News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

<table width="500" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="border:2px; border-style:solid; border-color:#006699;">
<tr>
<td><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/header.gif" alt="The Every-Once-in-a-While newsletter" width="500" height="115" border="0" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" style="border:1px; border-style:solid; border-color:#006699; background-color:#E8F3FF; ">
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9">View Online</a></strong>  |  </font><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="#resources">New Resources</a></strong>  |  <strong><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/articles.php">Creation Articles</a></strong> </font></td>
<td><div align="right"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href='http://www.forwardtomyfriend.com/fi1jr/b755c04978193e1387b5ea59ff0aaf92/'>Forward to a Friend</a></strong>  </font></div></td>
</tr>
</table>


<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font>
<table width="170" border="0" align="right" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td><table width="150" border="0" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:#FFFF99; border:2px; border-color:#006699; border-style:solid;">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#006699">[color:"#FFFFFF" size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]<strong>In this issue...</strong></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23greeting">Greeting </a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23news">Heartbreaking News</a></font> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23task">A Monumental Task</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23products">New Resources </a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23grandchild">Grandchild #5</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23catalog">New Catalog</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/linkarrow.gif" alt="" width="6" height="8" /> <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9%23boxset">New Seminar Box Set</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
</table>
<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Dear Friends of Creation Science Evangelism, </strong></font><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">



Greetings in the name of the Great Creator of the universe!



This is Eric Hovind, son of Dr. Kent Hovind, writing to you for the first time.



Today the creation vs. evolution controversy is intensifying more than ever. In a recent Presidential debate, only three of eleven candidates did not believe in evolution. Clearly, many Americans think this is a subject worth debating, because everyone knows that what you believe determines how you behave. The question is, are you ready to defend your faith at this critical time?



For eighteen years now, CSE has been giving people facts they need to strengthen their faith, defend the Word of God, and bring the lost to Christ. This newsletter will shed light on our continuing efforts to spread the Gospel through the creation message and with what's going on at CSE.



This newsletter will also provide an important update with heartbreaking news for all of those who have benefited by the work of Dr. Kent Hovind. It is because of an ongoing legal battle that we have not been able to bring you this news until now. I ask that as you read this newsletter, please prayerfully consider the matter that I bring to your attention. <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNewsletter.php?id=9">Click here to read the newsletter.</a>



</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a name="resources" id="resources"></a>New Resources                 </font></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="194" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="7" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=826&cat=DVDs"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/product1.gif" alt="Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?" width="75" height="108" border="0" /></a></td>
<td><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=824&cat=DVDs"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/product2.gif" alt="Lessons from God's Little Creatures" width="75" height="108" border="0" /></a></td>
<td><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=821&cat=DVDs"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/product3.gif" alt="The Science of Evolution" width="75" height="108" border="0" /></a></td>
<td><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=825&cat=DVDs"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/277951/product4.gif" alt="The Evolution of a Creationist" width="75" height="108" border="0" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=826&cat=DVDs">Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate? - $9.95</a> </em></font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=824&cat=DVDs">Lessons from God's Little Creatures - $9.95 </a></em></font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=821&cat=DVDs">The Science of Evolution - $5.00</a> </em></font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=825&cat=DVDs">The Evolution of a Creationist</a></em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=825&cat=DVDs"> DVD set - $39.00 </a></font></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="82" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border:1px; border-style:solid; border-color:#006699; background-color:#E8F3FF;">
<tr>
<td valign="middle"><div align="center">
<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href='http://www.forwardtomyfriend.com/fi1jr/b755c04978193e1387b5ea59ff0aaf92/'>

Forward to a Friend</a></strong>  </font>



Creation Science Evangelism</strong>

29 Cummings Road

Pensacola, FL 32503

Phone: 850-479-3466 | Fax: 850-479-8562

<a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/277951/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com">www.drdino.com</a> </font>





</div></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
</table>
<div align="center">

</div>
<img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/o/277951/xdrtdddt/o.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0">

"creation science" is an oxymoron. This is the new mouthpiece of the incarcerated "Dr" Hovind is it. People really buy this stuff??

Actually, what amazes me is that anyone at all accepts that rocks self-assemble into complex machines.

But, of course, this is the best form of "intellect" that atheists can provide for us.


Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People


Better wake up friends.

Um hmm, they do. Maybe they have a little extra cash to buy stuff like this because they didn't spend their money on condoms for their 12 year olds. And the 12 year olds might even have a little extra time to think about it because their minds aren't consumed with trying to rationalize depressing thoughts about things like anal sex and how do 2 mommies make a baby.

It's amazing the things you can buy with the extra money you've got because you didn't buy evolution. Gosh, just think of the money you'll save just because you don't have to send birthday cards to all your relatives in the zoo!! It all adds up.

I met this guy once who swore that the rocks near his house would form faces and talk to him. I don't know, really I think maybe he had a drug problem. But, if you've got the money to buy it, I'm sure evolution can explain it, right Linda? We can write a lesson plan and it will all make cents to someone.

Russ, if you're going to keep repeating the strawman idea of rocks assembling themselves then so be it, but keep in mind that most people are aware that it really is just a strawman. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a Biblical flood explains all of the evidence that actually exists.

And evolutionists encourage their young children to go out and have sex . . . fine, go ahead and draw your cartoon as large and nonsensical as you like.

What I keep asking for is evidence that creationism explains the facts better than anything else. Strawmen and ad hominem attacks on "evolutionists" don't provide evidence.

What's more, if creationism is going to be accepted as a model, how are you going to convince everyone that it was your god who did it? There are other non-Christian creationists out there.

Harun Yahya argues that the Qur-an is a scientific document. Dear me, how do I choose between this and the Bible if both of you are telling me your religious books are the real truth?

Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson claim that modern humans have lived on earth for billions of years, and they say this assertion is supported by Vedic (Hindu) scripture.

Various indigenous societies also have creation stories.

You would tell me to believe yours because it is "the truth." Problem is, that's what these other people would tell me too. I have a radical idea -- maybe I should make my own decision based on scientific evidence rather than religious texts.

It's really not such a radical idea... and I highly recommend it. Explore religions, sincerely but objectively, and then decide which one has a God that actually heals his people, talks to his people, leads his people, raises the dead... and then of course you have to realize that no matter which god people worship, there really only is one God, one top dog God at the top of the god pyramid and he works even among people that do not know him. Because of love. Because he even cares about those who don't know him. There is plenty of evidence, miracles happen every day.

That's a favorite question of mine to ask doctors... 'have you ever seen anyone miraculously healed?' I used to always ask doctors that when i met a new one... I truly have never had (an experienced) one answer no. maybe you should try that. Schmooze around with people other than teachers for a while, maybe try tutoring, that's a step up and into the homes of professional people like doctors with children where you can get to know them personally and have conversations like that.

In order to objectively explore religions however, you will have to let go of the 'oh come on' attitude that forms your current biased opinion that God does not exist. That will probably be the most radical and difficult thing you need to do. Because the evidence is more than abundant once you take your 'oh come on' blinders off. Proving God with evidence is actually quite easy, getting someone like you to let go of their anti-God bias is another matter altogether.

It's easier to learn with an unassuming attitide, start with a blank plate instead of one already filled with preconcieved and possibly erroneous ideas. And then, without judging, simply let the evidence fill it up and see where you are.

I couldn't find a graemlin with a banana and a condom, will this do?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/moe.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hotdog.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bart.jpg" alt="" />

If I actually draw it some evolutionist will probably steal it for a textbook to pervert young children and give them the same guilt complex you've got that keeps you from seeking God or desiring his authority in your life.

So I won't draw it. Would feel pretty gross to do that anyway. I cannot imagine how people who promote those type of ideas sleep at night. But, maybe they don't, I keep seeing on the news that there is a big insomnia problem in america. Probably it's elsewhere too.

Well, the evil will have no rest, the bible does say that. There's some evidence for your own life.

I seem to have been bickering a lot today and I'm trying to keep a lid on it. Please forgive me if I am blunt. I am having problems with SAD. However, what do you think gives you the right to pass judgement on me and my life? What the hell do you know about me, and how dare you presume I've got some kind of guilt complex?

In better times I meditate and think a lot about spirituality. It's a big part of who I am. Because I am not interested in subscribing to a literal interpretation of a religious text, or heaven or hell, or the idea of a personified god, does not mean I don't believe in the transcendent. You'd probably be surprised at what I actually do believe and what I am open to. While I make skeptical comments here, I get hammered elsewhere by dogmatic skeptics who think I'm looney-tunes.

Let's get back to the topic at hand shall we.

