, or even try to do it themselves. This has always gone on. And I do believe, as Jill said, that women need to have some control over their bodies. Regardless of whether you personally see it as being morally wrong, those women need to be given the right to have an abortion safely and legally. Maybe it's distasteful, but I think it needs to be there as an option, if otherwise the woman is going to go grab a coathanger and scar her insides and possibly make herself very poorly. You canot deny that this happens, and would happen if abortion were completely banned, and we're talking about a woman's life and wellbeing, surely that counts for as much as a baby's. That includes being forced to carry a baby to term if she has been raped. Some women may want to have the baby anyway. I imagine most would not. To force them to carry to term is to further the abuse that began with the rape.

Also, if a woman's life is at risk, she needs to be given the choice to have an abortion. If the baby is certain to be born with severe handicaps and is not expected to live long, she should also be given that choice. I think there are some cases where it would be unkind to both mother and baby to be forced to do otherwise, no matter how much someone values life. Sometimes if you truly do value life, you accept that there's a time for it to end. (Oh goodness, we'll be talking euthanasia here next . . . when you talk about God and morality you end up talking about everything don't you.)

I guess that's where I stand right now then. I think abortions ought to be restricted in certain ways, and that there should be a societal norm where it's preferable to either give a baby up for adoption, or to just take as much care as possible to ensure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place. But the option does need to be there, and the state has no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Plenty of religions think they have the right, thank goodness the law as it is today is more objective.

Those photos are such a hoax. Have a look at newly exhumed skeletal remains, then have a second look at those "giants" in the photos. They're obviously carved out of sandstone or some similar substance.

On the subject of abortion the bottom line is this. If you are against it, that's all swell and dandy. Go ahead and be against abortion until you are blue in the face. But the instant you use YOUR religion for an explanation as to why it should be illegal you are basically announcing yourself as a bigot. Believe it or not, boys and girls, not everyone shares your religion, so to impose a law based on YOUR religion is hogwash. And don't give me any of that "the bible says..." crap. Scripture from other religions says stuff too but I don't hear you quoting that. If you want to win an argument and say why abortion should be illegal, I think that's grand. Now explain why it should be illegal with rationale, logic and non-religious arguments. Otherwise, all you will do is offend everyone who has not been summarily converted into your belief system.

Moreover, no MAN should be allowed to impose a law on a woman's body, regardless of whether her body has another life in it or not. If I were a woman, I'd be giving the middle finger to any male who even argued against abortion. Who the hell are we (males) to decide? It'll be a cold day in hell when women erect a law that says what males can do with their bodies (in other words, it would never conceivably happen).

Do similiarities between creatures mean that they had a common ancestor (Evolved). Could this not also mean they had a common designer?

The figure you quoted here 99% is pushing the limits even further. The figure is actually becoming closer to 95%, but other figures vary depending on who is telling the story (e.g. 97% - 98.5%). So does this mean that far from advanced we are only "slightly evolved" apes if you consider that is really not a big difference? In that case, we haven't come far at all and I wonder how on earth we are managing to sit here typing on a computer having this discussion....could it mean that the few percent actually makes a significant difference?

How do you then explain this. If humans had to be so vastly different to all other livings creatures in order for one to reconsider the connection with apes, then what would we eat? How would we live?

I can assure you, no ape is reading this ....(or maybe you beg to differ) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In the animal Kingdom the ape is the obvious choice to compare to a human being based on them being the closest one could pick in respect to appearance and how they interact etc, but it seems the differences are overlooked.

Even the dumbest human being is set apart from the brightest chimps. Our brains are twice as big. Apes have no creative, cumulative aptitude for expressive and intelligent speech. They have no ability to remember, develop and use language apart from being taught (ad nauseum) to make noises for rewards, that they attempt to get as close to a "word" as they can (I've seen people teach their dogs to bark in a way that can sound like a voice). Human language aptitude are unlimited. We have a special section for speech which is completely lacking in monekys/apes' brains.

Actually dogs, pigs, budgies/parrots, dolphins are often suggested as being brainier than apes! I would not dispute that actually. Parrots at least have capacity for imitating speech amazingly well and some go even further than that by learning how to answer questions with meaning and understanding.

Look at an apes nose. Where is the bridge? Look at the texture of their skin, the nostrils.

Also their hair does keep growing, so it never needs a cut like ours. It thickly covers their whole body and helps them keep warm. Humans need clothes even in relatively mild climates.

Apes do not have a voice box. They can't talk at all. Humans can swallow and breathe at the sametime because we have this.

Female chimps only have breasts when they are nursing and the males have bones in their penises.

They have feet like hands (actually they have two sets of hands) so they can swing and grip to trees easily and very long strong arms. Humans are made for walking upright, not swinging from trees. Our toes are for balancing, rather than gripping. Because the ape has four hands it walks in a weird sideways movement. Fossilised foot prints of apes cannot be mistaken for ours. Man's fossilised foot prints have been found in rock layers with the dinosaurs and the earliest fossils. Scientists from the University of Montana found T.Rex bones, unearthed in 1990 that were not totally fossiised and were able to isolate blood cells and haemoglobin from deep in the leg bone. This means that the age of the bones could only be a few thousand years old not millions as required by the evolution scenario.

The thumbs and fingers allow us to perform detailed tasks vastly beyond the ape, which has very limited and the thumb is very short matching a limited brain.

Chimps may have 95 - 99% of the same DNA as humans, but they have 24 pairs of chromosomes, we have 23. 18 of the pairs are pretty much identical, but the rest have a different organization with large chunks of DNA in different positions verifying a unique instructional code.

The skull of a human being is distinct in proportion and capacity and sets it apart in the fossil record.

It's one thing to attempt to focus on the similarities, but you dont see the differences mentioned.

Linda, the loch Ness monster is only one of many accounts of sighting of dinosaurs. I cannot imagine these creatures would have the capacity to survive in most environments anyway. The most common sightings are in the places of the most extreme humidity and swamps. The sightings have been in areas not overly frequented by people.

Egan, re abortion. I have zero time or respect for someone pro baby murder. Bottom line is - Its called basic human rights. Religion does not even have to come into it. You're spitting alot of virtual venom all over the fact that someone is standing up for the unborn child's right to live. How does this make me a bigot? And it's not the Mother's body by the way, it's the baby's body that gets aborted..... Colour it anyway you want, it's the taking of a life. What is this talk about man having no right to force his views on women? Who said anything about a man forcing this view on women? Women and men are on both sides of this issue for and against. ..ever considered the baby in this at all? What right does anybody have to impose murder on the unborn?

Cool. Good to know. I'm not pro-murder either and I've never said I support abortion. I said it's not my choice to make. It's also like banning alcohol. Do it and you only add to the destruction and spark rampant illegal activities. People will have abortions whether they are legal or not, it's just that in a society where it is illegal, crime escalates and breeds more crime.


Excellent. You've done exactly what I've asked you to do by using logic and rationale to support your argument rather than religion. How is that being a bigot, you ask? It's not. Please make sure you understand what I'm saying in my previous post. I'm saying if you use YOUR religion as an argument for making abortion illegal (i.e., cop out arguments such as "gay rights should be abolished because the bible says so", "eating meat should be banned because the bible says so", "all medicine should be illegal because the bible says so", "you should do whatever I tell you to do and let me have sex with your 12 year old daughters because the bible says so", etc.) then you are a bigot. Since you, yourself, are expressly not using religion as the framework for your debate, then you are obviously not possessed of bigotry. Congratulations <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. It sounds like we're on the same side of the argument as far as that part is concerned, you were just misinterpreting my choice of wording.


I am being completely serious when I say I cannot thank you enough for using non-religious statements to defend your point of view and say why something should be a certain way.

It is utterly refreshing (and surprisingly rare) for me to hear this from a pro-life person such as yourself. Not once in your argument did you use the bible or talk about YOUR god as a cheap method of proving a point.

We may disagree as to whether a thing should be made illegal, but we agree which methods to use for supporting our beliefs. Two thumbs up!

Well Egan, I must say your reponse here has taken me completely by surprise.

Yes you are right, people will do it anyway, but is making it legal "right" when you consider a life here? People tend to think a little harder if these options are not readily available to them. . I dont have the full answers, because the of alternative backstreet abortion horrors. But I am definitely dead set against it (even if its' done behind the white coat and clean surgical gloves of a doctor, the act itself remains the same). Certainly now it has become an option and I remember a friend said to me once "well it doesn't matter, if I get pregnant, I'll just go get an abortion".

I can't quite see it as being the same as banning alcohol. But i'll say this. In my country New Zealand, when they lowered the drinking age because they felt that as the underage were doing it anyway, they might as well make it legal....far from helping matters, they worsened it ten fold. Now it is further out of control. Though we will never stop these things, and making them illegal of course does not stop the problem, making them legal or lowering the drinking age does not necessarily make a bad situation better, and sometimes worse in the long run.

Banning alcohol? They'd be riots I know!. Banning abortion? Before it was made legal as such, though there were the horror stories of backstreet abortions, the rate of abortion was NOTHING compared to the statistics we have now. Sometimes if you let a foot in the door, ...well you know the rest.

But as it stands? It is legal, so certainly my words on here are not going to change that reality.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the consequences of lowering the drinking age in your country. Usually, laws, the imposition of laws, and the upholding of laws is solely dependant upon the country's current situation. What works in one country could be disastrous in another. For example, the legalization of (some) recreational narcotics in Holland works just fine, but if you tried that in other countries, drug abuse would -- as you say -- worsen manifold.

As for my own opinions on the legalization of abortion (which, up until now, I haven't yielded), they are simply this. I believe that the act of abortion is (exceptional circumstances notwithstanding) morally wrong. However, in situations such as this I believe it is up to the individual to excercise their morals rather than have them forced upon them. The reason being that legalized abortion, in my opinion, is a lesser of two evils when compared to a world of back alley abortion clinics and the furthering of illicit activities which breeds even more illicit activities. Usually in life making decisions is about choosing a lesser of two evils and almost never about choosing good versus evil, black versus white, etc.

The other point I'll raise -- and this is going to bring every Christian under the sun raising fists, bibles, pitchforks, murder threats, bricks, dungheaps, rotten eggs, rotten tomatoes, dead kittens, dirty looks, unsavoury comments and a milleu of other assortments thrown my way -- is that *gasp*, dare I say it, I do put the value of developed fetus, an infant, a child and an adult human being over a barely developed, month-old fetus. Is it a lifeform? Sure it is. So is a hookworm or a leech. So is a maggot or a tadpole. I'm not about to go destroying those lifeforms either. But if I had to choose. As horrid and vile as it may sound, as insulting and heartless as it may seem, if I absolutely had to put a dollar sign on the former and the latter, yes, I'd put a higher price on a developed human being. At the end of the day we can all rant and rave about the definition of what is considered life. Yes there is a heart beat upon conception and yadda yadda. That's all swell and fine, I'm not debating that. I'm saying if had to kill one at the expense of another, I'd sooner pull the trigger on a 2 week old fetus than a 30 year-old person (or a toddler or an 80-year old or an 8-month old fetus for that matter).

Life is precious and I'm not arguing that, but mother nature can be cruel and we are often put in a position where we must take another life. An octopus gives birth to tens of thousands of eggs so that only two may live; the rest are fodder for the remaining food chain. That's sad but that's also life.

Egan, some interesting points here. Thank you. Yes, it's good to have a discussion where someone does not end up quotinvg their scripture at you as a way of justifying what they say -- though this must be difficult for a lot of religious people, because they do and think what their scripture tells them, and go no further in their thoughts than, "This is what God says, so it is so."

Bex, there are some genetic differences between us and chimps, but they are small. It only takes a few small alterations in the genetic code to produce large physical differences. We're learning more about this all the time. Why are we actually different from chimps? Because we evolved from a common ancestor.

So do creationists just lump all archaeologists together and say they're part of some vast conspiracy? I've been interested in archaeology all my life. My husband and I know archaeologists. They are intelligent people who love to learn and discover, they are not part of some massive movement to delude everyone.

Is radio carbon dating wrong then? How are we so grossly mistaken about the half-life of radioactive isotopes? This is a fact, same as the earth revolves around the sun. Is someone going to come here and claim that that isn't a fact either? It was the church that opposed Copernicus when he promoted the idea, because it threatened their comfortable idea of God's people being at the centre of the universe. Eventually they decided it was silly to oppose obvious fact, and they worked it into their belief system. I don't see anyone around today insisting the earth is flat and at the centre of the universe, because that's what their religion tells them and thus it must be so.

Egan you have explained some things that I was struggling to formulate very well. Yes, I think that sums up what I was saying earlier, that I too believe abortion is morally wrong, but that it needs to be legal and people need to make their own decisions. We can maybe try to push one way or another as a society, but that's all. You wouldn't believe it from the posts here, but there do seem to be other religions in America and elsewhere, and some people who follow none, and they have rights too. Thank the stars I was not born into a theocracy.

You've also actually given an explanation as to why I eat meat. I was a veggie for a few years, a very sincere one, but I gave it up because I felt tired and fuzzy-headed all the time, and had to re-think things. I now believe my health and that of my family depends on eating meat, raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible. It is a fact that life depends on life. It can be distasteful and chilling, but it's also how things work. I rather like the idea of saying prayers to the spirits of the buffalo before killing one, as the native Americans did. We are disconnected from the source of our nourishment, and disconnected from nature. I've been reading dinosaur books to my daughter, and one of them shows predators stealing eggs to eat, and also catching a young dinosaur to eat. I feel an inward flinch when I read this to her, but it is a fact of life. In a way it's not all that different from our chicken we eat for lunch.

"I now believe my health and that of my family depends on eating meat, raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible"

Does that mean eating only kosher or perhaps only kosher or halal meat?

I am not a strict vegetarian, although I typically eat fewer than 4 meat meals a month.

Aside from the health dangers of eating large amounts of meat, there are the issues of cruelty to animals, and the great wastefulness involved in raising animals for food. It typically takes around 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Animals raised in the US for for food produce over 20 times the manure than the waste produced by the US population. Feeding grain to livestock animals greatly increases the demand for grain and keeps prices much higher than they could be. This is one reason for the high levels of starvation in some lesser developed countries. If everyone in the world would become a vegetarian, grain prices would be so much lower.