I know what you've told us and it all pretty much speaks for itself. Anyone who denies obvious truths and the experiences of others that support those truths is lying to themselves for a reason. People who lie do so to protect themselves from being found out about something, even if the entire nieghborhood knows they're guilty, they keep right on lying and telling their tall tales... it helps themselves maintain dignity and self-respect even if everyone else sees right through it.

A weird mental situation but hardly unique.

You're judging according to your personal version of the truth. Basically anyone who sees things differently from you isn't right in the head. I'll thank you to keep your comments about this to yourself, or go start a thread called "the world according to SS."

hmmm.

well, just pretend it didn't happen.

... because the world according to LindaLou has gotten rather monotonous despite all the evidence to the contrary which LindaLou pretends doesn't exist either.

I don't know a single evolutionist who believes that. What's more, I don't know a single school of thought within evolution which espouses such beliefs as you propose.


I feel like a broken record.

EVOLUTIONISM DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM (and vice versa.)

This is a serious question because classic evolution teaches that rocks (technically; primordial soup) self-assembled into single-cell organisms, no small feat, I should add. I know people who actually believe this.

I'm am trying to narrow down which "brand" of evolution you believe in, so the question remains.

Do you believe in "chemical evolution" that is, that primordial soup self-assembled into single-cell organisms?

With all due respect, I would love to get an honest answer without all the rhetoric.





Our Solor System

Isn't that like calling the kettle black?

You asked if I was an evolustionist. If I mention one more time on this discussion board that I am not, I think my fingers will cease to work.

I've said this in the past, I'm saying it now, and I will probably continue to (have to) say this again. I am not an evolustionist. I defend oppressed individuals, be they the homosexuals you seek to oust from existence (an act tantamount to wanting to rid the world of redheads, or brown-eyed people .. or black people!), non-Christian religions, or any of the many other peoples you clearly have very serious issues with.

I'm going to also ask the question I've posed before, which has gone unanswered (and likely unread). If I defend Hindus, does that make me a Hindu?

I don't "believe" in either branch of evolution -- I don't not believe in them either. I take an agnostic stance towards evolution, accepting that it may very well be true or partially true. I also accept that it might not be true, but I don't make the mistake of blindingly accepting belief or disbelief in it, as both possess an equal fallacy.

Pwcca I've pointed out repeatedly to Russ that the theory of abiogenesis -- that life arose from organic chemicals -- is separate from the theory of evolution. He persists with his rhetorical "people from rocks" strawman. Don't humour him LOL.

pwcca,

I'm not asking you any questions. I'm asking Linda.


Linda,

I'm trying to be clear and honest about this. Let me put it this way.

I'm simply asking what YOU believe. Do YOU believe in chemical evolution—that is, that primordial soup self-assembled into single-celled organisms?

By the way Linda, this is exactly what I was taught throughout school—along with millions of other children, and it was called "evolution". It is still being taught as "chemical evolution".


...Awaiting an answer.


From Freedom To Fascism

In all honesty, I'm about as agnostic as they come. I do not hold onto any belief for dear life and get dogmatic about it to the point where it flies in the face of all available evidence. Everything I do believe, or believe possible, is subject to change.

I think it's difficult to deny that the basic ideas of evolution are correct.

Do I think that life began, and works, through completely random processes? I used to, until very recently. I'm thinking now that it's possible that other processes are also at work of which we understand little or nothing. I am not prepared to say "God did it" to everything. But I'm learning more about energy, vibrations, and something called morphic fields, an idea proposed by renegade British scientist Rupert Sheldrake. I was led to him as a reaction against the depressing dogmatic skeptics I'd been debating with, and I am very intrigued by his research.

The classic agnostic response here then: I don't know. I think it is possible and even plausible that organic chemicals could start to replicate. I also think that other factors could be involved. It's arrogant to think that the entire world can be explained by what we can see, experience and measure concretely.

I'm reading right now about the "hidden messages in water." I'm open to all kinds of things.

Does that answer your question?

I guess it's safe to say that's a yes.

Am I correct?

You asked if I "believed in" this. I accept that it is possible. Problem here? Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

Herein lies the problem.

I did read your entire post and judging by its content, it's obvious to me that you see exactly where I am going by questioning you about your belief that "rock soup" can self-assemble into single cell organisms.

You see Linda, I am very concerned about my influence on other people. Because I express my world view publicly, I have a responsibility to myself and to those who are listening to be sure that I've done my homework and present a world view is backed by strong evidence. If I fail to realize this responsibility, I may harm someone by influencing them to believe something that is baseless, ridiculous, or even harmful to themselves.

For this reason, I have done my homework and through this research, I have gained a world view that is strongly supported by evidence, and for this reason, I have no problem presenting it publicly. Additionally, I have no inner conflicts or emotional turmoil because both my belief system and my conscience are clear.

I have warned all throughout this conversation that the act of diving into the realm of a search for truth is best served with a thorough self examination as an appetizer. Failing to do this will lead to a "forced" self examination by exposing hypocrisy (internal conflicting beliefs) in our own lives. This is why we must approach truth with courage and humility.

So now that I have effectively backed you into a logical corner by asking your over and over to reveal if you believe that rocks can assemble into single cell organisms, the truth about your belief system has come out.

You said...

Bertrand Russell describes an agnostic like this:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Assuming you understand the meaning of "agnostic" ("gnostic" means knowledge and the "a" prefix means "no" or "not"), you're simply admitting that you are without knowledge ("not-knowledge") on the subject.

This is—of course—the position you have been forced to take in light of the question I posted to you.

To explain: The question that I posted to you ("Do you believe that primordial soup—i.e. rock soup—turned into single cell organisms") makes it easier for people to see how ridiculous the belief in "chemical evolution"—which is currently taught in many if not most public school systems in the United States—really is.

In the face of this ridicule, many (if not most) people—realizing how stupid this "brand" of widely-taught evolution really is—will break down and admit that they "don't know" how single cell organisms really formed., thus forcing them to admit that they are really agnostic—"without knowledge"—of the matter, and they do this because they are now in a logical corner—being left to cope with the cause of the formation of single cell organisms (no small feat), and to again ask the question: Is there an external intelligence—a God?

Considering that you are admittedly without knowledge on the matter, my complaint about the way you display your world view is that you have continually marketed yourself as one who has a strong opinion and you have continually slandered the Bible, even though you are obviously without knowledge on that front as well.

You originally said (in another thread) that you have read parts of—or some of—the Bible. You later said that you have read the Bible completely. You have then made comments about the Book that are simply untrue and display to me—someone who has read the Bible about 8 times cover to cover in addition to studying it on a regular basis—that you really know nothing about it and really do nothing more than parrot the lies about the Bible found in mainstream media and on the internet (there are no shortage of them and they are easy to find).

I take offense to this behavior, namely, pretending to know something about the Bible when you really know nothing about it and then slandering it without discretion or knowledge.

The biggest reason I take offense to this behavior is not that you are making poor decisions about your own world view and your own intellectual position, but that you may well be steering others to make the same bad decisions by being a party to spreading untrue information about something that you clearly and admittedly know nothing about (You are admittedly agnostic—"without knowledge" about God).

It has been said by the Journal of the American Medical Association that up to 140,000 deaths per year may result from doctor-prescribed drugs (Drug-Related Morbidity). If you consider that only 2% to 3% of these deaths are actually reported as being from those drugs, then you can conclude that perhaps 2.8 million people die each year from the side effects of doctor-prescribed drugs in the United States. This would make doctor-prescribed drugs the most dangerous substance on the planet.

Now, if you are incorrect in your derogatory parroting about the Bible, and if the Bible is correct about the creator and the prophecies which foretell of a coming world government and a related global deception (The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast), then you are participating in disseminating false information about the Bible and about truth in general. You are causing harm.

If what the Bible says about the soul and the process of salvation is also correct, then you are participating in the destruction of souls by disseminating false and misleading information, and all this—without knowledge.

Now, as a student of the Bible and a person who actively studies truth, I can say that I have found the Bible to have amazing integrity and profound insights about human nature, history, and the future. By studying the record of archaeological digs that confirmed the accuracy of the Bible, I can also say that there is a high probability that the Bible is also accurate in its information pertaining to the future and to salvation, which if it is true, is the single most important subject to any man or woman.

Now, if you or anyone else wants to believe that single cell organisms self-assembled out of rock soup, or if you want to believe that single cell organisms self-assemble into fantastically complex symmetrical machines, then you just go ahead and believe whatever you wish. As for me, I choose to follow the path paved with evidence, logic, and reason that says that an external intelligence designed complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines.

In short, I would ask that you be intellectually honest with the readers of this forum as well as with yourself and saying the three most important words to describe your world view and your knowledge of the Bible, and that is:

"I don't know"


[color:"brown"]To conclude this post, I will rebut your other stated positions.[/color]


Judging from your previous positions, this is a reference to what you believe I believe, yet, you don't know anything about the bible and you are a self-proclaimed agnostic ("without knowledge").

To make my position clear to you: I do no hold on to any information that flies in the face of all available evidence. My position is that there is no real evidence for evolution. There are no transitional forms, and evolution would not only predict their existence, but would surely imply that all fossils as transitional forms. We don't see this. We see complexity, symmetry, and self-replication.

Further, the idea that compounds self-assemble into (astoundingly complex) single cell organisms is absurd. For those wisely rejecting the widely-taught chemical evolution theory, it must be considered that the idea that these single cell organisms self assemble into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines is at least equally absurd.

Amazingly, the best evidence you gave for evolution has to do with finding a few strands of "organic" (carbon-based) molecules in space. Truly, the onlooker should have no problem seeing the that this is no evidence for evolution at all. We know that atoms join together to form molecules. The evolutionary question is:

Can molecules self-assemble into fantastically complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines?

Just as it is hard to fathom that any dental professional has accepted the notion that putting mercury into your mouth is a benign act, it is hard to fathom that scientists believe that molecules self-assemble into complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines, yet they do; but why?

This really just goes to show how gullible people are. As it has been said, "There's a sucker born every minute." I would say that it is more likely that a sucker is born every few seconds.

Please understand "the tomato effect" as a demonstration of this principle in action. Also, listen to these knowledgeable people:


"What is history but a fable agreed upon."
—Napolean Bonaparte

"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
—Alexander Hamilton

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
—Mark Twain


And the fact that you now state this disclaimer is all the more reason that people should look to reason and logic that is established and based on evidence and not simply accept or parrot the beliefs of other people.

In other words: Do your homework

My belief system has changed virtually none in the past 15 years since completing my first major phase of personal research about the things of life and of the world. I truly believe this belief system will stand the test of time because I see and understand the deeper workings of the system as a whole.

I don't say this in pride and I don't credit myself with finding truth. I give that credit to God as I now understand how He works in my life. I only humbly accept the responsibility of knowing this truth and hope and pray that others will find it, despite the blind opposition that persists.

It's important to note that evolutionary theory has changed dramatically throughout the past several years. There is a good reason for this, but I'll leave it to you to do your homework and figure this out.


Your belief system is evolving. I wonder if it will grow feet one day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A belief in chemical evolution is irrational; in fact so irrational, it's astounding to see the numbers of people who latch on to it, but again, these people also believe mercury in vaccines is safe.


Exactly, and I've made this point over and over in my previous posts on other threads.

The purpose for:

(1) presenting all of this so-called "evidence" that evolution really occurs and

(2) the reason to present evolution as a universally accepted theory

is simply to play upon people's tendency to follow thereby making evolution—not true—but rather (emotionally) difficult to deny.

The powers-that-be are counting on people to be followers rather than free-thinking intellectuals who let the data lead them. This enables the ptb to lead people away from the Bible.

So, why would the ptb want to do this?

Because an understanding of the Bible leads to a free society with true liberty and true freedom, and in this type of society, it is not possible to centralize power because power rests securely with the people. The ptb desire to centralize power taking it out of the hands of the people for their own purposes and this can only be done in a moderate, socialistic, non-Christian climate. It is done through the spread of fear.

The Government Always Tells the Truth

Yes, it's a conspiracy, but it's not that all scientists are lying—as you falsely accused me of saying earlier (another straw man argument). The conspiracy is led at a higher level so that scientists are simply deceived just as dentists are deceived into believing that amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings are safe (we now know they are not) and the same way that doctors are not told the truth about vaccines.

The fact is Linda (and you'll find this out if you do your homework), the promotion of "modern" evolution (evolution itself is not a modern idea) was initiated by those who hate Christ and the Bible. This is historical fact.


Interesting you should say that, but I'll leave this right here.


In a round-about and somewhat intellectually-sounding way... Yes, but let me recap.

You are open to the idea that rock soup self assembles into single cell organisms. You believe that single cell organisms self-assemble into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines. But really, you just don't know. This is your position as I understand it:

agnostic

Well, at least you're flexible... in this post anyway. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


New Age Bible Versions

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

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

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Loose Change

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People

Confessions of An Ex-RX Drug Pusher

I'm beginning to think that I've said all I can here because all we're really doing is repeating the same things to each other, and I don't suppose either of us is going to shift. You have said nothing to me here that I haven't heard elsewhere.

You were wanting some hint that I "believe" rocks can turn into humans. This is a strawman. I said I think it is possible that organic molecules can begin to replicate. This is not fantastic complexity but the very most basic beginning of what could be described as life. I don't see any need to rule this out as being impossible, and someone might copy it in a lab in my lifetime. I have no paradigm of a creation myth or a religion set in my mind as in stone which requires me to reject certain things because they threaten that paradigm. This, to me, is true agnosticism -- being open to many things because maybe there is a truth in them. It isn't that I am not qualified to make judgements or that I am lacking knowledge. I am saying what most people ought to be saying if they are honest with themselves, and that is that however firmly we are convinced of a certain reality, there is always a possibility that our view is wrong in some way. It's where many scientists and creationists alike are making a mistake, in my opinion. You continue to push the idea that your view of the Bible, and yours only, is the truth. On the opposite end of the spectrum I know scientists who are dogmatic skeptics and think that anyone with any spirituality whatsoever is deluded. You guys are two sides of the same coin and you will bicker til the cows come home, just like they do on the Creation vs. Evolution forum.

I evolved out of there myself.

I think you were beginning to think what you're thinking some time ago.

Also, I'm not expecting you to shift. This only takes place through one of the human motivators: fear and love. Therefore, change will probably only come into your life through one of these. Unfortunately, most people wait for fear to motivate them rather than reaching out (searching diligently) for truth in (driven by) love.



I have never been so often accused of making strawman arguments than by you. In all honestly and with all due respect, I'm really doubting if you know what the concept really means.

Nevertheless, the reason humans become so confused when doing research or simply learning things is that they so quickly forget fundamentals. This is what the psudoscience promoted by evolution marketers is designed to do, namely, to get you so distracted that you forget fundamentals, just as you have done.

In asking you about rocks (inorganic material) turning into single cell organisms, I am asking you about your belief system. I remind you that it took 3 repetitions of this question before I got an answer out of you and I know why. Because you know where this line of questioning is going (as I said in my response above).

When people really begin to boil down the fat (smoke and mirrors) surrounding what evolutionary "psudoscience" is asking people to believe, it becomes clear how positively ridiculous it really is. Chemical evolution really does believe that rock soup turns into highly complex machines (cells). There's just no way around that.

Remember, explore all you want. Just don't forget the fundamentals or you may be quickly taken advantage of by someone with their hand in your pocketbook.



Again, you have no idea what you're believing. Wow.



You're so completely wrong. It is fantastically complex, so much so that we still don't understand the vast majority of it!

Honestly, you're completely off base on this point.

You're simplifying these things that you don't understand because you're trying to justify you're own preference for a belief system. This is the only reasonable logical conclusion and hence why I say that looking at truth will force you to look at yourself.

This is one of the things I've been saying to you all along. Because you have no realization of the complexity involved, you find such functions as reproduction vastly simpler than they really are.

I once heard a biologists say that he was offended when people used the term "simple single cell organism" because there is no such thing as a simple cell.

Well said.



Neither do I.

Are you insinuating a strawman by saying I do this?

I have already told you that I don't believe what I believe without evidence. I believe it because of evidence.

You have done this subtle strawman accusation frequently in the past and I have not called you on it. Just so the onlooker knows that I have not been unaware of it.


The remainder of your post sounds really nice and politically correct in that you are maintaining an open mind—as do I. The only problem is that you are not dealing with the issues I raised.

Linda, the rules of chemistry do not facilitate the self-assembly of molecules into cells, much less complex, symmetrical, self-replicating life forms. Any claim of this sort has never been observed and is therefore only based on faith and is therefore only a religion.

The true difference between your religion and my belief system is that there is ample evidence to support mine. Here are some fundamental examples that don't even get into the deeper stuff:

[color:"brown"]General Information[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfa4OqMSawk

[color:"brown"]Archeology: Evidence for the Bible[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lb-zKTuP7DU

[color:"brown"]EVIDENCE for the Bible: Christ's Life & Death[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BlVFwMN-EQU

[color:"brown"]The Authenticity of the Bible[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgmIFFtEMsE

I'm looking for a tidy way to end this discussion because I've decided what many others before me have decided: don't argue with creationists, there is no point.