"Cool. Good to know. I'm not pro-murder either and I've never said I support abortion. I said it's not my choice to make. It's also like banning alcohol. Do it and you only add to the destruction and spark rampant illegal activities. People will have abortions whether they are legal or not, it's just that in a society where it is illegal, crime escalates and breeds more crime."

My stand on abortion is middle of the road. Imo abortion should always be allowed in cases of incest, rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. In other cases, I believe that abortion should be legal, but not so quick and easy to obtain. Perhaps there should be mandatory psychotherapy and a waiting period required before getting an abortion. This could be even stricter for minors. Perhaps the woman should also be required to hear a lecture by a woman who had an abortion years ago and now greatly regrets it, and a speech by someone trying to adopt a child and having a hard time finding a child to adopt. We should not want to force a woman to have a child she really doesn't want and might mistreat, however we also don't want women to use abortion as birth control. We should want a woman to think long and hard about the longer term psychological consequences of getting an abortion.

I suggest picking a book on evolution, just posting qualities that apes have and do not seem as close as humans is bad science specially when most of what you posted could be argued with facts easily.

I'm opposed to abortion as a general rule, specially in a country like the US where taking care of a child should be no problem. You should take alook at other countries where women have 5 - 6 children and take care of them no problem with barely living income.
If you can do the deed, you face the consequences.
But in extenuating circumstances such as rape or when it puts the mother in danger of health I'm not opposed to it, though with your argument of murder you would be opposed to it.
Also it is a fetus when the baby is inside the mother's, specially when it is legal to abort them before the second trimester. It is not a fully developed baby yet. Calling it baby for more shock in your argument doesn't help it.
I'm just curious, but are you a vegan? I would find it hypocritical to call the termination of a fetus murder if you can enjoy a nice steak or some nice scrambled eggs. Animals feel as much pain as we do.

Do I eat kosher or halal meat? I am not a Jew or a Muslim. I'm not worried about my dinner facing Mecca before it was slaughtered thanks.

I don't live in the US, I am in the UK. At all the butchers' shops in my village, I can walk in and know I am buying grass-fed meat. It was not raised on a feed lot, fed grain or injected with hormones. I do not eat huge amounts of meat, I balance it out with vegetables and fruit and healthy fats. Protein can be very healing when you need amino acids to build you back up from various illnesses.

I agree that there are too many animals being raised to be eaten, and too many people who need to eat them. The earth is overpopulated. I don't really have any control over that. I am not going to go vegetarian and compromise my health. I am not someone who does well on a vegetarian diet, I need meat. Please don't try to convince me otherwise.

Anon, the last comment you made about abortion is rather spurious. Killing a cow or eating a chicken egg is not the moral equivalent of killing a fetus or a baby. I would willingly kill my own chicken for dinner, and a lot of people here used to do that in times past. That doesn't mean I'd happily kill someone's unborn child. What's more, I would kill the animals because I need to eat them. That's not why fetuses are terminated.

"I would kill the animals because I need to eat them. "

Do you need to eat them? Why can't you eat vegetarian food instead?

The issue of abortion needs to be looked at from all sides. What are the alternatives to abortion? Will a woman be forced to care for a child she doesn't want and mistreat him, or will she take good care of him or else place him for adoption so that a loving family will take good care of him? It is probably better for a fetus to be aborted than for the child to suffer a life of mistreatment. Mistreated unwanted children are often the ones who grow up to be criminals and cause great damage to society.

"I am not going to go vegetarian and compromise my health. "

I am not a pure vegetarian myself. I do try to limit my consumption of meat to 4 meals a month or less. Others might decide that an average of 2 meat meals a week might be right for them. Contrast this with many Americans who eat 10 or more meat meals a week. Beef is a good source of iron that is well absorbed. Vegetarian iron isn't nearly as well absorbed, so much more of it needs to be eaten. Taking vitamin c with a meal greatly increases iron absorption. As for vitamin B12, one can eat dairy products or eggs to get that. There are also vegetarian vitamin B12 supplements.

I stated a little earlier on this thread that I was a vegetarian for several years, an earnest one, and I felt tired and fuzzy-headed all the time. Also, I am healing from drug damage done to me by an antidepressant, as well as chelating mercury from amalgam removal. My naturopath says that in her experience, people recover from these kinds of illnesses more quickly and thoroughly if they eat meat. I've learned enough about how my body reacts to certain things to know that this is true for me. I am on the Paleolithic Diet and would not eat legumes, grains, and certainly not soya, so where else would I get the protein I need? I'd love not to have to buy meat, it is expensive, but I've spent enough time being ill, I'm going to do what it takes to get well. I'm just not willing to sacrifice my health for a principle (i.e. not eating meat because there are too many people in the world who eat it)when it would not make a dent in the bigger picture anyway.

I wish that I was healthier so that I could enjoy some of the good things in life. However, the world is full of evil and it is going to hell in a handbasket. God is quite clear in his word that the world as we know it will be destroyed.

Of course I realize that you're not a Christian but if you look at the world you will see that mankind is totally unable to save itself. Men try to improve the world through science, medicine, law, and war but nothing works and peace can never be obtained.

Someday Jesus Christ will come back to earth to set things straight but until then there will be great suffering and death in this world.

Aaron, I don't think anyone who ever held such apocalyptic views was ever happy. This is a way of seeing the world which is tremendously negative. I'm sure it's coloured by your illness, but please try to look around and see the positives too. You say peace is never achieved. It is. People get into fights and wars happen, but you can't tell me there is never a resolution to them. Science, medicine and law are not working? Well there are flaws in all of them, no one knows that better than us on this forum, but what a sweeping judgement to just say that they are rotten to the core. I can't see that modern medicine does a lot of the good that is credited to it, but it does come in useful sometimes, and I have to say I'd be happy to go to a hospital and have a doctor fix a broken leg. I wouldn't let them give me drugs, but I thinnk it's safe to say they would know how to fix me up.

What do we need saving from? How are people any more wicked than they ever were? You can look far back into history and see terrible things that happened, it isn't just today. But through all that, people were living, loving, taking care of each other, finding health and happiness. Many of us on this forum may feel we are lacking those things, but that isn't to say they don't exist, or that we can't ever have them again.

Suffering and death have always been with us. They are part of life. But they are not the only things in life. Stop watching the news and reading the papers, they play up all the depressing stories they can find and are out to cause a shock. Look around your own life and see what is there. There must be people who care for you. Things you yourself have achieved. What made you happy in the past?

I challenge you to go through one day and write yourself a list of good things you see or think of.

I appreciate a civil discussion <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> There is too little of it, especially on the internet. Thanks for making me think, and hope I did so in return <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

]Kriminal, the view that "things just happen" belongs to atheism more than to deism i.e. the world "just happened" by accident. Deism believes in a creation of intelligence and order, reflected by the precise laws of science. The universe having always existed is at odds with current scientific thought, which is that the universe had a beginning i.e. big bang, but certainly it could always have existed - modern science is no less subjective than the arts (i.e. relies on interpretation of individual scientists as literature does the scholar), in my experience, and is no doubt wrong on many matters.

Anon's Quote: "I suggest picking a book on evolution, just posting qualities that apes have and do not seem as close as humans is bad science specially when most of what you posted could be argued with facts easily".

===> Hmm bad science? It's general knowledge (which is very basic science). I was brought up on evolution. Never heard the other side and neither have many people. It was never a case of questioning it, you were told it was so. The continual push to convince us that we are from the apes by attempting to exaggerate and focus on any similarity does not allow a person to consider the significant differences. And to give people that chance is only fair...... If these facts can be argued with very easily as you have suggested, then perhaps you'd like to give me an example of a transitional form between man and ape? As far as I am aware, every creature reproduces after it's own kind.... Variation within a kind is not evolution! How is it bad science to put up the list of differences when all of us have been exposed only to the similarities? You're simply accusing us of the very thing you are doing.

Anon's Quote "I'm opposed to abortion as a general rule, specially in a country like the US where taking care of a child should be no problem. You should take alook at other countries where women have 5 - 6 children and take care of them no problem with barely living income.
If you can do the deed, you face the consequences.
But in extenuating circumstances such as rape or when it puts the mother in danger of health I'm not opposed to it, though with your argument of murder you would be opposed to it.
Also it is a fetus when the baby is inside the mother's, specially when it is legal to abort them before the second trimester. It is not a fully developed baby yet. Calling it baby for more shock in your argument doesn't help it.
I'm just curious, but are you a vegan? I would find it hypocritical to call the termination of a fetus murder if you can enjoy a nice steak or some nice scrambled eggs. Animals feel as much pain as we do".

===> I am not a vegan and I do not believe you can compare cattle or chicken/eggs to a human baby. And your arguments here once again are an attempt to take the emphasis of the value of a growing child in the womb and 'de-humanise" it as much as possible. Regardless of what stage the child is at, it is a growing human being. Rape can not be used to support the killing of the unborn, they did not ask to be conceived....which is the worse crime? Rape or the murder of the unborn? There is adoption. WHY NOT THEN ABORT THE RAPIST? But in saying this? I would not judge the victim of rape or incest if they made this awful decision. I think these women do not get enough support in their pregnancy, be it the result of rape or relationship and are not informed on abortion enough to be as responsible as those who know better (ie. medical staff).

as I am often accused of using my religion in regards to abortion. Your arguments here could be accused as being based exclusively on evolutionary thinking. And perhaps it's easier to imagine the first stages of the unborn really dont make it that "human" to help ones conscience. If I had the strong belief that we as human beings were really just advanced apes? that we had no real point to any of this? Perhaps my point of view might be different and easier for me to consider the unborn really isn't that valuable because....neither are we. But I do not believe that we come from apes at all. Every creature reproduces after its own kind. In saying that we had a common ancestor..I could just as easiy say we have a common designer.

Why would Charles Dawson feel the need to fake a missing link if he was so confident? He fooled students for more than two years with the piltdown hoax...how is that being honest or scientific towards students who are trying to learn? See the motivation here and agenda? And that was far from the only hoax and embarrassment for the evolutionists. If the earth was billions of years old? We should have a deluge of transitional forms that would leave everybody without question. Yet they are still searching for a "missing" link.

Hey, VeggieJuicer, thanks for your input.



In principle it sounds like a wonderful idea. And yes the US wins the cake for grand producer of waste throughout the globe, of grand polluter and general decline of intelligence, culture and integrity. I know, I was born and raised there. Fed on the "traditional" mind numbing, sugar-frosted cereal diet just like many of you (Coke – have a can of dumb down today – it’s the real thing!) And I make my brazenly slanderous remarks from first hand experience, as an eye-witness to the barbarism and terror spawned by my degenerate nation.

Ah, but dear me. I digress. We all have our topics we're passionate about. Where was I...

Right. It's a grand idea in theory. There's just one problem. Biologically speaking we are omnivores. If some people choose to destroy their body through radical diets, they're more than welcome to hop on the band wagon of trendy New-Age-fascism. I too endured an era of my life (a 4-year long one at that) of vegetarianism when, at the tender age of 17, I bore witness to the foul and inhuman acts committed within a Detroit slaughterhouse. And consequently, I became anemic, emaciated (despite all efforts toward the contrary) and suffered from a host of other related ailments, all of which I had imposed upon myself. I will never have a problem with slaughtering an animal for consumption. It’s the most natural thing in the world – down right spiritual even. I only question how the animals are slaughtered, how they are reared and how they are bred.

As for starving countries. That’s another massively misconceived idea. If every charitable organization succeeded in aiding those in need, the world population (which is already supremely oversized) would quadruple in 9 months, and then again one month later, and on and on. To go back to my earlier statements about the harsh realities of mother nature, it’s sad but true, and if all Americans became vegetarian for the sole purpose of using the extra grain to feed starving nations, you’d be only injuring the planet that much more. I’m not saying down with charities, but I am saying there are consequences. I’m with VeggieJuice on this one. I’ll not injure my health and live outside my biological makeup just to help reduce the mass production of grain thank you very much.

Woah way to crap on evolution without providing anything concrete. Its the same as covering your ears and yelling "NO I DONT BELIEVE IT!"
You say that evolution is promoted to get revenue, substitute evolution with religion and you might get a true statement instead of a ridiculous one
I'm sorry but it seems you read religion or creationist forums, most of which twist facts and use strawman arguments to support their point, when they are completely wrong
As I said before, pick a good evolution book instead of spouting more ignorant ideas on the subject

I sure wish I had more time to respond to posts here as I believe with good explanations of the questions that are raised, more would benefit from the information posted.

Nevertheless, here are a few responses...




To clarify...

I cannot speak for others, but the reason I post scripture is not to justify what I say. I clearly realize that in posting to non-believers, scripture means nothing, so how would it justify what I say? I know better than that.

My personal motivation for doing so is this.

There is a mechanism in some people who will recognize the truth in scripture when they see it. This will cause them to investigate further. This may eventually lead them to finding the same thing that I found in scripture that has been the pinnacle of my life. I wish this same blessing and benefit to others who can find it. This is the reason I post these scriptures.

As for the second part of your statement, yes some people do what God scripture says without questioning that, and if this is by their free will, far be it from me to blame them.

As for me, I have questioned scripture many times (I am a very skeptical person at heart) and because I persisted in researching the scriptural things that I originally took issue with, I grew as a person and found in each case the scripture was accurate and correct and I was wrong in my preconceived ideas.

This process is a humbling experience (when you find out that someone knows more than you do) but it does enable you to grow as a person to those who allow it to.

Again, it is my wish that all could find a real, living relationship with the God of the Bible (Yahweh) who guides, guards, and directs their lives so they can experience the peace, power, and love that so many starve for today. Those who do two things: (1) search the scripture, and (2) persist (very important), will find it and will never regret the time they invested in their search.

This is my wish and reason for posting scripture.



To say that these genetic differences between chimps and humans are small is really very misleading (Please know that I'm not blaming you for being misleading. I realize you're simply repeating something you heard somewhere else). This is a type of subtle "context change" debate tactic. Let me demonstrate.

In a certain context, you could say that .001 gram of mercury is a small amount of mercury, and this would be true in the context of comparing it in mass to other elements that you weigh on a butcher's scale. However, .001 gram of mercury is an enormous amount of mercury in the context of human toxicity.

In the same way, if the difference between the genetics of chimps and humans is, let's say, 5%, on its face, that sounds like only a small difference. However, taken in its proper context that is an enormous difference in terms of actual information.

Why?

Because genes contain such enormous amounts of information. To be intellectually honest, you have to consider that 5% of this information is a huge amount of data. Furthermore, to say that this data improved in design over time is missing equally important statistical factor.