Strawman: setting up a false representation of your opponent's argument and then knocking it down. Saying "rocks turn into people" is a classic strawman. If you haven't heard this word much until now, go find some scientists to argue with and you'll hear it plenty because they don't believe "rocks can turn into humans" either.

I also object to your constant use of the word "believe." What do I believe, believe, believe. What I actually believe is that many things are possible. Believing in a possibility does not equal dogmatic, religious style belief -- that this idea is the ultimate truth and everyone else is wrong.

I said that according to the theory of abiogenesis, organic (not inorganic) molecules became self-replicating. Not cells. Self-replicating. This would have been the very beginnings of some of the components inside a cell's nucleus. You can deny this possibility all you want but you seem to have no logical basis for this; your arguments seem to consist of the fallacy of the argument from incredulity, coupled with the fact that The Bible Says Differently.

If by "evidence" that you have for creationism, you mean the Bible, then I and many others are simply not convinced that this is a scientific document. The Bible is full of logical inconsistencies; I could point you to several web pages that list them exhaustively. It's also strange that if you look in the fields of biology and geology, including people who prospect for oil, the numbers of creationists equal pretty close to zero. When faced with hard evidence that others would perhaps like to avoid, they have to accept the truth of what they see. You wouldn't be very successful at finding oil if you are going by Biblical flood geology. Ask Glenn Morton. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#mom

Finally, I'm going to ask you to stop the patronising tone. It goes something like this. Russ, you know not what you are saying. You are being fooled by people in power who are conspiring to pull the wool over your eyes and you believe everything they tell you. Do your homework like I have because then you will see the real truth. There is no evidence for your position though there is much for mine. You just don't understand do you.

See? So very easy to say to someone else. Pretty insulting, and it includes no facts whatsoever.

You're right. There is no point in arguing with creationists because—if they know what they are talking about—they will point out how silly it is to believe that molecules self-assemble into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines.

I know the idea of an external intelligence is difficult for many to accept and to deal with, but it's where the data leads and it's why I must accept it.



It has been said that the worst person you can lie to is yourself.

A person who lies to themselves will unwittingly lie to others because they are not able to discern the truth or they are unwilling to accept it.

Chemical evolution is the belief that rocks (or "primordial soup", if you wish) turn into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines given enough time. This is from the mouth of the person who wrote the book with the same title, who now happens to be a creationist.

You see, as we grow in maturity, we face adversity in life that forces us to make decisions. This adversity forces us to look deeper and deeper into ourselves and cause us to reevaluate our own morality and beliefs.

Some people—in the face of this adversity—become more refined and continue to be willing to face the illogic and selfishness in themselves becoming better, nicer, kinder people.

Others—in the face of this adversity—become more angry and continue to resist logic and reason entering deeper into denial and continue to act selfishly becoming more contrary in character as time and adversity passes.

This process is called "going through the fire", adversity being the "fire". This process burns off the fat and shows us what we're really made of, and if we are willing to face ourselves (via courage), and if we are willing to admit our faults and make mid-course corrections to our actions and beliefs (via humility), we can achieve a peace in our lives that is wonderful and is worth every minute of the adversity that it took to get there.

Facing our own belief system can cause adversity in and of itself when we see logical conflicts (hypocrisy) in it. When faced with this type of adversity, we choose whether we take the courageous path of self-examination or the cowardly path of denial.

Now back to how this connects with the point at hand.

Chemical evolution claims that rock-soup turns into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines. To deny this is nothing more than denying the clear facts—denial. It is not a strawman—as you claim: Nothing of the sort.

I firmly believe that your denial of the simple and well-known facts of chemical evolution is evidence of the success that the marketers of the faith of evolution have had in getting people to forget the fundamentals and to distract you with so-called "evidences" that are nothing more than smoke and mirrors—magic—distraction.

Yes, when analyzing a belief system, you cannot be distracted by the showmanship of the cult leader. You cannot overlook the fundamentals. You have to look squarely at the foundational beliefs of the faith to know what it's made of, and the fact is, whether we like it or not, chemical evolution teaches the most insanely ridiculous religion that has ever existed, namely, that rocks turned into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines over time.

Yes, chemical evolutionists dazzle you with fancy molecules and flashy ideas that appeal to the pride by sounding intellectually feasible, but at the core, it's still saying the same ridiculous thing. The key to being able to discern a cult from true science is to remember the fundamentals.

And finally, when you do get around to taking a skeptical look at the dazzle, you will find that they are hollow and are often based in lies themselves, just like magic.

A little example of this is dazzle in action is the discovery of cosmic organic molecules. The "believer" will quickly latch on to the emotionally appealing idea that this "discovery" lends credibility to evolutionary faith as a whole, however, the true scientists will quickly point out that this process of reasoning is just like a magician throwing a piece of paper on the ground next to the Empire State Building and saying, "See how much more likely it is that this building is really made of paper.", whereas the true scientist will quickly realize that even if you stacked paper to match the height of the building, you still have not approached the complexity of the original structure.

I've heard you preach over and over that complexity is not the issue, but in fact, it is the issue. It is the issue in exactly the same way that in entropy, complexity is the issue. Complexity matters.



The hypocrisy in your statement above is that you dogmatically believe that the Bible "is full of logical inconsistencies". Please point them out to me. I've asked you to do this before but you never have.

In this belief that you hold, you are not only being dogmatic yourself, but you have failed to support your dogmatic position, plus, you are attempting to disarm my position for the same reason while accusing me of being dogmatic. Not good logic here, Linda.

Also, I've already dealt with this issue of attempting to make reality fit my existing beliefs or desires. I don't do that, but, with all due respect, you do.

I have studied both evolution and the Bible (and many other subjects as well) and have found evolution to be "full of logical inconsistencies" while the Bible has been amazingly integral. This is my true and honest finding. If I had found problems with the Bible or if I had found evidence for evolution, I would happily change my position because I am an advocate for truth. I don't have any other agenda except to find the truth. I know myself well and have searched myself for hidden agendas or beliefs or desires that would could my judgment but I have found none, except this:

There are a few Biblical laws that don't appeal to me emotionally, but if this were to bias my judgment, it would bias my judgment against the Bible, not for it.

In continuing my study, I have learned that these Biblical laws that don't appeal to my emotions are good for me regardless of my personal feelings about them. Therefore, I bring my emotions into subjugation to these laws knowing they are good.

I believe this fact alone accounts for most of the clouded judgment concerning the integrity of the Bible, namely, that many or most people are generally not capable of being objective because they allow their emotions to be the primary tool of discernment, and this is no way for a person to conduct science.

Yes, the search for truth takes courage and humility, and if we're lacking in it, the search will give us the opportunity to grow in these areas.



[color:"red"]Strawman alert <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />[/color]

I don't use the Bible as evidence for creationism. I simply find that creationism is the most logical and scientifically sound explanation. The Bible happens to coincide with what science has shown us.



I'm very sorry you feel this way. I'm not trying to be patronizing at all.

You may be detecting an empathetic sentiment because I view you as a victim. Since you don't have the knowledge and experience studying the conspiratorial side of this issue, you are "stuck" in a logical corner being coerced into believing it because you simply can't accept that such a large deception could be coordinated and propagated so well.

I have pity on you and others who have been sucked into this evolutionary faith and this is why I have continually provided videos and links to information that will help you realize that a global conspiracy does indeed exist, and happens to be just as the Bible had predicted thousands of years ago.

My pity will eventually expire if you continue to resist examining this evidence and if you continue to promote your belief system so dogmatically even though you can't logically support it and openly admit that you really don't know for sure and that it's open to change because for these reasons. It's clear to me that you have work to do in this area and I would hope that you have the humility it takes to admit you're wrong when/if you finally discover that you have been duped. I am continually amazed at how many people spend years or lifetimes supporting a lie because they don't have the humility to admit that they were wrong. I truly hope you don't fall into that trap.

The bottom line Linda, is that the world is just the way the Bible predicted it would be. For those who have the passion and humility and courage to check it out, there are a myriad of free videos and articles online that will help you with your studies, just make sure you correlate them with the source to be sure they are telling you the truth, because there is a lot of misinformation out there as well.

Parsing through all this material may seem to be a daunting task, but Christ said, "Seek and you shall find." I can attest that it is true. If you're willing to put some time in, you can eventually learn how to logically discern the liars from those who tell the truth. I will also tell you that the time is well worth the effort and I hope everyone will take the time to take that journey.