If you play roulette, there is, let's say, a 50% chance that you'll hit red. The next time you play, the chance of hitting red does not increase. It stays exactly the same. This means that the chance that you'll hit red two times in a row diminishes 75%.

When you consider the enormous amounts of highly-organized DNA that is different between humans and chimps (even if it is only 5%), and you consider the statistical probability that those DNA would organize into symmetrical representations performing all of the highly-detailed changes through the "natural" processes we know affect them, the chances of getting something other than a blob of nondescript cancer through change is like playing red on a roulette wheel with 1 red and 1,000,000,000,000 black, and this is a very conservative figure. It does not matter how much time you add to the equation. This time is added to confuse the issue to those who don't understand how this works.

To make this model more physical, consider the changes in the lengths of the bones in the fingers; they would all have to be changed, and the corresponding ligaments and tendons would have to change accordingly. The lubricative cartilage would also have to change correctly in proportion to each change in the bone. You also have to consider that the other side of the body would have to symmetrical in all of its changes to make a human. You then have to consider the ratio of harmful change as compared to beneficial, which bends the curve even further towards impossible.

When you really begin to consider all of the implications of these "small" changes, you find that it becomes statistically impossible for all of these changes to take place and therefore, chimps cannot change into humans no matter how much time you water the equation with. Again, time is added to confuse. The real analysis is the probability of the number of mutations and the ration of beneficial to harmful. Properly understood, no person would play this kind of roulette.

As I always say, at the core, people don't believe in evolution because there is evidence or probability to support it. There is not (and what little there appears to be is based on outright deceptions). People believe in evolution because they do not want to believe the alternative: That a large, concerted effort is underway to promote evolutionary myths because those funding its promotion are profiting wildly from it.



Which leads us to the next logical step in this discussion;

Conspiracy.

Doctors or Dentist are not the original perpetrators of the mercury cover up. They are only the pawns that are spoon fed information that is funded by those who profit from mercury. Doctors are the first-level victims of this cover up. Patients are next in line.

Archaeologists are also not the perpetrators of the evolution myth. They are victims as well of misinformation that leads them to reach wrong conclusions. Again, study will pan this out. I speak boldly on this issue because I have done mine.

Thousands of years ago, the Bible predicted a global conspiracy that would culminate in nearly all people on Earth accepting a symbol on their body without which they could not "buy or sell". The prophecy said that those who accept this "mark" will have no hope of salvation. According to the research I've done, I personally believe this prophecy will be completely fulfilled in our lifetimes.

I hope that those who read this will take this very seriously and do their homework, for the will to do homework—as I call it—is the evidence that you care about truth. Those who form opinions without research or who's research is severely colored by their own desires do what the Bible calls "deluding" themselves.

The evolution myth not only steals the ability for many to receive the blessings of a relationship with a God who cares, it will indirectly cause many to receive a mark that eventually leads to a disaster. Of course, those do their homework will be tortured and beheaded by those who don't, and ironically, people often say that God is cruel or unreasonable.



So much of this information above is flatly false. You're looking at these situations from a long distance not understanding the details and therefore not understanding the real truth.

(It takes so long to dispel lies and myths that are perpetrated by the media, but I'm trying to do my part.)

This idea about the church resisting these ideas is exactly like the 6000-year theory today. A certain part of the church resisted these ideas because it conflicted with their misconceptions of the Bible, when, in fact, the Bible does not conflict with these ideas, nor does it conflict with any science that I am aware of, and I've studied this subject. Misinformation like this comes from television, especially the Bible-bashing Discovery, History, and Bibliography channels.

About carbon dating...

I love science. Always have, always will.

The problem with people who believe that the Bible clashes with science is because they know neither or only one or the other. In order to make this determination, you need to know both.

What needs to be realized by those who have all these preconceived ideas about the Bible and evolution is that mainstream information is horrible inaccurate. You have to study for yourself.

An excellent example of this is vaccines.

We sell a 3-hour video (Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny) that exposes that the effectiveness of vaccines are largely based on lies. And guess what. This conclusion is not from the imagination of some deranged doctor. This information is from peer-reviewed medical journals.

The same cover-up exists with mercury. Did you know that as soon as Dr. Haley discovered vital links between mercury and autism that all mercury-based funding was dropped by NIH.

Why? Just ask yourself why this would be.

I know. I've done my homework. (I'm not saying this with pride. I'm saying this to try to inspire others to get up and take a look at information source outside of textbooks and television. Pride is a waste of time.)

Mercury funding was dropped because, if the truth ever got out about mercury, the net effect is that many would recover from a myriad of illnesses and pharmaceutical profits would drop. So, who do you think stocks medical school boards and textbook manufacturer's boards with employees that get paid $200,000 per year by a pharmaceutical company for doing nothing more than taking an all expense paid trip to Fiji with their families once a year to go to a conference for three weeks?

It's time to wake up.

Now, how does this relate to carbon dating? It's the same situation. Nothing new. Nothing different. The misinformation is profitable, very profitable.

I'll give you a nugget and will have to stop because I've got so much work to do.

How long have we measured radioactive decay curves? 70 to 80 years.

How long is a radioactive decay curve. Well, depends on what element you're working with, but hopefully you get the punch line, thousands or millions of years in most cases. So, we have only measured a very, very small fraction of the curve. The idea that these curves are based on exponential curves is pure speculation. Take time to research how often these types of assumptions have been wrong in the past. You will discover: Many.

I love knowledge and I love science. The latter is the process of discovering the former. The problem I have with mercury myths, vaccines myths, evolutionary myths, and other so-called scientific ideas is that they are not based on science. They only try really hard to look like they are. The other reason I don't like these false ideas is because they hurt people. The reason many don't see the damage they do is because they don't take the time to connect the lines between the misinformation and the fallout.


Stepping Stones:

The Conspiracy Thread

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

New Age Bible Versions

To Kirminal...

You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of.

Here's a hint...

Where is the evidence that you possess refuting my "ignorant" ideas.

Are you able to see your hypocrisy here?


I've said this before in posts. I don't do people's homework for them. If you care about truth, you'll find it. If you care about yourself, you'll surround yourself with information that makes you feel good.

I have looked at both sides of the issue and have concluded that evolution is exactly what I have stated that it is. The evidence to back my position is there in abundance, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Why?

I'm not interested in helping people who have no interest in truth. If people do have an interest in truth, they will do their own research. My posts will help them find the information they need, not spoon feed it to them.

About religion...

I could not agree more. Much religion is there for the cause of money. I'm not interested in religion. I'm interested in truth.

My personal research has uncovered the truth, and that is that the Bible is an amazing and accurate book that has no equal. I have concluded that the Bible contains truth, and I have concluded this with no small amount of searching.

The most amazing things about the Bible to me are prophecy (foretelling the future) and gematria (the study of numbers).

For example, the Bible has foretold events thousands of years before they happened, and in great detail. The Bible is also numerically accurate, for example, numbers have meanings.

For example, bad people in the OT have the number 13 as a factor of their name. Good people have the number 7. The number 13 is used in every context to denote rebellion. The number 7 is always used to denote spiritual completion/perfection. It does not matter which book you read or who the prophet was that wrote the book or which century the book was written, the numbers always represent the same thing.

There are amazing numerical sequences in the Bible that are so intelligent and deep, that men could not have invented them. In fact, we are still discovering them. Many of them had to do with future events that men could not have known about.

Surely, you'll have fall back on the old arguments of emotionalism or projection as the cause of my delusion, but if you care enough to do your own research, you'll find that I'm right on and I am right on only because the evidence is unmistakable and because I've done my homework—Why?—Because I care about truth.

I'll pass along a few nuggets that I challenge you to chew on, if you dare. I ask that you inform me if you accept the challenge:


Number In Scripture

The Witness of the Stars

I could explain to you all the facts about darwinism and evolution, and you wouldn't be convinced because you have a strong faith. I'm not actually even trying to change your beliefs, I am just attacking your self-righteousness when you make statements such as Guess what? I am an atheist and follow science, but I can admit there are no answers to ANY SIDE, there is no conclusive science yet. And there is ZERO evidence that god exists, I am actually curious as to what you call your unmistakable evidence. You don't have to do me any homework, just post 1 piece of evidence of god's existence

Proof of God's existence in 8 minutes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zET8G4hmJFo

Quote from Kriminal "Guess what? I am an atheist and follow science, but I can admit there are no answers to ANY SIDE, there is no conclusive science yet. And there is ZERO evidence that god exists, I am actually curious as to what you call your unmistakable evidence. You don't have to do me any homework, just post 1 piece of evidence of god's existence".

Bingo, you've just admitted there is no conclusive evidence for either side. Thank you, so why is your side being taught in the science classroom?

God said "seek and you will find".

Nobody is obligated to "prove" to you the existence of a personal God, this belief is not pushed into the science room - Evolution is. So who is in the hotseat here? Only God can work a miracle of conversion within a person - and whether that is arrived at from ones own research into origins or reading or hearing the gospels or a miraculous event or inner quiet change, that is up to God and the person.

You said - "I could explain the "facts" of darwinism and evolution, but you wouldn't be convinced....." Then you said "there are no answers to any side, there is no conclusive science yet"......then you said "there is zero evidence for God"... So let me get this straight - you could explain the facts....yet you say there are no conclusive (facts),. you admit there are no answers, yet there is no evidence for God (intelligent design)....so basically you dont know, yet you do.

.sounds to me that you're not certain of your certainty <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". (Romans 1.:20).

Russ, the fact that you hold the beliefs you do and still run this forum where people who don't agree can come freely and post about mercury issues and even issues on this thread, is admirable. This really is a good place. And yes, I agree that where medicine and dentistry are concerned, there's a lot going on in the shadows to help people make money at the expense of public health. Because there may be some genuine conspiracies there, though, does not mean we need to start seeing them coming out of the woodwork.

Archaeology. Geology (my sister-in-law is a geologist). plate tectonics. The speed of light. There are so many facets to science that are in general agreement with each other, that it is just laughable to say they're all wrong, or all a conspiracy. So we're deluded about . . . radiactive decay. Light that reeaches us from parts of the universe where it was emitted billions of years ago. Magnetism in rocks and the structure of the earth's crust that show the plates have been drifting for millions of years. There's a story in the news just now about evidence that has been discovered of a flood of catastrophic proportions that came from the North Sea area, which had been a lake, and flooded the English Channel, turning us into an island. The sea floor has been mapped by sonar. This is estimated to have been 200,000 years ago.

Neanderthals. Wooly mammoths and mastadons trapped in ice. Rock strata with fossils in. Anyone can find a fossil if they go look. They are not all manufactured in China for the sole purpose of tricking American scientists into buying them for lots of money. Get real! This is all, ALL of it, a pack of lies is it. You may as well just say we don't even know whether the world, or we, actually exist because what is the nature of reality. Clearly people will interpret their version of reality however they like, sometimes no matter what the evidence to the contrary may be.

I did have a look at the video you linked to Russ. I would have watched it in its entirety if it were not 2 1/2 hours long. I could not watch 2 1/2 hours of the absolute rubbish this person was peddling, but I scrolled through enough to get what seems to be a good flavour of his agenda. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, rather felt like doing both.

I won awards for rhetorical speaking in school. I now teach my students to unpick this language to get at what advertisements, politicians, etc are really saying. The only people this man is going to convince are those who are already creationists, and who are willing to laugh at his ridiculous jokes about how evolution is as nonsensical as showing a series of utensils graduated from spoons to forks. Ho ho, yes that really shows how evolution must be wrong doesn't it?

He criticises textbooks, but it is impossible to read what many of the examples on his overheads say, and he flashed past them too fast for anyone to actually be able to read them. He'll take a quote from part of one sentence, part of another, leave out what is said in between, and then make a criticism. He gives quotes from various scientists but does not put them in context. I suspect that where some of these scientists are saying quite truthfully that we do not yet have all the answers, and that some of the things we think we know may be wrong, he is taking this as read that they are saying it is ALL wrong and all nonsense. He flashes pictures of trees supposedly fossilised upside down in rock strata. Sorry, but where did these pictures come from? Anyone can doctor a picture in any number of ways, when it is taken or processed. Again I'd like to know the context. And then there are all these people saying things like look, we are physically different from chimps, so how can we be as closely related as evolutionists claim. Small mutations can cause quite large physical changes, we see this just in the human species. No we do not know all there is to know about genetics, far from it. But in a way that's just the point. We don't know everything about how genes mutate or how they work together. I think it is spurious for a layperson to just sit there and say something like, our faces are not like chimps' faces so how can we be related. Personally I think there is something quite human in the face of an ape, and I find it a moving experience to exchange gazes with one.

Watching that video, and the people in it who were loving their entertaining presentation of nonsense, made me very sad, though as I said some of it was so astoundingly ludicrous that I wanted to laugh too. Look at the body of knowledge we have built up, the things we have discovered and learned. No humans in the history of the race have ever achieved these things to such an extent. People like this would throw it all away and plunge us into new dark ages, all for the sake of their religion. And religion IS at the heart of it, it has to be. Find me a single creationist who is not also a fundamentalist Christian. I'm afraid the rest of the world is just going to look on at this in wide-eyed disbelief.

Evolution has failed to explain logically where all this could possibly have arrived from and I dont accept promordial soup or big bang theories with no scientific evidence to back them up.. how can this be proven, tested or observed today?. They were not there. So to me, it remains what it is a "theory".

They have a mantra mesmerisation "Evolution is fact" "Creation is religion". But dont give us a slogan, give us proof. It is built into the science curriculum, but they were not there in the beginning to even KNOW what happened, or when, or how or why. ....though more students are catching on and are starting to question their teachers (which apparently in some areas is becoming alarming to them)..Some of the teachers have become so baffled that they avoid the "E" word like the plague. So they are in a sense being forced to teach science as fact without a bias because kids are starting to think for themselves and are not willing to regurgitate mindless mantras. One guy I know is a science teacher, not necessarily religious either. Does not go to church but he said to me once, I do not even teach evolution, I just teach science. Even he knew that it was based on a lot of guess work and faith. He preferred to allow the students to form their own opinions based on factual science that he felt was fairer to them. No creationism was taught, if it had been? He would have been removed.

One does not have to be a Christian by the way to believe in creation..think about it) They may believe in intelligent design, but not all believe in Jesus Christ as God. So far from your idea of Christian Fundamentalism, creationist scientists are often ex evolutionists.