Either the Bible is accurate, or it is a grand conspiracy concocted by some people who are able to predict the future (or some mixture of both). You see Linda, you are a conspiracy theorists too, you just haven't realized it yet.


[color:"brown"]General Information[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfa4OqMSawk

[color:"brown"]Archeology: Evidence for the Bible[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lb-zKTuP7DU

[color:"brown"]EVIDENCE for the Bible: Christ's Life & Death[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BlVFwMN-EQU

[color:"brown"]The Authenticity of the Bible[/color]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgmIFFtEMsE

Maybe, Russ, some people just choose not to read the Bible literally. False dichotomy.

I don't know what it is you say I'm being so dogmatic about. As I said, you are the opposite side of the same coin as the dogmatic skeptical atheists. Both of you want to stick to your own belief system. Try defining mine. You may see me as an "evolutionist" and ascribe religious connotations to that. I simply see the evidence and decide that it's likely that life evolved, though there is still much we don't understand. You tell me I don't understand what I'm seeing. I'd accuse you of the same if you honestly believe loons like Hovind. Stalemate.

Please don't pity me. I'm happy on my path. You can believe I'm going to hell and frankly I don't care if that's what you think. If you want to challenge anything I say that's fine, but spare me the lectures please. I don't lecture you because a) you are not a child, b) you didn't ask me to, and c) you wouldn't be interested anyway in what I had to say. Ditto goes for me.

ok cheer up. Tis the season to be jolly. Major question. What about Christmas huh? How do you explain all those presents?

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

I hope al sharpton doesn't see that and get the wrong impression because I'd hate to see Santa Claus get fired for yelling ho ho ho.


don't get any funny ideas about the snacks either. it's just a croc.

This Russ guy is a friggin' riot. Is he for real?

The real question we should be asking is whether or not the original author intended for it to be taken literally, AND whether or not it has proven itself to be literal through archeology and other sciences.

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ukCLU_heKl8

The Bible contains some information which is clearly meant to be taken literally (for example, these parts contain genealogies) and other parts are clearly symbolic.

The best education about the Bible can be achieved when we realize that it predicts the future and that all of it's books are joined by the exact same gematria.

These are very significant facts that should make any intellect take a serious look at the integrity of the book.



I'm telling you that anyone who believes that inorganic molecules self-assemble into highly-complex, symmetrical machines that are capable of self-replicating also believes in magic.

Again, it's just like the amalgam debate.

We have countless people suffering from diseases who are now realizing that their amalgam fillings are the cause, yet, the ADA (American Dental Association) and most mainstream medicine still believes that amalgams are completely safe even though real science knows better.

Your error is in believing that mainstream science is in step with medical research. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The same error exists with evolution and with the global warming debate (naming CO2 as the primary cause). Neither are supported by the bulk of scientific evidence but both are universally accepted through endless misinformation via outlets ranging from news programs to documentaries to textbooks.

Honestly, it's time to wake up from our naivete and realize that there is evil in the world that benefits from the promotion of false ideas.

The Government Always Tells the Truth



Please note that I haven't told you that you're going to hell. I'm only wishing upon you the best that life has to offer, and since I've found it, I'm sharing it with you hoping you can benefit from it.



We are all children in some way or another. We could all use some maturity, including me. The key to reaching this maturity is in realizing that we lack it.



Actually, you have lectured me often, nevertheless, lectures are here for our benefit. They take effort and are intended to convey helpful information from one person to another.

Some of the best lessons I've learned have come through lectures that I didn't ask for must less wanted to hear. Humility allows us to sit through that which does not appeal to us and learn that which we didn't want to know.



But I do listen to what you have to say.

I think it's important not to immediately write off proposed truth just because they don't appeal to our senses. I honestly believe this is what you do and I'm simply informing you that this is a harmful way to discern truth. You and those you influence will pay for this in ways that you will eventually regret, and I'm trying to help you avoid this future regret and pain.

Please know that my intentions are good, and if you're not willing to listen, judging by the traffic on this thread, someone is listening.


Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Our Solor System

no, uh uh.

Everything you see is just your imagination.

Instead of explaining to me why I've got it all wrong, why not tell Glenn Morton? I see no one has made any comments on the link I posted to his website.

Here is what a scientist acquaintance of mine has written about him. I've been to Morton's website myself. It is a fascinating read.

"I wish to introduce you to the web site of Glenn R. Morton at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm, a practicing petroleum geologist. He was a young-earth creationist and his original geology training was purely Flood Geology and he published more than 20 articles on Flood Geology in creationist journals. The rest of his geology training was on-the-job working directly and hands-on with the actual geological evidence, which is where he ran into trouble. Because every day, day after day, he kept running straight into rock-hard geological evidence that Flood Geology had taught him didn't exist and couldn't exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. He also hired other ICR-trained Flood geologists and they all encountered the same things that he was.

I first heard of him in a 1986 article reporting about the First International Conference on Creationism where he presented the first paper. In that paper, he presented the geological evidence that he had encountered with contradicted Flood Geology. He also reported that all the YEC geologists working with him suffered severe crises of faith because what they had been taught to belief (ie, Flood Geology) contradicted the actual facts. This was my first realization that creation science wasn't just completely and utterly false and damaging to science education, but it also poses a grave danger to the faith of its followers.

What I didn't learn until much later was that after that conference Glenn himself was driven to the verge of atheism by Flood Geology. He was able to avert that consequence by arriving at a scientifically accurate way to harmonize the Bible with geology. Though he has emerged from the entire process as a strong opponent of creation science. During the time he was struggling with his own crisis of faith, he contacted all the other YEC geologists who had gone through that with him and asked them if there, of all Flood Geology's objections to conventional geology, where was at least a single one which turned out to be true. None of them could come up with one.

Glenn's site offers several articles describing the geological evidence. He also carries several testimonials written by himself and by others who had gone through the same thing. You can get to the index list of those articles, "Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution", at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#_kmacleod. His own personal testimonials are:

"Why I left Young-earth Creationism" at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

"The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist" at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

Basically, my personal view is that "creation science" is false and full of deceptions. I have read and heard the testimonials of many ex-Christian atheists and one of the main reasons for their deconversions was the discovery that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. Therefore, with religious leaders using "creation science", we have a case of entire denominations lying to their members. In reading the testimonials of ex-YECs (young-earth creationists) I have noted that their deconversion from YECism usually happened when they started to learn the truth about evolution and about science -- in Glenn's case, it was learning the truth about geology.

It is also my personal view that the fault lies in a particular theology that requires belief in statements about the physical world that are simply contrary-to-fact. The fault does not lie in religion itself nor in Christianity itself nor in science itself, but rather in that false theology that promotes the telling of lies and deceptions in order to serve the God of Truth. Let's face it, does God need to be served by lies? What does the Bible have to say about that? Does the Bible identify any Christian deity who is served by lies and deception?

In short, if your theology turns out to be wrong, then don't just become an atheist, even though that's what your theology teaches that you must do. If your Man-made theology turns out to be wrong, then correct it. Or at least seek a theology which is truthful."

You've never read/heard that expression before?

Seriously - for Russ to say he believes that CRAP, he'd have to be either very stupid, or have a very odd sense of humour.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gfa4OqMSawk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gfa4OqMSawk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Russ my computer is struggling to play this. But it sounds to me like more along the lines of, "it's true because the Bible says so."

By the way, are you going to have a look at Glenn Morton's site? He's got some interesting things to say about the reaction of creationists when he presented his crisis of faith to them.

You asked for evidence that there are contradictions in the Bible. I am honestly not interested in debating tiny details but plenty of others have pointed them out. Presumably you can look up the references yourself and see what they are talking about. Here is one site among many: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/

The categories to choose from are Fatal Biblical Flaws, Biblical Absurdities, Bible Atrocities, Bible Inconsistencies, Bible Precepts, and Bible Vulgarities and Obscenities. Where would you like to start?

Mainstream Christianity does not have a problem with these things. The problems come when a person chooses to take everything in the Bible as literal fact and sets up that false dichotomy where you either read the Bible that way, or the whole thing is invalidated. Ask Glenn Morton about this, it gave him a lot of trouble while he was staring at 30,000 feet of sedimentary rock that creationist-brain told him was impossible and scientific-brain understood to have needed a very long time to have formed.

I honestly don't know if you follow these threads or not because I've said clearly before that I don't have a problem with an old Earth. The Bible supports an old Earth in its references about previous ages of the Earth, but you know nothing about these.