. Surely you don't believe that evolutionists have the patent on the origins of life? or that they own science? and that the only reason for advancing technology is evolution? Much science is agreed and shared by both Creationists and evolutionists alike and does not have to involve the theory of evolution at all.

Even Kent Hovind, says that most of the science is great, but just get the lies out of the textbooks. How does leaving these things in advance science? That does nothing for honest science or learning, but rather frustrates it and causes confusion Thus, in a sense, keeping them in the dark. So you speak of christians/creationists pushing us back into the dark ages, but have you considered the other? As I've said, they've be no need for all the hoaxes of the past if they felt it was a sure thing. So why was that done?

Some of the creation scientists are some of the most brilliant and advanced guys you could meet. Far from going back into the dark ages, they are right up there with the latest...they did not start out fundamentalist christians but if they were.... how on earth does that suddenly cancel out someone's knowledge of science or ability to advance? You wrongly assume that if someone believes in creation and the events of the bible, this means we go back into the dark ages and won't advance anymore. But this is only your opinion. I dont attribute medical and technical advancement exclusively to evolution. But the problem is, the name evolution has been soiled by them because the word itself is not a bad word at all, but it is how they have used it.

Yes, Kent Hovind is a fundamentalist and yes he gets up some people's noses, you are not the only one. And I am sure that not everything he states is necessariy without bias either. BUT, in saying this, I admire the guy for exposing the lies still in the textbooks to this day that should have been removed a LONG time ago. Though I dont not agree wth every statement he makes, he makes many VERY important points and he can't be that much of a moron Linda, he challenges many evolutionists to debates and many refuse the challenge. They should be able to make mince meat out of him. Hovind will put himself in the firing line, he's not afraid and he will be a one man band with a load of evolutionists firing at him at once in the same room. Safety in numbers for these guys. He must know his stuff Linda, he wouldn't have a dog show against them if he didn't. This does not mean every bit of info he speaks of is entirely accurate either, but much of it is sound when he exposes some of the deception/tactics and hoaxes.

But there are far more creationists than him around on videos that I admit I take in more. And so often they are ex evolutionists. Gary Parker for example I find wonderful. Brilliant guy. Taught as a science teacher for many years, taught evolution and was one of the best. Reduced a child to tears in his class after teaching evolution. The student lost his faith from that point on. Gary took a long time to get honest with himself on his findings and rather than continue covering up or putting blinkers up to what appeared to be signs of design rather than evolution, he began slowly but surely to come to terms that there were holes in the evolution theory that he could not contine to deny. Took him 3 years I think to come over to creationism, it was not a conversion or had anything to do with Christianity, but rather a slow process.

I am not convinced of the evolution theory to explain our origins. Certainly the evolutionists who became creationists did not change to creationism because of "christianity" at all. Roger Oakland was an atheist/evolutionist and the last thing on his mind was God. scientific testing and observations lead them to intelligent design NOT prior beliefs.

I do not think the rest of the world would read this in disbelief Linda as you would have us believe....believe it or not, there is a turning of the tides towards the idea of intelligent design.

But whatever the belief, it is about teaching science and sticking to the facts and where the evidence leads a person? that is the key.

Bex, your arguments evince what is known in the psychology world as transference.

Your rhetoric mirrors what Christians have long been doing for centuries. You continually speak as if the poor Christians have been the victims all along when, in reality, it is, historically, anyone and everyone whose beliefs have stood in opposition with Christianity which have been made to suffer. Are you aware how many evolutionists were virtually blacklisted by the prevailing Christian powers-that-be not very long ago? The past 10-30 years have been the first time in history when non-Christians have been so much as even permitted to think outside the Christian belief system; prior to this time period people were summarily tortured, executed and otherwise prevented from speaking.

You suggest things like “More and more people are starting to wake up and realize the lies”. You make it sound like evolution has been around for centuries and has long been persecuting others and that finally after all these years people are just now daring to think for themselves and not the religion imposed upon them. What you’re really talking about is what Christianity has done throughout history, not evolution. Evolution is not responsible for bloodshed, wars have not been waged in the name of evolution, innocent men, women and children have not been butchered in the name of evolution. Historically speaking it has been the reverse. So if for the past 20 years people have FINALLY taken a reverse standpoint and, after centuries of Christian supremacy and domination they have turned against their oppressors, I can only say thank god! It tickles me to death when Christians aaaaaaaaaalways paint themselves to be the poor victims, blatantly ignoring the massacres and violently unrivaled atrocities committed in their name. You can say these people aren’t real Christians, I don’t care. You tally up the body count.

Number of dead bodies at the hands of Christianity: too high a number to count
Number of dead bodies at the hands of evolution: Zero

Your statements are frightening. You continually put the words of what Christians have done throughout history in the mouths of evolutionists and in so doing prove just how guilty the Christians have been. You remind me that a time when innocent people were burnt at the stake for not kowtowing to your beliefs was really not all that long ago, in the grand scheme of things.

I’ll end this with a most excellent quote.

Nice quote Egan. That book (1984) is perhaps even more pertinent today than it was when it was written.

Bex, I'll pick up some points you made. First and foremost, I do not credit Hovind with anything sensible that I'd be interested in listening to. If evolutionists refused to debate with him, I imagine it was because either they had better things to do, or they knew he would keep telling them what they said was a pack of lies. If someone says "I don't believe it," no matter what you present to them, where does that get you? In that video I saw, one of the things he did was talk about dinosaurs evolving into birds. Where was the transition dinosaur/bird, he said, that had wings and not arms but couldn't fly, how silly he said. We have fossils of a variety of dinosaurs that had feathers but didn't appear to fly, and the ostrich is around today, it gets by OK. (Ooops, sorry, all those fossils are fakes from China made so people can get easy money, every last one of them.) I don't think we know yet exactly how one form evolves into another, how long it takes, whether there is a sudden big change, etc. But admitting we don't know, is light years away from saying it's all a bunch of bunk then, God created it all as it is and evolution is a myth. That is the technique Hovind seems to use a lot -- there are some things we don't know, and because we don't know, it means the who idea can be rubbished.

If you can give me links to info about these people who you say are ex-evolutionists and yet who are not religious, I will look at them. I'd like to know what these people are thinking and I'd be more ready to take it seriously than someone thumping their Bible and telling us that the story in Genesis is word-for-word fact.

There is much talk here about getting lies out of textbooks. I do not agree that the examples I saw Hovind take from textbooks are lies, though it's difficult to get an idea of what is really being said in the books because of the nature of his presentation. But yes, I will go so far as to say that the language in textbooks can sometimes be patronising and arrogant. Yes, technically evolutiuon is a theory and it should be called just that. And all the evidence should be given for it, which would be a textbook in itself, if not a series of them. If a child cries because this idea destroys their religious faith, then I would say this is a good thing. Why does evolution need to destroy anyone's religious faith? If that child has been told to believe in the Bible literally, then thanks to the light of knowledge and education he/she is being made to question what their parents told them, and start to think for themselves. If other students decided that they saw holes in some of the things they studied about evolution, good for them -- let them get some training and go out and investigate and learn, and report back to the world.

Any good scientist will be willing to refine or change their theory completely if convincing evidence arises that challenges. It should be an exciting learning process. And yes, a lot of people stick to outdated ideas far too long, simply being unwilling to change. An open mind in any discipline is always important. I can't imagine what evidence would ever convince me to say gosh yes, a divine being really did create the world. But have a go, I'll look at anything you give, as long as it's not a very long video, I haven't got the time for that. So far I haven't seen anything that a hole 10 feet wide can't be blown into.

Linda.

Nice try Egan <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But your post makes no sense whatsoever in light of what I was talking about.....I gather the fact is you dont feel we have a right to challenge the evolutionary belief?

Your post is actually quite dishonest. What do you think the Christians in the colloseum were doing? having a party whilst they were thrown to the lions? I can't honestly figure out why you brought this up? What was the point? Christians have been persecuted for centuries, we all know that, as have many other people for their beliefs.... what part of my post suggested playing victim and caused this outburst? frankly i'm bewildered.

I'm not coming after you with a pitchfork lol, gees Egan we're not out to get you! calm down. Lose the paranoia.

In your post and bizzare attempts that came out of the blue to somehow cast Christians in victim senario/ bad light.... I noticed you failed to mention the Christian youth hostels, the Christian societies that help the poor the sick. Salvation army, Mother Teresa and her nuns. and so they go on.. that obvoiusly conveniently slipped your mind there for a while <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What do you propose Hitler's beliefs were? Evolution, superior race of the Germans and that he thought the negros were animals, nothing more than apes. Look at what he did to the jews because they were what? Nothing more than animals to him. Again the columbine murderers based their beliefs on evolution and the admissions are in their last statements (zero victims? Egan?).

I am not blind at all what religions have done to eachother in the past, nor am I blind what evolutionist teachings have done also...I am also not blind to the aid of what Christians have done for the fellow man (believer or unbeliever). Those dying of aids are being tended to by Christians/nuns, those in the most digusting conditions.

Burn the witches? lol, this is ridiculous, really you're starting to come across as fanatically anti, rather than anything. Making ilttle sense other than expressing your obvious need to lash out.

When I said more peole are waking up to evolution, how did you come to the conclusion that I was suggesting that evolution has been around for centuries or persecuting?? You're pretty much putting words in my mouth that I have not said or suggested and then calling my comments frightening....lol.

What was the motivation for drawing me into emotional or religious argument here? To get things further off-topic, congrats <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I guess it worked.

All that from me discussing people having the chance to hear the other side and a tide turning towards intelligent design? I even emphasized that Christian belief did not necessarily have anything to do with the changing from evolution to creation. So your post actually makes little sense at all.

meanwhile, I hope we can get back to what this , what this discussion was about. No victims here Egan, just someone challenging evolution in the science room. Sorry if that offends you, but why resort to this?

Hi Linda, just read your post . I am obviously not nearly as educated as yourself, jill, Russ etc, so for me? as a layperson in this, it's something I have been doing from home. So I am not ultra familiar with the indepth terminologies. But I am familiar with the creation view after most of my life was evolution.

I think science does not have to exclude those who are not necessarily educated as much in this field, one can still gain some understanding from reading and videos/debates. So far from making me an authority on the subject, it does give me the right to voice my opinions and challenge the beliefs based on what is familiar to me to argue with.

I am not sure what your education is as far as science goes? Let me know. I'm interested.

Linda, I would like to direct you to a scientist that believes in intelligent design who has been an evolutionist. I have some in mind, but want to chat with my father who is more familiar than I am with them and one that is very good, not antagonistic or unnecessarily sarcastic, but presents his views.

Propose? Hitler was a self-admitted Christian -- just go read any of his translated speeches. Indeed, the vast majority of his speeches were supported with a theological framework. He was also an occultist with a strong belief in the supernatural and as such was no atheist. Moreover, Hitler -- indeed no human the world over -- has fought a war in the name of evolution. The children in the Columbine incident were also not slaughtering people in the name of evolution, regardless of their beliefs. No one has ever shouted "Long Live Evolution!" as a battle cry before they launched themselves into the fray, weapon in hand (and no one ever will). There is no such thing as an evolutionist's flag and no one has been told "Accept the theory of evolution or we will burn you as a heretic on a stake". These things have, however, been done in the Christian name.

In Mediaeval Europe when the bubonic plague spread, Christians were blaming everything under the sun for their ailments. They said the Jews had been poisoning their wells and, consequently, proceeded to butcher and annihalate as many Jews as they could get their hands on. Cats, dogs, lepers, people with psoriasis (etc., etc.) were all held responsible and executed by a Christian ruling force.

I'll tell you what. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that there is a great force out there trying to kill people in the name of evolution (except that there isn't). We'll call them the Evolution Liberation Alliance, or ELA. Let's say that throughout the centuries the ELA has killed numerous people for refusing to accept their beliefs and bow down to the Evolution Faith. How many people do you think they've killed? Well let's say thousands of people. Okay, so the ELA has killed thousands of people in their bloody conquests fought in the name of evolution. Now that we have a figure, let's talk about how many people (ACTUALLY) have been killed in the Christian name. Do you see where I'm going with this here? Muslims have killed Christians in the name of their religion and vice versa. Hindus have killed Muslims in the name of their religion and vice versa. No one has killed in the name of evolution.

Yes, Christians have, at times, been targeted and I sympathize with them just as I sympathize with any innocent person needlessly victimized. But if you want to talk numbers, statistics. Well then I hate to bust your bubble but Christianity (even more so than Islam) wins the prize for shedding more gallons of blood throughout history.



I'm not an evolutionist. If I see a Hindu being victimized and as a result defend them, does that make me a Hindu?

VeggieJuicer, forgive my ignorance but I'm not sure how you came to this forum because I haven't been reading a lot of posts lately. Are you suffering from mercury intoxication? Have you ever suffered from depression? If you are healthy and happy (and I hope that you are) I'm not sure what your point is in being involved in a forum where sick and suffering people come to discuss their health problems and their strategies for improving their health.

Egan, I will be checking out your statements.

Hitler believed in the superior blonde race (Arian) and felt those dark skinned were further down the evoluionary scale. He thought negros were animals, as were jews and felt they were a contaminant to the superior race. In fact, when he attended the games and a negro won the race, Hitler walked out and yelled that how dare they have this animal race against my men. Hitler had a lot of beliefs /occultism etc yes. Christianity was of curiosity to him . He most definitely believed in evolution and used this as an excuse to cleanse the "vermin" (Jews etc). his philosophy had nothing whatsoever to do with the gospels. Can you pick out where in the new testament it called for this behaviour? And where does it refer to humans as animals?. Hitler hated the Jews more than any race on earth...Jesus was Jewish Egan.as we all know...so there's a contradiction for you.

Absolutely the columbine killers were evolutionists and this was mentioned in their last note re the killings in connection with what they did. You're even trying to deny that now?

As far the statistics? I am not fully aware of that, so I may check that out with someone who will be.

Think about the likes of Stalin and Lenin also. I mean we could go around in circles and in a sense one could quite easily risk becoming similar to the very people they are accusing . So you accuse Christians or in fact anybody of religion of anything and everything, whilst telling me I'm playing victim? and bringing up pitchforks and burnings constantly to somehow support your ongoing issues. Then making such a bold statement as "nobody has ever killed in the name of evolution"....wow do you know that for sure Egan? It must be amazing to always be right and know all things......Then giving one the wonderful impression that you would stand up for anybody if you felt they were being victimised and how interesting that the evolutionists happens to get your vote <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> nice touch to add the Hindu comment in there by the way....makes you sound like an all round extra super great guy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I only know this. The people around the world who live TRULY their Christian faith do not behave in that barbaric manner. But you would prefer to focus on those that did.