Also, instead of bopping all over the place, I would prefer to stay focused. Nevertheless, you can intermingle your bashing the Bible all you want, but considering that you've (perhaps) read it once and that you have never studied it, your opinion has no credibility. I dont' believe you're being honest with yourself much less being able to remember important facts in a conversation (i.e. - my position on a young Earth).

Further, I've reviewed the "infidel's" website and it is filled with ridiculous information that was obviously written by someone who either:

(1) has virtually no knowledge of the Bible, or,

(2) is trying to do nothing more than confuse issues to win undeserved credibility.

The website you posted is actually worse than the quackwatch website because at least the quackwatch website tries to sound logical and reasonable (although they aren't).

I'm honestly not surprised that you posted a link to a website that is obviously written by a rank amateur because you are a perfect candidate to be sucked in by this kind of hateful rhetoric (not to mention evolution). Furthermore, you seem to have a personal hatred for the Bible or God which is fueled by the global social climate, junk science, and your personal lack of experience with it.

Just as much junk science supports the safety of amalgam fillings, even more focus has been placed on promoting evolution because it—if believed—destroys a person's ability to accept the Bible, and those promoting evolution (at the highest levels, not the lower levels) are worshipers of the owl god:

Bohemian grove

...and you should see who is on the list of regular attendees of these evil ceremonies, not to mention the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), but you know nothing about that as well.

The owl god is the god of knowledge which is a symbol of the Biblical Satan.

Linda, you are really standing on the wrong side of the fence and you have no idea how profound this subject is. You are truly an amateur dabbling with big-boy subjects.

As far as evolution goes...

My inability to accept evolution has nothing to do with the Bible. It has to do with the sheer stupidity of the theory. Rocks to not turn into complex, symmetrical, self-replicating machines over time and real science does not display this, only pop-junk science, which is what you're choosing to have faith in.

Again, just as the amalgam issue and the global warming issue, evolution is based on junk science, more accurately described as lies.

Now, if you are asserting that evolution happened, then please explain symmetry.

Now, if you go off again talking about signaling molecules (as you did before), I will discount your argument because this is an invalid and seriously deficient explanation of symmetry. It is truly laughable and amateur.

The infrastructure you need to explain symmetry is huge and signaling molecules do nothing more than confuse rank amateurs into believing something that they already want to believe. It gives them a reason to have faith in something they don't understand.

Nevertheless, if you want to explain symmetry, go ahead. [color:"brown"]Evolution is your assertion, so it's your responsibility to prove it.[/color]

Also, don't pull your previous debate tactic saying that the burden is on me to prove the Bible because I'm not trying to prove the integrity of the BIble or even using to to disprove evolution. The Bible has nothing to do with this discussion.

Why?

Because whether or not I had any knowledge about the integrity of the Bible, I would still not have any faith in evolution whatsoever. It is an antiquated theory for amateurs.

So, let's go. Please explain symmetry to the world.


Occult Symbols in Washington D.C.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter3/

A Google Earth Screenshot of the U.S. Capital from My Computer
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/odwdvymssb.jpg">

It's times like this I really wish I could think up a more original line than the one about calling the kettle black.

Unbelievable.

Ummm, OK, how-about we focus on the question at hand instead on bashing each other?

So you are not a Young Earth Creationist Russ? What could have given me that impression . . . let's start with all the Hovind posts (he is as YEC as they come), and the Evolution of Man Disproved in 50 Arguments thingy. You post those kinds of things with no disclaimers that you disagree with a significant part of their ideology. Do you know what the YECs were calling Glenn Morton, because he did not want to deny the evidence he saw for an old earth? Heretic, liar, Satan, you know all the words I'm sure. That's OK then; from now on I will not expect to see any propaganda here from you that claims the earth is only a few thousand years old.

As for symmetry, I've explained to you how this quite possibly evolved. Before you laugh it off as nonsense I might ask you what qualifies you to do so when trained scientists take it seriously. I'm not saying it's THE answer but it is certainly plausible. What's more, symmetry in itself is not a discussion of the validity of the whole theory of evolution. It is a quibble about a mechanism by which it operates. If scientists' ideas about symmetry were discredited tomorrow, the whole theory of evolution would not be thrown out the window, nor should it be; the evidence clearly exists that organisms have lived and changed on this planet for billions of years. If you don't like the theory of abiogenesis, which you keep misquoting, then that is your choice; that does not in itself prove or disprove evolution.

I actually am very much against the pure skeptical, atheist view of the world, which says that nothing can be believed before it is concretely proved through evidence from the 5 senses. There is a scientist called Rupert Sheldrake who has proposed a theory called morphic fields, which if it contains some truth could also help explain phenomena like symmetry. Here is how Wikipedia describes morphic fields:


Mainstream scientists think this is just plain silly. Myself, I don't care. Sheldrake is also a scientist, with very good training and education, and he has more imagination and daring than most. He is trying to marry the idea of the interconnectedness of all things with the scientific method. Anyone who is interested, can read more about him and his experiments on his website http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/morphic/

As for your talk about the "infidel" website and my stupidity in reading it, etc etc, I notice you haven't actually addressed anything he says there. This is akin to dismissing the whole of the TalkOrigins site as "lies", which you have done, presumably having read little or nothing of what is actually said there. Would you like to explain the following then?

GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.


GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.


GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.


EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.


These are just a few inconsistencies. Instead of dismissing all of this because you know so much more than I apparently do about the Bible, I'd like you to explain, as someone who believes the Bible is literally true and that every word comes directly from God, how these kinds of inconsistencies can occur. Or am I misrepresenting your position? Do you accept that it is possible that humans wrote the Bible over a period of thousands of years and therefore it is subject to the kinds of human errors and cultural changes that are typical of humankind?

here is a poem.

God of wrath, God of love.
God of earth and God above.
God of hope, God of peace.
God of you and God of me.
God of day God of night
God the just and God the light
God of the strong God of the weak
God of you and God of me.

As a parent Linda, you should be able to understand some things.

When your child incessantly runs into the street, perhaps gets hit by a car and yet still runs into the street, I imagine you would have to at some point discipline her. I imagine you would at some point even become angry that she does not listen to you yet continues to put herself in harms way. I magine you might try to teach her through gesture and stories about different things, including death, that will happen to her if she continues putting herself in harms way. I imagine that if she continues nevertheless with her dangerous behavior you might even attempt to restrain her. Because you love her. If you did not do these things, I imagine social services will at some point step in and remove your child from your custody because of negligence. And they would be right to do so. Your child might see you as 'mean' for restraining her but you as a parent should understand that sometimes it is necessary for the best interest of the child.

Is that very difficult to understand? You at this point, sit in the position of a child who sees God as a meany for doing the same things you as a parent do with your own child. You need to look at the the whole picture now, as an adult. You are capable. You know it, God knows it.

If your child is bullied at school incessantly, comes home crying day after day, will you as a parent sit back and laugh? If you did, then probably you do not care about your child. If your child comes home one day and says the other kids threatened to kill her, what would you do? Ignore it because they are children? That would be stupidity. Because even children do kill, read the newspaper. I imagine, as a parent who loves her child, you would take steps to insure that your child is safe. The other kids now see you as a meany but you need to protect your child don't you? No one else will if you don't. Who else can she rely on besides you?

Is that so difficult to understand?

What would you do if your child lied to you relentlessly? If your own child harmed others?

Relentlessly, you have accused Russ or myself of asserting that he or I respond with a pretense of having 'divine knowledge' that others do not. In truth Linda, you yourself are the one asserting this 'divine knowledge'. You claim, a loving God would not do the things that are written in the bible. How do you know this? Do you have some sort of divine knowledge of God that the rest of the world is not privy to? Is the bible wrong and you are right?

I assure you, God would do all the things that are written in the bible, and He did do them, and much more. He is still working. Because he loves us, and because he has knowledge of things that we do not. Just like you with your daughter... who would be rather insolent to say to you at the age of 6 or 7, and just wait until she's 11... 'mom, you are a total idiot, I know how to live my life and I will play in the street if I want to..'

That is how you treat God, Linda. Like a 7 year old who thinks they know better. You have to come to terms with fact that God is greater than yourself. You also have to come to terms with the fact that you should not expect God to do the things for you that you should do for yourself. And until that day, you will carry many burdens, including the hatred of God that lives in your heart... hatred like a child for a parent that loves them and is truly looking out for their best interests.