As you have admitted (albeit playing it down), Christians too have suffered terrible atrocities and continue to do so to this day (um not at times Egan, this is going on often) you become a christian now in certain areas or found out to be one, you are killed. The Christian faith does not preach killing our fellow man Egan, those that kill in the "name of religion" are giving it a very bad name.

I can tell this is very emotional to you and perhaps I do not understand fully your own circumstances or whether there is an agenda here or not.... but certainly I notice you seem to casually sweep aside the worldwide Catholic/christian organisations that are full of people living their life for Christ and fellow man. What gives?

People who actually live according to their faith are the opposite. The fanatics and those that kill in the name of religion are killing simply in the name of their own evil. Christian in name only!

Aaron mate, I can empathise with you. I have had clinical depression for 3 years and have had spells where I was full of despair, and suicidal. The fact of my daughter's existance is the only reason why I am still here. I know about the dehumanisation, the emotional numbness, the tearfulness and consuming anxiety for no reason, the loss of everything that ever made you, you. And I know that when you see other people who are happy, who have no clue what you are going through and wouldn't understand if you tried to explain, you can feel so alone.

We know what it is like NOT to be this way too, though, don't we? We haven't been depressed all our lives. And every now and then for some unknown reason, I get a little window, usually shorter than a day but it's there, and I feel a little better. When that happens I remind myself of what it feels like to be alive, and I make mental notes of my thoughts. That I do love my husband and daughter. That there is colour and life in the world around me, and that they can touch me and make me feel. It's easy to forget what "normal" is when you go through motnh after month of feeling awful.

For my part, I gave up my teaching job 5 years ago to have a baby. Being at home with few adults to talk to, nothing to do with my brain, no satisfaction to be gained from a job, no money, has pulled me down I think. But it's also possible that mercury is an issue, which is why I am here. I didn't have any fillings in my mouth, then got 4 amalgams, and two months later the depression hit me from out of the blue. 5 weeks ago I had the amalgams out, and am currently on my third round of chelation.

I do think it is important to remind ourselves of what makes us happy, and to try to keep things in perspective, because depression can really skew a person's view of the world. Someone suggested to me recently that I keep a notebook by my bed and every night write 3 positive things that happened in the day, even if they seem like small things, such as playing with my little girl. I found it helped because I could list all the cr*p that happened in the day, but often overlooked the good things that had happened, and sometimes it was hard to remember them. But they were there. How about trying it Aaron? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm only arguing one fact currently. Nobody has fought and killed in the name of evolution, whereas many have in the name of religion. There is no Evolutionist's flag, no Evolutionist's militia memorabilia, no Evolutionist's pantheon and there is no Evolutionist's rituals or consecrations. Evolution is a belief system, as it is largely a theory, but it is not a religion.

You can plaster up as many facts as you wish about Columbine (of which it is only 1 example where I can give you a hundredfold where Christianity is concerned). The children involved in the murders were not shouting "All Hail Evolution! You die today in the name of the great Evolutionist theory! We do this for the sake of Evolution, for it's liberation!"

Did they believe in evolution? I dare say they didn't believe in much beyond nihilism given their actions, regardless of what treaties the little crater-faced, Mountain-dew consuming brainless American chubsters may have written down on paper before the destruction they wrought upon their school, their classmates and themselves. They could have worn evolution teeshirts every single day to school and that still wouldn't have changed the irrifutible fact here. They did not (nor has anyone throughout history -- nor will anyone) kill in the name of evolution. They did not say "We are killing you because we are Evolutionists" nor did they say "We are killing you because you are not evolutionists like we are". Religion does this, not evolution. Their actions were the consequence of being f***ed in the head amidst a country which is equally f***ed in the head.

There is no evolution coat of arms, there is no evolution baptism.

Your comments about Hitler may all be true but you still cannot look me in the face and say "Egan, he did these things because he was fighting in the name of evolution." Just like you cannot (rationally) look me in the face and say "Egan, the sole reason he did these things was for the greater cause of evolution." He may (or may not) have been taking advantage of the theory to further his actions, but he was not doing these things IN THE NAME OF EVOLUTION. Nobody does things IN THE NAME of evolution.

That is all I am arguing at this point. Nothing more, nothing less.

A few points here Bex . . .

The Columbine killers were off their heads on psych drugs. They could just as easily have said they did it for the Easter bunny.

Eugenics is unjustifiable and immoral. People like the Nazis who cited evolution as a reason for it were conveniently ignoring reality. Just because we evolved to be the way we are today, does that mean we are OK to behave like animals? We also evolved brains that think, and we follow a general code of morality and ethics. My morality tells me that no type of human is superior to another, or that certain people should be prevented from reproducing because of their "inferior" gene stock. Evolution does not touch the moral question of one group of people attacking another because this is somehow "survival of the fittest." Imperialism is exploitation of a people who are unable to defend themselves. People who do evil things can claim whatever reason they like for doing them, that doesn't excuse the acts.

Maybe you'll be disappointed to hear that my education is conventional LOL. I went to school in the US, did 4 years at a liberal arts college, trained to teach in the UK and did 5 years of that. All my life I have been a jack of all trades and master of none. The thought of being pigeonholed into one specific career or discipline is anathema to me, so I learn as much as I can about a lot of things because I just love learning. I may not be as expert in my teaching subject as some others, because I took all kinds of different classes in college, but I value everything I learned there. I read books, read the internet, talk to people, same as many others. If I need to educate myself about something, I do it. Maybe I just have a good recall of stuff I learned in school too, even back to high school and before that. I might forget my keys on the top of my car and drive off with them, foggy-brained as I am right now, but at least I still have a fairly sizeable body of knowledge in my head that doesn't look like going away just yet.

Like I said, I'll look up any links you give me. I'm honestly curious now about what a non-religious person has to say by way of criticism of evolution. Don't expect me to change my views much though, I can't see that happening <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Though maybe I do stand to learn something.

Linda.

Proving god is like proving a the green fairy exists or purple unicorns, there is no observable data for it, but for evolution it can be observed over time
Now this does not mean god doesn't exist, god is not part of the conversation in evolution.

But dont say you have evidence for god existance because you are full of crap

Not to burst anyone's bubble but those photo's are known fakes.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html

A couple interesting things about the bible. Once saved always saved is not taught in the bible. Hell as is commonly thought of today, also not in the bible. (very poor translation is responsible for this) The word trinity, never even mentioned in the bible, another pagan influenced teaching of a triumphant god that appeared years after christ. Life after death as is thought of today, consistently not talked about in the bible. (Eccl 9:5,6 EZ 18:4) Where did that concept even come from? Gen 3:1-6. God said if they disobeyed they would die. It was satan who said that they would not die, (return to the dust, no mention of afterlife, heaven, any such thing) but rather satan said they would become like God. This teaching still exists today of life after death.

Yes Egan all these things done in the NAME of religion are shameful to be sure....but what about the good done in the name of God? there is the total opposite senario which you keep ignoring and very conveniently I might say.

Now try looking at society as a whole and what is predominantly taught to the youth of today about their very origins and have a look at the crime statistics and rates of depression/suicide/abortion/ etc. Would you like me to attribute the increased rates of these things as having any association with the evolutionary belief? ... Should I blame all things on evolution? Or should I assume that because it's not yelled from the roof tops or flags thrown up that it cannot possibly have anything to do with evolution? You wait for a name to be yelled out, but you dont seem to consider the possible impact this belief maybe having. Many things could be attributed to that, but are you certain evolution has nothing to do with it?

What a person believes about their origins makes a profound impact on how they value themselves, their life and their fellow man. Some people do just fine no matter what they believe, fit in well, lovely, civilised etc. But look at society on a whole and things aint improving, but crime is increasing.

IN fact, i'm getting the impression you're close to painting evolution with a pair of wings and a halo .... perhaps you might decide to consider the bigger picture a little more, rather than continuing to focus on religion all the time to blame. We all know the atrocities attributed to people who do evil in the name of religion....but if you look at the beliefs of the gospels, this preaches no such thing....yet evolution allows one to consider the idea that human beings and all living creatures are nothing more than a result of billions of years and chance random processes...

So paint evolution as innocently as you wish, but I am not as convinced as you are that this belief is as harmless as you are suggesting.

But again, that is up for opinion. And for now you can shout your anti religion stance from the virtual roof tops and deny all the good done in the name of God (which tells me of your real intention here) and deny any possible negative impact of the evolutionary belief.. simply because you state that if something evil hasn't been done in the "name" of evolution, then it cannot be attributed to it....

Guys I am absolutely amazed at what I kicked off here. I have to say I havn't had time to read through it all , but I will as I'm sure you all have valid and interesting points and I sincerely hope you are enjoying the debate. However while I was the one who started this thread off , I've been spending much of my time with medical people, trying to find our exactly whats going on in my poor old body and what or who can put some of it right. I guess what I'm trying to say is this stuff on the thread is very amazing and interesting to read, but don't lose sight of the fact that we are ill and need to try and get well. If you believe that God can do this for you, that's absolutely fantastic, but I know I have to keep trekking on trying to find answers and solutions. I guess I'm trying to say , you are all fab and have incredible things to say , but don't lose sight of trying to get well. Love you all Tracy xxxx

Thanks for the clarification, VeggieJuicer. Since I'm suffering from depression I hope that you can understand that I'm not seeing many good things in life now.

. Do any of you have any scientific education ?Why do you talk about DNA or the health effects of hg if you don't believe in science . Government and corporations are not part of some vast financially based conspiracy to promote evolution and devalue religion.Religion has always been considered the opiate of the masses because it enables people to accept their situation on earth because they can look forward to heaven.The church will lose billions of dollars in donations when people realize evolution is a fact .
The bible does say that man has been here only a few thousand years and that there were only a few people here at the time of the alleged flood.
If someone is too lazy or has an IQ that can be measured with two significant figures such that they can't study chemistry, organic chem ,biochem ,physics , physical anthropology etc , they should'nt have an opinion on evolution.
I know many chemists , astrophysicists , physicists and other scientists and they are not conformists in any sense and neither am I.

Well I just want to apologize for the aggressive form of discussing here, I even said religion conversations usually end in flame wars and I was escalating it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyways I think there is a correlation with faith and happiness. I was a raised Christian that turned atheist after 13 years old, and I think I was way happier when I believed. It doesn't matter if religion is real, faith will give you strength to endure more and resist longer, I wish I could have those feelings back!
It sounds like I envy you, and believe me I think I do, you guys are lucky, keep believing! it is beautiful.

Tracy, good to see you here. Yes, thanks for starting this thread. I'm surprised myself at how much I've been talking here. It seems to have tapped into some parts of my psyche that have been sleeping for a long time, and reminded me of all the things I used to think about and be interested in. In fact I've learned about myself from the sorts of things I've been saying. Yes I know we're here because we're ill, but I'm really glad this little outlet has been here because I've found it very healing.

Bex, I'm not sure why people should consider it to be such a blow that we were not personally molded out of primordial clay by a god. (Or taken from Adam's rib if you like.) When I consider all life, right down to microbes, I find it amazing, a mircale in itself -- though not divienly ordained. I don't feel it is demeaning to have evolved from apes, I find it empowering to have an idea of where I've come from, and how much the human race has achieved since. I don't feel so fragile that I need to be reassured that a god handcrafted me, my sense of purpose in life doesn't need to come from that.

My personal feelings about why crimes by young people, particularly men, are on the rise, are varied, but I wouldn't have thought evolution had much to do with it. One issue is that society is more fragmented, that many young men do not have any male role models at home, and that people are not raised to respect others the way many used to be. I've experienced the consequences of these trends firsthand through teaching.

I also believe that young men lack any coming-of-age ritual today. Something that marks a significant turning point in their lives and initiates them into the world of adult men. Many societies still have these rituals and they have a large psychological importance. The kids around here don't have this, which is why I think a lot of them find gangs attractive. Gangs satisfy the need for bonding and coming-of-age. In fact, ritual is sadly lacking in most areas of life now, and to a non-Christian, Christmas and Easter are only times for the retial sector to make money, their oiginal pagan meanings having been obscured with time. I wouldn't mind celebrating a festival of lights at the winter solstice, but it would feel pretty meaningless if I did it alone. These things are much better when done in groups.

Maybe I got off the subject here . . . I think I was trying to say that if our society was more cohesive, if we had more of an identity and traditions and non-religious rituals, surely that would satisfy the need for belonging and purpose just as much as a belief that a god created us all.

There are just a few attributes of humans that continue to astound me and will for the rest of my life. They don't astound me because I don't expect them. I do. They astound me because these attributes are illogical and self sabotaging and, to me, it is simply amazing what damage people do to themselves.

In this thread (and others) we are debating issues of truth, yet, many people refuse to watch the videos I've posted because of the way the videos make them feel. This is a perfect example of being led by emotions—emotionalism—the new world religion, by the way.

For example, I've seen people express how "uncomfortable" (in one sense or another) the Hovind lectures (Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks) make them feel, so they refuse to watch them.

I submit to you the question:

"What do emotions have to do with the search for truth?"

There is a Biblical concept concerning intellectual blindness. This type of blindness is caused when a person allows their emotions to guide them rather than "following the data". I'm seeing an abundance of this type of emotionalism-blinding-intellect in the world today.

When people refuse to expose themselves to information that does not sit right emotionally with them, they are in a place of "protecting" themselves from growing and changing, except in the ways they desire to. They use their own pretext to protect them from—well—truth, to be very honest, and this is the worst kind of selfishness. In this case, they are essentially saying:

"I want what I want because I want it!"

Ironically, few realize that the satanic bible says:

"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law!"

This is the ultimate self-serving belief system—and very destructive—yet, if you do not know yourself, you will never connect this emotionalism with the resulting tidal wave of destruction it leaves behind.

It's no surprise that the ultimate first step in the search for truth is really this:

"Know thyself."

Yes, it is no mistake that, in this search for truth, the true intellect is first forced to take a look at self and see if there is anything imperfect in their methods. If they do, they will eventually come to this conclusion:

If you are a true intellect, you will let the data lead you, not your emotions because emotions are a poor discerner of truth.

Refusing to allow yourself to view information that opposes your predispositions is really, intellectual dishonesty. It is really a way of saying, "my emotions know best". Unfortunately: This is the worst kind of truth seeking.

Here is a related Bible verse:


"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

—2 Peter 3:3-5

(Read "lusts" as emotional and/or physical desires.)


The phrase "willingly are ignorant" is directly speaking to this unwillingness to expose yourself to some proposed truth that "you don't want to".

Now, we all make our own decisions pertaining to our own intellectual honestly, but for me, it's important to be as intellectually honest as possible. I feel a sense of responsibility towards those who listen to me because I realize that these things I say could affect their lives, just as the things others say have affected my life. I want to be sure my affect on people is positive and beneficial to them, even if it is, at times, a little uncomfortable for them or a lot of extra work for me (they are worth it).

For this reason, if in my research, the data led me to find truth in evolution, I would be an evolutionist. Simply, I would be humbly obedient to the data and follow in pursuit:

"Humility is the hinge on the gate of knowledge."

How many stories have you heard about a doctor that will diagnose someone in 3 minutes and then prescribe some pharmaceutical which does nothing. I've heard this story over and over, especially in connection with chronic diseases such as fibromyalgia. The doctor in this example, who is not taking the time to do the homework necessary to properly diagnose a patient is doing great harm.

In this scenario, and numerous others in life, the humility to say, "I don't know" is powerful invitation to the pursuit of knowledge through science. Unfortunately, our world, and especially our medical system, is suffering from a proud protective attitude toward mediocrity, and this mediocrity results in much damage.

There is no difference in this example and for those who judge and pass comment on the Bible while they know nothing about it except perhaps hearsay from others who know nothing about it. In short, it's very important to just say "I don't know" when we really don't know.

It's sad when not a single evolutionist is willing to watch 2 hours of video. I believe 2 hours is a short time to spend in such an important pursuit.

It's also sad that Christianity was loosely associated with myth. Of course, when I speak of Christianity, I'm speaking of the Bible itself, not self-styled religion. I have no interest in religion. Those who attack Biblical-Christianity—that is a belief in the integrity of the Bible—with myth, have simply not done their homework and are essentially preaching a faith based on emotional desires, not evidence.


Finally, I'll end with a few nuggets for those who are seeking and humble:

Established laws of science, such as the second law of thermodynamics, does not allow for the formation of highly-ordered sequences of data, such as DNA. (Of course, neither does common sense since entropy is based on common sense.)

To believe DNA formed, even through small incremental changes, is like believing that a very long and complex computer program wrote itself. To attempt to increase the perceived likelihood of DNA forming by adding time to the equation or by suggesting small, incremental change make it more likely, are completely ignoring the roulette wheel example I gave earlier.

Has any evolutionist invested 30 minutes into reading the conspiracy thread? Do you know how the UCC affects your life and how this is related to the promotions of evolution?

These are important questions that no evolutionist wants to face, and it is indeed very sad that so many souls will gladly accept the mark because they accept the false faith of evolution and never really try to pursue a personal relationship with a creator who many, including myself, can provide first hand testimony about.

Let me humbly admit that I was originally offended by Christ. I viewed Him as an arrogant, self-centered person when I first read the Bible (emotionally, I didn't want read the Bible, but I believed it was the intellectually honest thing to do). Then, when I put God to the test and asked Him to reveal Himself to me, He did, and nothing has been the same since.

I truly wish the same tremendous blessing and benefit for each and every person on Earth.


"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

—Revelation 13:11-18


Well-done research about specific types of conspiracies:
New Age Bible Versions

The more I study science, DNA etc, the more I realize that it had to be created. Laws don't make themselves, yet the universe is full of unbreakable ones. Codes such as in DNA don't magically appear. The probability of just one of the many protein chains of DNA forming on its own is considered mathematically (read scientifically) impossible. Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 to the 40,000th power “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of lifeThe instructinos within the DNA of a cell if written out would fill a thousand 600 page boods (from National Geographic)Yet some "scientists" often skip that observation to analize other evidence. (How is this the pinnacle of deduction?)

Everything that man has been smart enough to create he has copied from Nature, which has done it more beautifully, for thousands of years, and perfectly. No pollution, just perfect system. If it takes a thinking, reasoning brain to copy and implement a design, how much more so was intelligence needed to create it in the first place?

You wouldn't find a camera in the dessert and think it just created itself, someone made it. The human eye is absolutely incomparable to any camera. The human brain is a marvel that will never be understood. Also, we only use a small percentage. Evo occurs from survival of the fittest, why would we develop things we don't need, like such a powerful brain when we don't use it, seeing in color, tasting food, love, joy etc. Why has life managed to create itself in such a perfect way but terminates early?

Do you know guys, I really did start this thread cos I suppose I was feeling pretty sorry for myself and questioning why me? why now? But maybe it's an outlet, I mean what I'm trying to say, and maybe not very well, is that when we're ill it does us some good to vent our feelings in any way we can. The weird thing is I started the thread and yet you guys leave me standing in this area, you have so much knowledge compared to me and as I said I've been busy doing the medical stuff trying to get some answers and get myself better in some way and I admit when some people came on and blasted me for things I posted I suppose they were right in a way cos I don't have enough knowledge or insight to really have started this off. I guess I was just whining and venting. However WOW you guys are amazing and I truly hope you are getting something positive from this. I will read through it all when I have time, its mind blowing stuff. I hope i'm not a whiner, although I know sometimes I am now. Its a shame when your ill cos your not always rational, not your real self and you know it but cant help it. Sometimes I know I get angry and say things even on the forum that I regret, but I think we have to forgive each other and remember we are all having a tough time. From the little Ive read so far you dont all agree but thats ok as long as you consider others points and I know I havnt always done this. Hands up, Im only human, its just kind of nice to see a discussion going on thats obviously so important to people, and guess what its not about Mercury for a change. Maybe thats a good thing. SOMETHING DIFFERENT. We all need a relief from that sometimes. I'll carry on reading and hope I learn from you. Sorry to anyone I've offended, its never been intentional. Really this forum is great and I love to read everyones comments. Love to you all Tracy xxx

I've always thought Jesus was a great teacher. I can't think of anything he said that I object to. I think the life of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) has a lot to teach people too; this is something I intend to learn more about.

So did I miss something vitally important when I was scrolling through the vid? It would be immensely painful for me to spend an evening watching the whole thing, I certainly get what he's trying to say. I could take notes on it all and respond to each detail, and this probably sounds arrogant, but it would be a waste of my time. He's full of baloney. I've given a few reasons why I think this. However, I do not blindly accept everything about evolution either, and I certainly accept that theories can be adaptoed and changed as new evidence is found. I'm quite serious about having a look at links to info about what non-religious scientists are saying in critique of evolution, and what their objections are.

I also think that microbes had a very long time to stew around and evolve. At some point, maybe after a billion years or more, DNA came to be, and life exploded. A billion years is a long time, long enough for something improbable to eventually happen. (And if I played the lottery every week for a billion years, I might actually win it at some point too, sounds like the right sort of timeframe). I'm willing to consider other views about what happened, but I am not willing to consign an enigma to the realms of religion or superstition just because we do not fully understand it.

That's it Tracy, it's something different! Wow, a few minutes to not be thinking about being ill. It's great.

Please don't feel blown away by what other people are saying here, your opinion is as valid as everyone else's.

I'm looking forward to hearing about how you got on at the hospital today <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Linda.

Hi Kriminal, I wouldn't worry about the flame war it was already lit a long time back <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

certainly unless you are completely convinced of evolution....perhaps you might be willing to consider being open to the other view...but that is up to each of us. Dont feel too much of a moron for ever considering the idea if you ever decide to, remember there are top scientists who have left evolution for creation who were not prior believers in God. So for them it was only about science not "God".

.....So rather than me holding onto God like a hope diamond and thinking 'well this just makes me feel good about things"....I do actually believe that HIs word through research can be put to test so you may well find your evidence...however you may arrive convinced of evolution. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Whichever way you go, from me to you (christian to an ex Christian) I wish you all the best.

Hi Claythrow, I checked up on the net also and found views on both sides re the giant skeletons also. So this is up for the person to find out on their own. I know that an archeologist here in my country Jonathan Gray speaks of findings of huge human skeletons that others have foudn elsewhere around the world. Whether every pic is a fake or not? That's up for question. It is wise though to get a balanced view by reading both on the subject because to me there maybe more to this. There are certainly accounts around the globe of unusually large human skeletons being unearthed. One was a fossilised irish skeleton. But it's unlikely we will ever get to find this out for sure because if the Smithsonian institutde have indeed got their hands on these things? We won't see them again.

Ok, you mention that nowhere in the bible does it name the "Trintiy".... Im sure you're aware that the word dinosaur only came into existance in the 1800s...so does this mean that dinosaurs did not exist before that? man comes up with a name or a newer name to describe something and we know that there are often more than one name to describe the same thing. At any rate this is a perfect example re the trinity. The bible gives plenty of examples of the evidence for the trinity, the description is there, but no name was used. I encourage you to verify this yourself. but just in response to your "bad translation" comments to explain away or perhaps water down the tough truths of Christ? I have here five modern translations of the bible, highly regarded translations by eminent greek hebrew and latin scholars....they are all unanimous in the existance of the Hell word and the Hell place. All of these scholars have access to and expertise in the earliest known original documents.

But I'll start on the trinity. Here are quotes from the bible that clearly describe the 3 persons within one God (trintiy).

E.g. Genesis chapter 1: - verse 26, Mathew chapter 28: verse - 19, John chapter 14:-verse 23

This has been a mystery to every Christian and something many find a stumbling block, but it is there and up for you and me to decide to accept or not.... But there is one Father, one Son and one Holy Spirit making up one God. When jesus referred to the Father, He also referred to Himself as being one with the Father "My Father and Myself are one in the same". IN the beginning as youwill read, God referred to Himself as "Us" "let US make man in OUR own image and likeness".

So far from finding bad translations, there is really no escaping the basic clear texts of the bible .

Ok your points on Hell? There is no doubt whatsoever of what Jesus was speaking of and in fact He spoke more on this than Heaven.

Here are only some examples of Jesus words on Hell, take them or leave them

Mathew chapter 25: verses 41 - 46, Mathew chapter 5:, verses 22 - 29, Mathew Chapter 10: verse 28, Mathew Chapter 13: verses 41, 49, 50. Mark chapter 9, verse 43 - 48.

Please check these for yourself to verify. The somewhat differing translations between bibles make little difference to the undeniable basic points.

Now we get onto your idea that life after death is not spoken about in the bible. I am curious I have to say what bible you are talking about here? These points you have made are in actual fact some of the most frequently mentioned in the bible ...So this is a no brainer! Actually the entire point of the christian hope in Christ is the ressurection and the life to come.

The four last things - Death, judgement, Hell or Heaven are sprinkled throughout the old testament and saturated in the new testament.

I could possibly give you up to 50 bible quotations on this if you really want them? Do let me know. But most definitely the bible is a book that either one takes onboard or they ditch. Old and new testament compliment and are part of eachother and cannot be separated because one refers to the other. Old testament refers to new in prophecy (long before the events even untolded, which unfolded 100% accurately). Jesus in the new testament has often made references to those in the old testament. E.g. "If they believe not Moses, how then will they believe that one rose from the dead" and there are more.

You either believe it is written by men inspired by the Holy spirit? (God), Or you believe they were simply written by man with no "heavenly" inspiration at all. So yes it is a matter of faith, but for me as a creationist? It's goes even further than this based on my belief in creation science (A belief I see you believe yourself, so that we do share) I believe that the bible is a literal historical account, with not only miracles (which still go onto this day in the name of Christ, healings etc), but even with the prophecy alone we have found that so far there has been 100% fulfillment (check Issiah as a prime example)..we await the remaining unfulfilled prophecies and expect them to unfold as predicted and already experienced.

Jesus claimed that He and God the Father were one and the same. He proved His claim by working countless and stupendous miracles, a few of which were recorded. The greatest miracle was His ressurection and subsequent return to Heaven. No further proof of divinity is surely required!

There are those that seek to deny his divinity by degrading His divine status to that of a mere "teacher" or "Prophet" but for any true Christian? There is no doubt and certainly Christ's life/miracles and words have rung down throughout the ages for 2000 years .

Jesus said "Either you are for Me or you are against Me"..... Jesus did not force anybody to accept His words even then plenty did walk away from Him....some thought of Him as a great teacher/prophet, some a reincarnation of the prophets of old (e.g. Elija) etc. But Jesus spoke to His disciples and said "And who do you say that I am" and Peter said "I say you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". Christ turned to Peter and said "It was not man that revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven"..

We are all free to reject this as all fairy tales or "half truths" or to take Christ at His word and accept it as truth.

I don't get all or most of my information on evolution from talkorigins.com . I graduated University of Calif at Berkeley with honors . Where do the rest of you get your information?There is plenty of scientific proof of evolution and none for the bible. Evolution is as speculative as gravity.
There are so many scientists all over the world studying genetics, astrophysics, biochemistry and other subjects relevant to evolution that it's absurd to think they are part of a vast conspiracy, especially one with no purpose . The scientists I know are some of the smartest , most creative original people around and most of them could have made 10x as much money if they got MBAs and worked for Goldman Sachs or became corporate lawyers so I dont think that scientists say they believe in evolution in order to get rich.
Bex, I don't believe that scientists in Montana found 2000 year old T Rex remains.Only in the Flintstones are there humans and dinosaurs hanging out together.
Why are missing links missing? Archeologists are continually filling in the fossil record . It is'nt easy to fill in a billion year time line especially since it takes unusual conditions for a fossil to occur. Just because piltdown man was fake does'nt mean one can dismiss evolution .There is too much that can be scientifically explained and prdicted for evolution to be inaccurate.
Evolution -mutation ,migration drift etc occurred over a one billion year period .I would find evolution hard to believe if the earth were 6000 years old rather than 5,000,000,000.
It's absurd to analogize evolution and mercury .There might be some conspiracy among dentists to cover up the truth about the level of mercury exposure from fillings because of fear of lawsuits. I don't think my physical anthropology professors at Berkeley are inventing science to support evolution in order to avoid legal actions.Nor do I believe that all of these highly intelligent scientists from so many different fields and from so many parts of the globe are being duped by the govt and corpoations . Scientists tend to be sceptical independant thinkers and they do research and draw thei rown conclusions rather than parroting what they are told by these alleged conspirators.
I also think that most dentists don't realize the amount of hg exposure they have because if they did, they would never relace any old amalgams without precautions.