A sad situation. And no matter which way you turn you will never escape it because God is not going anywhere anytime soon even though you deny his existence. Should you die and go to hell, wherever or whatever hell is... I imagine you will also blame God for that. But at some point the realization should come, that it was your choice, because you knew better than God. You despised his 'rules', you despised his love. You believe your understanding is greater than his. So you eat of the wrath of his indignation instead, in fact you run to it even when it is not poured out for you, and say it is proof he doesn't exist or proof that he is venegeful. No, it is only proof you deny him and prefer the rules that you make for yourself and the multitude of ever changing rules that the world has set before you.

God is a consuming fire. A fire to consume every unclean thing that you have set above him in your life. God is holy. A holy fire to consume his enemies and protect those who love him. God is love. A much greater love than you can begin to comprehend.

This is God's world. If you suffer in it, ask why. We live in a very blessed time. a time when just about anyone can simply reach out, in a bookstore of all places, and read the bible at will. It is God's word and you will find every reason for your suffering within it. All of your suffering, it has been suffered before, the bible is full of stories of those who have walked certain ways and suffered before you. The world is not chaos, life is not chaos, neither was it formed from chaos. It is clearly evident. But there is chaos, man himself has created it. But in truth, there are rules, God's rules, which govern the earth, the universe, life. You can choose to abide by God's rules or you can choose chaos and suffer the consequences of it. You will hardly be the first. It has all been written to make your life that much easier to figure out. You can acknowledge the truth of God's word, which you are enormously blessed to have access to unlike so many generations before you, or you can deny it.

But just remember that God is a consuming fire, because God is love, and though he loves you, he also loves his creation as a whole more than any little piece of it.

Personally, I wouldn't get in his way.

There's a big difference here. I don't tell my daughter to smite her enemies and feel free to take their wives and children for herself and her friends. And then later talk about how she should turn the other cheek. Sorry, but I think a Biblical literalist has a big job to do to explain how the God of the Old and New Testaments is consistently the exact same one.

Would you like to explain the other logical inconsistencies I mentioned?

My responses to Linda.

I was hoping we'd stay focused, but you asked a myriad of questions that are all over the place, so please don't blame me for it in the future Linda. I'm only responding to your post.



These posts...

#1

#2



Great. So hopefully we won't have to go around and around in this circle anymore.



No you haven't.

The explanation about signaling molecules has no bearing on symmetry. This is easy to see but again, you have been sucked in by a junk-science argument.



Linda, you seem to have an unending faith in the integrity and intelligence of scientists.

Here are a number of reasons we need to think for ourselves and not blindly accept what so-called experts say. This is important advice so please listen carefully.

(1) The Tomato Effect

(2) Foot x-rays at shoe shops in the 50's

(3) The Nutrasweet coverup (involving a $30,000 bribe and tests on phenylalanine)

(4) Piltdown man

(5) The junk science related to global warming

(6) The deceptive ephedra hearings and subsequent ban (Ephedra Fact and Fiction: How Polit... Rights to Vitamins, Minerals, and Herbs)

(7) Amalgam fillings. The medical literature shows they leech mercury and are dangerous to one's health, but if you sat this to most any dentist, you will end up getting a lecture. I have a number of friends who have been hollered at by dentists simply for suggesting that amalgams may be harmful (as the medical literature says). I've been sharply rebuked and even called names on dental forums for suggesting the same, yet these dentists are "highly-trained", and yes some equally-trained dentists will sharply disagree with their colleagues.

(8) The Government Always Tells the Truth (just for kicks)

I could go on and on but I certainly hope you get the point.

The fundamental idea that you miss about symmetry is this:

If evolution were not a myth, then all fossils would represent transitional forms. Yes, indeed—all fossils represent nothing more than a transition from one form to another.

This being the case, then [color:"brown"]how can nearly all fossils have perfect, complex, frankly overwhelming symmetry if they are indeed only transitional forms?[/color]

Linda, just think about this for a minute. It is a very revealing and telling fact that escapes you just as the tomato effect represents a blindly-accepted lie that endured for many decades.

Symmetry is simply not possible in the myth of evolution. Mutations don't create symmetry. They create moles and cancers.

Please think about this carefully.



Linda, if symmetry is so well explained by signaling molecules, then why do we need another theory for it?

The answer: Simply because honest (with themselves) scientists know that symmetry cannot be explained with signaling molecules.

Also, think about this

Isn't it interesting how these theories that attempt to explain creation continue to "evolve" towards multidimensionalism. Of course, the Bible predicted this thousands of years ago.



Really? And why do you think that is.

According to your logic, all the scientists should agree, but you see Linda, they don't, and my world view—that you continually make fun of—perfectly explains why they don't. This is also perfectly in line with what the Bible predicts in the end time scenario.



It is my opinion that the Bible was written by God through men, and then it was translated by men. There are a few books in the Bible that may be exceptions to this, such as the book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Soloman, which were penned by Soloman and may-or-may-not have been divinely inspired, although they probably are, but I'm not sure about this until I do more study. Nevertheless, they are highly symbolic and intelligent with multiple layers of information... very interesting and educational indeed.

The translation process introduced a few errors here and there which are easily reconcilable by duplicate texts, however, God is the author which explains gematria and prophecy, which are impossible without an external intelligence.

As a side note, I believe the Old and New Testaments were penned with a different kind of Godly inducement because the situation changed, but the result is the same.

You cannot explain Biblical gematria (numerological perfection) and prophecy (predicting the future) in any other way than by an external super-Intelligence.

Finally, despite my desire to delve off the subject, I will answer your queries about the Bible.

Remember, this website you are quoting has been created by a rank amateur that either knows nothing about the Bible or simply desires to create controversy.


GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.

Vengeance is necessary where evil exists.

Do you believe rapists should be punished?

Do you believe murderers should be punished?

This is what God does. He takes vengeance on the wicked (those committing horrible crimes) for the sake of the innocent.

Simple.

EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.

This means different things depending on the context.

For one, it means the same as the previous quote, that God consumes those who destroy the lives of others. This is justice. It means that he is a warrior against those who kill, steal from, and destroy others.

It also means that He—as the consuming fire—purifies us just as fire purifies metal. This is another simple concept that can be gotten from the Book itself, if the author of this website had an ounce of integrity.

EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.

God is jealous for our love as we should be for the love of our spouse. God goes to great lengths to express His love, even to the point of death.

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends."
—John 15:13

LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.

This is a misrepresentation, but then again, what should I expect from a website like the one you linked to.

Murder and killing are two completely different things, and there are a few mistranslations that confuse people.

Murder is illegal and against the law. God never murders. Murder is the taking of a human life when there is no legal justification for it.

Killing is what God does when He is taking vengeance for evils done by a party—when there is legal justification for it. God hates injustice and He will take action when the evils become worthy of it.

God has been wonderful to me but he does not hesitate to give me a swift loving kick when it is for my own good. I end of thanking Him for it.

"Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."
—John 15:2

2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."

These are poetic writings to explain God response to evil. Don't be confused by them. They are not to be taken literally (obviously).

EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."

Another symbolism for God response to rapists and murderers. People like this deserve to be punished.

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

Here is a link that explains these misunderstandings.

Again, if the author of this website had done any research at all, he would not have bothered to post these, but in all likelihood, he hates the Bible for personal reasons and is just bashing it to make himself feel better.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/abebirth.html

GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.

Again, these are the posting of a rank amateur, and your willingness to post them and raise them as "valid" questions demonstrates that you have no knowledge of the Bible, yet you clearly have disdain for it.

[color:"brown"]When someone had disdain for that which they know nothing about, there is a severe bias involved.[/color]

Know thyself.

Here is what is being said which can be easily discovered with a little study.

God does not directly tempt people. He allows the tempter to do that. In fact, this is the job of evil (which I posted in a previous thread pertaining to the purpose of those who hate God); It is their job to test and tempt people.

People get all caught up in the semantics of the wording, but being dumbed down on MSG, mercury, and other excitotoxins, it's easy understand why people may have a hard time.

Think of it this way.

I write computer programs. When I run a program that I wrote that removes spyware from a computer, I will be inclined to say, "I removed all the spyware from your computer".

Technically, I didn't remove all the spyware from the computer, I just ran the program which actually did the work.

In the same way, when God tempts someone, He is not doing the tempting directly. He only allows evil that was created by Him ( as good that turned evil) to do the dirty work, and the key is, this evil is done by the free will of the one doing the direct tempting.

Don't get confused by this as this point is summed up in this:

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
—Romans 8:28

The Bible does not say that all things are good. He says that all things work together for good. There is a significant difference.

The bottom line is this: Even though evil has free will and does what it wants, ultimately good will occur and prevail.

See, not too complicated.

EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.

This is simple.