Jill, those on here who have not graduated with honors in science does not mean they do not have access to the research of top scientists. So therefore, when you tell me something about evolution, I am quite capable of looking that up from those who are fully qualified. Everybody can have access to this information, student, teacher alike.

By the way, we only have your word for it that you graduated with honors....so I am taking you at face value here and i'll give you the benefit of the doubt considering I sense you are certainly highly intelligent and obviously well educated.

.. if the creation idea was as ludicrous as you seem to believe, why would any evolutionist move into creationism in this day and age where one who does is up for ridicule? Certainly it was not Christianity that moved them....they've spent many years previously in evolution, plus why move away from it when It is far easier to go along with the majority tide, rather than question their theories.... makes life a lot easier. So one could assume at the very least that there must be "something" there to cause them to reconsider or question this theory and that something must have been enough to finally cause them to drop it completely. Took some of them years before that happened. God did not come onboard until later.

Your suggestions here that "Bex, I don't believe that scientists in Montana found 2000 year old T Rex remains.Only in the Flintstones are there humans and dinosaurs hanging out together." So this tells me, far from you being able to prove this wrong, you've simply decided not to believe it at all....so your argument is just your opinion ..... Basically it cannot be so because it does not fit in with your evolutionary time frame....right? So a cartoon has more sway with you on this than any possibility of findings? So man can't travel in space because the Jetsons can?

Jill, when does a mutation add new information? A mutation is just an error of the copying of genes during reproduction. The outcome of a mutation leads to a loss of original information. What has this got to do with new kinds and new genetic information? again the word evolution appears to get a bad name because the evolutionists have applied this word to our origins and suggest that given enough time, one kind can become another...but we have not observed this or have any solid proof it happened. Just speculation. But this speculation is conveniently pushed as fact, which is why evolutionists will speak as though it happened without question.

You are quite correct. Hoaxes do not necessarily cancel out possiblities of real ones coming to light. We await that day.... in the meantime, there is still no verifiable missing link between ape and man, so it remains a theory and should not be taught to students until they can give solid evidence that this was so.. Piltdown man was only an example of many hoaxes of missing links Jill. So evolution is not without agendas, deception and bias. And so far, all we have observed as that all living things reproduce after their own kind.

Humans change through time, this is measurable. People who lived 2,000 years ago tended to be shorter than people are now, based on archaeological evidence. If you look further back in time to the Paleolithic, they were as tall as us. What I personally read into this is the effect of dietary trends, particularly the addition of grains to the human diet, and more widespread malnourishment as people settled into villages and cities and some had, some had not. I could be wrong. However the fact remains that the general height of human beings changed. I think if you looked you could find other general trends too. People indigenous to northers climates are believed to have stockier builds and wider nostrils because these things benefit those who live in a cold, dry place. Maybe we northerners also developed white skin because that helps us aborb more sunlight, which is weaker here than in the tropics, and sunlight is needed for things like vitamin D synthesis. Another example. Look at all the elite distance runners who come from Kenya. Look at the sherpas in Nepal. These people are highly adapted to living at altitude. They tend to have lungs with a larger capacity. This isn't something that can happen in a lifetime, it is a trait that a race develops which helps it cope better in its environment. I'm sure if you looked within the human species or any animal species, especially those that reproduce quickly, you would find genetic adaptations to the environment. You could say you find this as improbable as you like, but it happens nevertheless.

About a missing link . . . an example of how theories can be adapted. When I was young I remember hearing a lot about the search for a missing link. Most scientists now believe that it is more complicated than that. Waves of various species of the genus homo, and their predecessors, seem to have evolved in Africa and spread out. There were various hominids that evidently were progenitors of apes, or creatures that were more ape-like than human-like. The consensus seems to be, now, that there is no "one" missing link. So how does a creationist credit the other species of the genus homo, are they all hoaxes, or what? What was homo erectus doing over in Asia? It is believed they may have been the first creatures to learn how to use fire. What about neanderthals? It is believed that they wore clothes, had religion, and possibly even language. It is even possible that their disappearance might be explained by interbreeding with modern humans.

It still seems to me that a creationist is a creationist because they want to adhere to what they see as the literal truth of the Bible. I'd really like to see what one of these respected ex-evolutionist, non-religious scientsis has to say. Are there really any?

Just a short reply tonight before I go to bed.

First, thanks for the active participation in this thread. Whether wrong or right, each response is a display that someone cares about something, and that's good.

Second, I would point out that evolutionists are very wary of accepting conspiracy theories, yet, if you believe in evolution, you must believe in a grand conspiracy that has spanned thousands of years and involved countless active participants. You have to believe that the Bible is an intricate lie weaved by the hand men with such knowledge and intelligence that they have been able to deceive a considerable percentage of the world population for centuries. You also have to believe that they had the ability and intention to spread this lie using some strange power they had to foretell the future.

You see, I spent the past few years inviting Mormon missionaries into my house to study the Bible and the book of Mormon. I told these missionaries at the very beginning that I am happy to have this dance with them, but that I knew where our feet would land.

I told them that our meetings would end with a difference of opinion about who we believed, in other words, we would disagree about who was telling us the truth and that they would choose the "truth" or "data" they emotionally preferred without investigating further, i.e., denial.

Needless to say, they were confused and wondered why I thought this 2 1/2 year excursion would end this way? I explained (in so many words) that it is because when God created everything, He did something really smart. He made everything connected to everything else.

And why did He do this?

He did this because He hates lies.

So what does this inter-connection have to do with lies?

When you ask an investigator how he determined that Mr. X committed the murder, he will tell you how he was able to piece together the clues from DNA, tire tracks, broken locks, and scratches in expected places. He will tell you that Mr. X must have been at the scene at the appointed time because a witness saw him at the right distance from the scene driving at the right speed and in the right direction. He will tell you that everywhere anyone goes, they leave an unmistakable trail of clues that any honest investigator will recognize.

You see, when seeking truth, you can—over time—eliminate untruth by understanding the underlying set of rules that govern the environment in which you investigating. Only when you understand these rules can you perform an effective investigation.

To apply this principle in the context of this debate, if you say that you believe in evolution, by implication you are saying that you disbelieve the Bible, and this is true because evolution and the Bible are logically mutually exclusive.

So...

If you—by implication—disbelieve the Bible, then you must believe that a grand conspiracy exists between the writers of the text that spans centuries. You must also believe that this conspiracy involved the careful participation of many witnesses and untold scientists from different fields, different places, and different times who have made discoveries that confirm Bible texts that could not have otherwise been known.

You see, because all truth is connected, you cannot—without hypocrisy—believe two truths that are mutually exclusive. So the debate should (but won't) end with one party reexamining two of their inner beliefs which are in direct conflict with each other.

To make this clear, you have to either

(1) accept that the Bible is a grand conspiracy, or

(2) that evolution is a grand conspiracy, or

(3) that both are grand conspiracies.

Of course, you can only morally do any of these if you have adequate knowledge of both.

You have two other options:

(1) You can go into denial purposefully forgetting the conflicting logic simply pretending that it doesn't exist, or you can claim ignorance and never do the research necessary to reconcile the conflict (i.e. - "I don't know the Bible so there's nothing I can do"), but this option is really a subset of the first (remember "willfully ignorant"? ), or

(2) if you don't know the Bible and If you want to be both intellectually honest and passionate about truth, you could pick up the Book and check it out for yourself.

So...

If you hold to your position that the Bible is not true, then the logical conclusion is that you have already chosen your preferred conspiracy. Indeed you've chosen the global one spanning centuries rather than the multinational one spanning a 150 years.

Now you should realize that since I've heard some of you poking fun (to put it lightly) at the idea of conspiracies and effectively saying that you don't believe they exist (at least in reference to evolution), you have a logical dilemma. In a good game of chess (that is if you follow the rules), this is called checkmate.

However, just as in the story with the Mormon missionaries, I know how the story ends. The person with the conflicting faiths will choose to default to the position that there is something unknown which will remain unknown.

For example, they may claim that the Bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may even reach for the stars and complicate the issue and say, "How can we really know anything?" If one does not know the Bible and chooses to not to study it, both of these decisions are intellectually immoral and sell the decision-maker short of the great award that would have otherwise awaited him just on the other side of this pursuit of truth.

No matter which path you choose, it is truly amazing how a search for truth begins by forcing us (if we're humble enough) to take a hard look at the contradictions within ourselves, i.e., our selfishness or "sin". This search for truth is really a process that purifies us by allowing us to really know ourselves, if we are humble enough to persist through it (know thyself).

So, the Mormon missionaries went on their way, and being some of the nicest and most honest people I know, they informed me of their decision to our dance of dilemma.

They chose denial.

Ironically they never realized that in some intimate way, I knew them better than they knew themselves.

Now, sadly I live with this truth:

Until the day they decide to finish the pursuit of truth that we started, they will never know how well I knew them and how much I cared for them, knowing the end from the beginning.

No, I do not believe the Bible is a lie or a conspiracy. This sort of reasoning only stands up if you believe that everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally, every single story, the Old Testament, Jesus' parables, everything. I think people are sadly missing something if they feel threatened by the idea that something may be a myth rather than literal truth. In my book, the word "myth" is not synonymous with "lie." Myths teach us about the nature of life and they teach us wisdom. Within each myth are kernels of universal truth. This is lost if you get lost in the words themselves, and therefore anything that doesn't fit with them has to be rejected as wrong. Plenty of Christians are deeply religious, believe in the Bible, and accommodate the idea of evolution without feeling any conflict between the two.

The Greeks and Romans just loved their stories, didn't they? The Metamorphoses, The Odyssey, etc are cracking reads. I think it is unlikely that many people in those ancient lands believed that these stories were word-for-word true. But they really do say a lot about human nature, which is why people still enjoy reading those stories today.

The dinosaur analogy is poor, we are talking about a basic bible teaching here, it should be present in his holy word no? The planets aren't mentioned, oxygen, etc... But, no where in any of those scriptures does Jesus claim that he, god and the spirit are the same. Duet 6:4. I did not say that he is not divine, he had god's backing and with such he has all the power he needs. However, he is not God, never claimed to be god, and If they were, then you would be claiming that God could die, as Jesus did. Gen and John are pitiful evidences of the trinity, the middle one I can see how people would get confused. Gen god is simply talking to someone else, most likely Jesus, who the bible says was CREATED in the image of god, not that he is god. (see scrips below) Interestingly, the original word Jesus uses for "father" throughout the entire scriptures is the same meaning of the way you and I use it. Your creator, teacher, mentor, example etc. Jesus is referred to as the firstborn of all creation, (col 1:14-18)he was created, just like you and I. He is reffered to as God's only begotton son (John 3:16) (again, son has same meaning as you and I use it) as he was the only thing god created by himself, all else was created together with Jesus. Read col 1:13-18 again. (ie who he was talking to in Gen) If you read John 14:28, Jesus himself clearly states that he and the father are not equal. The only reference to equality ever made by him was in regards to their purpose, that it was the same. There is not enough clear evidence to support the trinity. One cause of this confusion is the removal of God's name (used originally over 7000 times) from the scriptures and replacing it with GOD and LORD (read the preface of your bible) People lose sight of the fact that their are two seperate individuals. Here are the words fo the people who thought up this teaching.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa&#8231;ra&#8242;kle&#8231;tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

See also pages 197, 198, under “Jehovah.”

Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan&#8242;ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan&#8242;ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar&#8231;khe&#8242;] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar&#8231;khe&#8242;. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)

Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.

Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”

The Hebrew word Shad&#8231;dai&#8242; and the Greek word Pan&#8231;to&#8231;kra&#8242;tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.

Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)

For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”

In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “&#920;&#949;&#8057;&#962; [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “&#959; &#952;&#949;&#8057;&#962; [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; &#7941;&#947;&#953;&#959;&#957; [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.

Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:

(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh&#8231;shi&#8242;a&#8219;, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)

Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures

At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo&#8231;him&#8242;, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo&#8231;him&#8242;] is one LORD.”

The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo&#8231;him&#8242; is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho&#8231;neh&#8242;, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.

The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The&#8231;os&#8242; (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo&#8231;him&#8242;. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The&#8231;os&#8242; is similarly used.

At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.

Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the&#8231;os&#8242; in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo&#8231;him&#8242;; Greek, the&#8231;oi&#8242;, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.

John 8:58:

RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e&#8231;go&#8242; ei&#8231;mi&#8242;].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)

Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e&#8231;go&#8242; ei&#8231;mi&#8242; as a title to the holy spirit.

Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei&#8231;mi&#8242;] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e&#8231;go&#8242; ei&#8231;mi&#8242;] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.

Acts 20:28:

JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)

Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.

Romans 9:5:

JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)

Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.

Philippians 2:5, 6:

KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har&#8231;pag&#8231;mon&#8242;], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)

Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har&#8231;pa&#8242;zo] or any of its derivatives [including har&#8231;pag&#8231;mon&#8242;] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

Colossians 2:9:

KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the&#8231;o&#8242;te&#8231;tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)

Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”

Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the&#8231;o&#8242;tes (the nominative form, from which the&#8231;o&#8242;te&#8231;tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.

Titus 2:13:

RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)

Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.

Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.

Hebrews 1:8:

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the&#8231;os&#8242;] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the&#8231;os&#8242; sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo&#8231;him&#8242;] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the&#8231;os&#8242;] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

1 John 5:7, 8:

KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.

See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.

Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma

Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.

John 2:19-22:

By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.

Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.

John 10:30:

When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?

It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.

Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?

Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.


Hell

Definition: The word “hell” is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered “hell”; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she’ohl&#8242; and its Greek equivalent hai&#8242;des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge&#8242;en&#8231;na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).

Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?

Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*“Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.)

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.” (*“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.)

Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?

Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)

“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

“Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ‘soul’ but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ‘life,’ or ‘vitality,’ or, at times, ‘the self.’”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.

What sort of people go to the Bible hell?

Does the Bible say that the wicked go to hell?

Ps. 9:17, KJ: “The wicked shall be turned into hell,* and all the nations that forget God.” (*“Hell,” 9:18 in Dy; “death,” TEV; “the place of death,” Kx; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)

Does the Bible also say that upright people go to hell?

Job 14:13, Dy: “[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell,* and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.) (*“The grave,” KJ; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)

Acts 2:25-27, KJ: “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,* neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?) (*“Hell,” Dy; “death,” NE; “the place of death,” Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” AS, RS, JB, NW.)

Does anyone ever get out of the Bible hell?

Rev. 20:13, 14, KJ: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) (*“Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.)

Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?

“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she’ohl&#8242; as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai&#8242;des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge&#8242;en&#8231;na is also translated “hell.” (2) Today’s English Version transliterates hai&#8242;des as “Hades” and also renders it as “hell” and “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell” from hai&#8242;des it uses that same translation for ge&#8242;en&#8231;na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai&#8242;des six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates ge&#8242;en&#8231;na as “hell,” as it does hai&#8242;des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.

Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?

Matt. 25:46, KJ: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment [“lopping off,” Int; Greek, ko&#8242;la&#8231;sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.” (The Emphatic Diaglott reads “cutting-off” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)

2 Thess. 1:9, RS: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (*“Eternal ruin,” NAB, NE; “lost eternally,” JB; “condemn them to eternal punishment,” Kx; “eternal punishment in destruction,” Dy.)

Jude 7, KJ: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God’s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were “destroyed”; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)

What is the meaning of the ‘eternal torment’ referred to in Revelation?

Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10, KJ: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment [Greek, basa&#8231;ni&#8231;smou&#8242;] ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

What is the ‘torment’ to which these texts refer? It is noteworthy that at Revelation 11:10 (KJ) reference is made to ‘prophets that torment those dwelling on the earth.’ Such torment results from humiliating exposure by the messages that these prophets proclaim. At Revelation 14:9-11 (KJ) worshipers of the symbolic “beast and his image” are said to be “tormented with fire and brimstone.” This cannot refer to conscious torment after death because “the dead know not any thing.” (Eccl. 9:5, KJ) Then, what causes them to experience such torment while they are still alive? It is the proclamation by God’s servants that worshipers of the “beast and his image” will experience second death, which is represented by “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” The smoke, associated with their fiery destruction, ascends forever because the destruction will be eternal and will never be forgotten. When Revelation 20:10 says that the Devil is to experience ‘torment forever and ever’ in “the lake of fire and brimstone,” what does that mean? Revelation 21:8 (KJ) says clearly that “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” means “the second death.” So the Devil’s being “tormented” there forever means that there will be no relief for him; he will be held under restraint forever, actually in eternal death. This use of the word “torment” (from the Greek ba&#8242;sa&#8231;nos) reminds one of its use at Matthew 18:34, where the same basic Greek word is applied to a ‘jailer.’—RS, AT, ED, NW.

What is the ‘fiery Gehenna’ to which Jesus referred?

Reference to Gehenna appears 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Five times it is directly associated with fire. Translators have rendered the Greek expression ge&#8242;en&#8231;nan tou py&#8231;ros&#8242; as “hell fire” (KJ, Dy), “fires of hell” (NE), “fiery pit” (AT), and “fires of Gehenna” (NAB).

Historical background: The Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was outside the walls of Jerusalem. For a time it was the site of idolatrous worship, including child sacrifice. In the first century Gehenna was being used as the incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown into the valley to be consumed in the fires, to which sulfur, or brimstone, was added to assist the burning. Also bodies of executed criminals, who were considered undeserving of burial in a memorial tomb, were thrown into Gehenna. Thus, at Matthew 5:29, 30, Jesus spoke of the casting of one’s “whole body” into Gehenna. If the body fell into the constantly burning fire it was consumed, but if it landed on a ledge of the deep ravine its putrefying flesh became infested with the ever-present worms, or maggots. (Mark 9:47, 48) Living humans were not pitched into Gehenna; so it was not a place of conscious torment.

At Matthew 10:28, Jesus warned his hearers to “be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” What does it mean? Notice that there is no mention here of torment in the fires of Gehenna; rather, he says to ‘fear him that can destroy in Gehenna.’ By referring to the “soul” separately, Jesus here emphasizes that God can destroy all of a person’s life prospects; thus there is no hope of resurrection for him. So, the references to the ‘fiery Gehenna’ have the same meaning as ‘the lake of fire’ of Revelation 21:8, namely, destruction, “second death.”

What does the Bible say the penalty for sin is?

Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.”

After one’s death, is he still subject to further punishment for his sins?

Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

Is eternal torment of the wicked compatible with God’s personality?

Jer. 7:31: “They [apostate Judeans] have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.” (If it never came into God’s heart, surely he does not have and use such a thing on a larger scale.)

Illustration: What would you think of a parent who held his child’s hand over a fire to punish the child for wrongdoing? “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) Would he do what no right-minded human parent would do? Certainly not!

By what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus, did Jesus teach torment of the wicked after death?

Is the account, at Luke 16:19-31, literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would

i've been reading the bible a bit, the proverbs, and i really had to kind of endure and move past the phrases of a 'wise man' would do this', and a 'STUPID MAN' would do this, i mean i know what they mean, but just that one way of putting that really made me think of the different interpretations even i can make, looking for the good for myself, and i am a bit dissapointed, some people are born 'stupid', and they will make unwise choices their whole lives, its only lucky people who aren't brain damaged to a certain degree that even gives them a chance to read the book, or understand a story told about it., i like proverbs the most, but i feel dissapointed bout this one word. lots of good advice though.

Well said. Doubtless the bible is brimming with noteworthy parables and anecdotes which demonstrate how to live a moraly sound life. However, trying to convince me that some dude carted around the globe in a boat large enough to accomodate two of every single animal and then inbreed all the species back to life with those remaining two is like trying to convince me that the Easter Bunny really exists. Not all lessons to be learned need to be literal, and that's the tragic flaw in the scripture-obsessed western half of the Christian faith. If it says in the bible that snails are supernatural angels sent from heaven to watch over us then by god (no pun intended), the literalists will find a way to prove it.

Yet if these people are so devoted to uncovering truths, it stands to reason that they should be interested in uncovering the "miracles" and "supernatural phenomenon" outside the Christian doctrine as well as inside, right? Why not work at uncovering the PROVABLE wonders of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.? I mean if these things are true and you know beyond any reasonable doubt and you're just uncovering the proof out of the goodness of your heart with no emotional interest or hope that your religion is the one religion, why not get to work on the non-Christian parables and show to us how they actually happened as well? Or at least be so kind as to disprove that they happened since Christianity, as some of you seem to say, is the one "true" faith and all the other thousands upon thousands of religions are ficticious hogwash right down to the very last one.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark here. Actually, no. Let me demonstrate my powers of divination, of foretelling the posts to come.

You're not going to prove the miracles of other religions because, uhm.. <insert cop-out excuse here>.

Whoa Claythrow, how long did it take you to type all that?

I was thinking again about what Russ said here earlier, and my response. It also made me think back to the reasons why I left Catholocism, it's a long time ago now.

Maybe the people who wrote the creation story in the Bible really did believe that was how the earth formed. Maybe Native Americans really believed their stories about the sky god and the corn god. There are many beautiful and poetic creation stories in existence, I made a study of them at one point. I suppose if you were a firm adherent of a religion, and science had not told you otherwise, you would probably believe the creation story you'd grown up learning. The problems for people obviously came when we started learning more about how the world really works.

So let's say you are a devout Christian who sees the creation story in the Bible as myth or analogy, not literally true. OK, many do that. Many also gloss over a lot of the Old Testament because of rules that are outdated, and a depiction of a wrathful rather than a forgiving God. Many also pick what they like out of the New Testament and say yes I believe this, or no I don't believe that. They still might call themselves devout Christians. My parents are like that.

It occurred to me at one point that if you pick what you want to take out of your religion, and ignore the things you don't like, isn't there something a little false or hypocritical here? In my personal opinion, many religions are anachronistic, they do not connect with people's needs in the modern world. Yes I'd say that what Jesus had to say was very relevant, but as far as a guide to how we live our lives now, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions were founded many years ago for societies that were very different. We need to take the wisdom from the old religions and find something new, for how we live our lives now. Maybe that means each of us needs to find our own path and that organised religion should be a thing of the past, I don't know, and I think there's going to be a large diversity of practises and beliefs for a long time. This is how I feel personally and I know many here would think this is blasphemous. You can blame Joseph Campbell if you like LOL. He was a great teacher for me. My first book by him was conveniently "lost" after my parents found out what I was reading.

I am uneasy about people who call themselves Christians, or members of any other faith, but pick and choose what they believe, though this is going to be a necessity to an extent unless you really do want to take it all literally. I couldn't live like that, and when my views differed enough from those of my religion I knew it was time to look elsewhere for spiritual guidance and inspiration. Maybe you could indeed say that science and evolution were partly to blame in my case, but I would not use the word "blame" in that sense. I feel enlightened and unfettered.

I tried that years a few ago, I couldn't find any 'wonders' within those religions. Did I miss something?

I agree with Claythrow in regard to Jesus and God being two different identities. God gave Jesus an awesome portion of his (holy) spirit though, and thus in essence, we say he is God, though he is actually the son of God. If you've ever experienced his presence you know that, all I can say is WOW. I love him immensely.

I think catholic theology requires that Jesus actually be God himself in order to justify their position of Mary as the mother of God. It's not biblical though, except through God's spirit. Jesus called himself both the son of God and the son of man, respectively in regard to both parents. Catholics have even written into their 'bulls' that Mary is a mediator for us with God, just like Jesus. completely unbiblical and great cause for concern in my opinion. I have always wondered about the need for the popes to write what they term 'bulls' and the fact that bulls and bovines are considered sacred by a number of pagan religions. Some people build their bulls of gold, popes write them with a pen. Same thing really though when they say, this is our bull, follow it. Indeed.

All religions have their gods, and certainly their relationships with them. In that context, if a lesser god or spirit than our creator God claims to have done this or that, it isn't neccessarily false all the time. The bible itself tells of many lesser gods and their hold on various peoples who worship them. There are many 'gods' available to choose from that is not in question. Why anyone would choose to worship a lesser god/spirit when they know of a greater one confounds me though. But people have many reasons for the things they do I realize that, even if I disagree with their choices.

It's as rational to believe that the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth (as the bible suggests ) as it is to believe that evolution is not an established fact . There is a ton of multidiciplinary scientific evidence in support of evolution and essentially nothing to refute evolution .
There are plenty of links between species and scientists are discovering more of these missing links. A 100,000 year old human fossil is significantly different from one that is 250,000 years old but both are clearly not apes and both show that humans existed far before one would conclude based on the bible.
There are many examples of evolution occuring in our lifetime.Check out talkorigins.com for details on this.
Can any of you creationists tell me when single cells first appeared on earth and when humans first appeared?It's consistent with the principles of evolution that single cells began about a billion years before a complex species such as humans arose.Single cells which arose first have only a tiny fraction of the DNA of complex species.
You say that evolution is refuted by the fact that species can only reproduce with their own kind . There is overwhelming evidence that through mutation , migration and other factors one speies can become two species who can no longer breed with eachother.
A mutation is not simply an error that results in a loss of information . A change in one base pair such as from adenine to cytosine can change a protein in a way that can be "adaptive" and confer a reproductive advantage or disadvantage and the sum of these changes over millions of years results in dramatic changes in species.DNA strands can also increse in length over time producing changes in species.
What is the name of this scientist in Montana with these 2000 year old dinosaur fossils?
It is true that one does'nt need to be an honors graduate of a top of the line university in order to obtain access to scientific research and discussion . You also don't need to be a PhD. I do think that you need to have several undergraduate level classes in many sciences to be able to understand the scientific evidence and draw conclusions.
One does not need to conclude that the bible resulted from a vast conspiracy. People needed to have explanations for phenomena such as earthquakes and eclipses . Many people living in the areas hit by the sunami a few years ago believe that it was an act of God whereas scientists have other explanations .Nothing was written down about Jesus until long after his death so who knows about all of the accounts of the alleged witnesses.

Come on now. I respect the right of people to believe what they want. I'm not here to talk anyone out of being Christian, and it's great that no one has come here and told me I'm going to hell. This is what we need more of, respect for each other, even though we have our differences.

I am offended by this idea that your God is the one and only god. Members of other religions might say just the same, that their God is the one and only, and that you are grossly mistaken. This is how holy wars start. Each group believes it is The Chosen and that everyone else is heathen. Well doesn't it feel peachy to be so special, out of all the people in this world, and all the people who ever existed.

I have a special fondness for Hinduism because Hindus believe that there are many ways to the truth. They accept the major figures from other faiths as being of euqal legitimacy as their own gods. They are all avatars of the universal truth, if you will. The Hindus I have known are some of the most easygoing, friendly and accepting people around.

If you can't find anything remarkable in Hinduism or Buddhism then you haven't looked very hard.

Like I said, you have every right to your beliefs, but I find it upsetting that you must be looking down your nose at everyone else. Why not try to learn about where other people are coming from, and why they believe what they do. It might expand your horizons a bit.

Jill,
THis is friendly discussion, don't take the following as sarcastic. I'm interested in your answers

Where did the laws of the universe come from? According to the big bang theory they seem to propose that complete order and harmony came from Chaos. Which is not a rational conclusion IMO.

Who wrote DNA code? You seem to be educated a bit on the matter, so I'm sure you understand that the DNA carries written (inscribed if you will) instructions that are read, understood and acted on by the cell. Thousands and thousancds of pages if written out, of detailed instructions. To me it would seem that you could take a gugleplex of years and such intelligence is not going to form on its own without intelligent guidance.

Where are the half man half monkeys? The answer I've always gotten from this doesn't make sense. Evolution is a slow process, that has taken billions of years theoretically. It's so slow you can't see it happening, but we should not all be at exactly the same point. We should see many of the Geico cavemen around. Or monkeys much closer to the human race than they are. I've gotten reponses about some people being born with a tale as being a throwback, however, some people are born with two heads, 3 hands, 6 fingers, its just an abnomality. We should see variations of our own race, in descending steps towards our anscestors but we don't. The answer I have gotten for this is that this step of evolution occured so quickly it left a gap, which doesn't make sense to me.

Why did we develop so much brainpower that we don't use?

There are many learned and revered scientists who came to the conclusion that it is all too complex and perfect to have occured by itself. That list includes Isaac Newton, Davinci, Einstien and many more lesser know ones. Science and creation can coexist. I find the fact that our own, super intelligent and studied scientists can be baffled by so much of creation, and how infinite and microscopic the levels of learning can be, all of which was put into place by accident.