The Egyptians gave the spoil to Israel of their own freewill. It was a "voluntary" plunder and a symbol for events of the future, but more on that another time.

Again, you're being sucked in by someone who is not being honest with you. Please realize this.



Once again, these are not inconsistencies at all. They are only a symbol of:

(1) Your eager willingness to believe in fairy tails and myths, and

(2) Your refusal to take on any serious study of the Bible, obviously for your own personal purposes or agenda.

Linda,

On both the evolution myth and the Biblical arguments, you are on the wrong side of the fence.

I would strongly encourage you to read the book entitled: Number in Scripture by Bullinger as a starting point to understanding the integrity of the Bible.

I would also view some of the following links to help in understanding both the way the world really works and what the Bible really says.

Please take the time to watch them.

If you have trouble viewing them, just let them run with the volume down for a few minutes while they load (you can do other things on your computer during this time), then rewind them and they will play perfectly.

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Our Solor System

The Government Always Tells the Truth

I don't think you have ever read the bible with complete comprehension, maybe just bits and pieces of it. Because if you had ever read the whole thing, with a clear head, you would know that first off, only when the israelites did not heed fully to God's advice did they begin to encounter problems. When they killed. God did not tell them to kill, they wanted to kill. God told them they were murderous, stiff-necked and hardened. that is what God told them time and again. After the Exodus, within the very first battles where God led the hebrews, with Joshua at the lead of their army, they were told to smite their enemies, in fact to kill all of them and leave not even their cattle alive. They did not do that. They chose instead let some live, take women and children, whatever. After that, God refused to lead them. It was never God's original plan. It was a sequence of events where the hebrews did not do as God wanted them to do, and thus they suffered the consequences, and are still fighting today in the middle east. The entire bible is the story of man's failure time and time again, to heed God's advice. And God trying time and time again to make things right even in the face of their disobedience, faithlessness and selfishness.

God has never been inconsistent, in his love for his people, in his promises. Read the book without hatred in your heart and you might gleen some insight about how man is murderous and inconsistent. God keeps forgiving and keeps trying to make things right.

It's amazing you are a teacher and have never comprehended the main plot. I am glad you don't teach my kid. God only knows what kind of misconstrued lessons she'd learn about anything.

gee whiz... he even sent his son and they killed him.

If you don't get it, Linda, it can only be because you don't want to get it. Because you refuse to understand.

Because even an idiot with a desire to understand can understand it.

SoSick wrote:


Yep. You're right, Russ. There's definitely content there!

peck peck peck.

Very coy Pwcca, put it in quotations and say I said that. Gosh, how clever.

Idiots do exist you know. If you'd like to take yourself down to that level you are welcome.

You appear to be in the process of it anyway. If Linda were an idiot I wouldn't have had to say she has the ability to comprehend. You'll notice, I never said that to you. Linda can probably also do without your public ministrations of lowly behavior as an attempt to defend her. It isn't helping.

God is real and you just cannot stand the idea of it can you?

Sorry, but we all don't have to bow down to you. You will simply have to accept that no matter what your chicken gizzards and horoscope say today.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/phcnlueqdb.gif">

la la la la la la la....

feel free to hum along...

God is

good.

Russ, all I can gather from the links you gave here was that you do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Three questions then:

So how old is it?

Why do you persist in posting things from YECs like Hovind when you do not agree with them?

And if the Bible is a scientific document, then why are you at odds with your own leaders about what its "science" actually says? Do you think Hovind, after listening to your reasons for why the earth is older than 6,000 years -- even if you base them on nothing but the Bible -- is going to thank you for showing him the error of his ways? Are creationists supposed to pick and choose which parts of the creationist dogma of their leaders they would like to follow? You are sounding a lot like Glenn Morton. You probably would be interested in his website. I think you would find you have a lot in common.

Here again we have the same statements: you don't believe bilateral symmetry could have evolved. And you claim that because conspiracies exist, science has to be a conspiracy as well. I don't actually see any facts here.

I don't have a need to believe that the world poofed into existence, so I don't see why it is so implausible that the mechanism I described for symmetry could have evolved. I think Sheldrake's morphic field idea could fit in with it very well. Does the fact that someone proposed morphic fields mean that all the ideas that have gone before it are invalidated, or that the very premise of all these ideas is invalidated? No. Like I said, the only people who tend to doubt evolution are creationists. However, it would be silly to say that we have all the answers about how it works. And because we don't have all the answers, does that mean it is false? Of course not. I think it's hard to get around the fact that there is clear evidence that organisms have lived and changed on the earth for billions of years. The sorts of hoaxes like Piltdown man that creationists like to cite are a handful of samples, and the hoaxes were debunked by scientists. It is illogical wishful thinking to say that the millions of other fossils that have been found are also hoaxes, that scientists have covered them up instead of validating them through various kinds of testing, and that science is all a big conspiracy. If that really is how you think then I don't suppose I'm going to change your mind about that but it seems a little far-removed from reality, especially since presumably you accept at least some of the evidence for an old earth. Why else pick out a part of the Bible that you think proves this, rather than just toe the creationist line along with all your leaders?

I've said elsewhere that all creatures -- not just fossils -- are transitional forms, because evolution does not stop. We ourselves are transitional forms, though how lifestyles and science are going to shape this in years to come is anyone's guess. Why do so many fossils exhibit symmetry? Because it evolved very early in the history of life. Why do so many creatures also have eyes, mouths, limbs? They evolved early because they were very useful adaptations. Mutations that wiped these characteristics out in most cases also killed the organisms and so those characteristics were not passed on. And again, I think morphic fields could come into play too, though they are not needed as such to add any "plausibility" to existing theories.

Mutations do not just create moles and cancers. Really Russ, these are basic things we're talking about here. How often do you accuse me of talking from ignorance? Please, if you're going to argue against the ToE, at least learn about what it is you are arguing against. Go to TalkOrigins. Explain here why you disagree with it if you want, but let your aguments be educated ones.

Into your comments about the Bible, what I'm mainly interested in is this idea that it is a scientific document straight from God. OK you've got around some problems by saying it was written through men, who could have introduced the errors. I'm not sure, though, what you mean by saying:


What result?

I've got a Bible next to me that is 125 years old. We have newer ones but I like the language in this one. However when I open it and look at the Old Testament, I see God condoning the killing of thousands upon thousands of people, either because they have "sinned" or because they were the enemies of his chosen people. Heck, almost every living thing on earth gets wiped out in the flood. This is justice is it? If you sin you get killed or sent to hell? All I see here is rule through fear and punishment, and those not among the "chosen" had better watch out. It's justification enough for religious crusades isn't it, so why do you think there aren't more of them today?

The sort of Catholocism that my family practiced was based more on the New Testament. A little love and forgiveness go a long way.

But really, if you think about it, this is all pretty incomprehensible if you see God as truly omniscient. He knows before you are born what is going to happen to you. He knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. He knows what sins you will commit and how you will or will not be punished for it. Why would he bring so many people into the world whom he knows are going to be wicked? And why then would he wipe them out, say, in a flood? Isn't there an element of futility here somewhere? Why, also, bring "infidels" into being who are going to get slaughtered by the Israelites, who are the only chosen people? Goodness me, I'm glad God seems to have decided to stop killing and cursing non-Israelis, or a lot of us would be in trouble.

Anyway, this is all beside the point. I'd like you to explain, if you would, what your creation ideology actually is, how old you think the earth is, and your reasons for this.

big deal.


yep, justice. Did you read the part where God sais he grieved he had done it? I guess not. But for you, maybe you will die of some terrible terrible plague spread via vaccines or chemtrails. Watch your daughter die too. And for your sake, God willl not stop the perpetrators or kill them for your sake, so you can suffer at their hands. Sounds like a plan. A plan for people like you who know better than God.

You see fear and punishment because you are an enemy of God. If you had read the darn 125 year old bible instead of just fawning over it all day you would have noticed how many times God punished his own people, more so than the others. Most of the crusaders of the 11th century or so had never read the bible. They were taught by the Catholic chuch, a lot like you. You seem to have a lot in common with them. Are you going on a crusade soon?


could have fooled me.


every single wicked person, that's everyone far as I know... has a lifetime to do one little thing... just one little thing is all God asks... repent and ask forgiveness. I guess you missed that part in your love and forgiveness new testament upbringing. How can it be?

We must have 2 very different bibles. mine is mostly a story about the Jewish people, going into slavery coming out of slavery going into slavery coming out of slavery going into slavery coming out of slavery ... how come yours is full of so much information about other cultures? Are you sure that is not a quran you've got over there?