News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

The cost of Evolution, and other things.


As I'm sure you're all aware, this past Saturday and Sunday gunmen took the opportunity to kill persons attending Christian church facilities in Denver and Colorado Springs Co, in the USA.

One of the gunmen killed in theses attacks had maintained a web blog wherein he made statements along the lines of "These Christians are responsible for all the problems in the world" along with "Ted Haggard (the previous pastor of one of the churches) was my mother's favorite pastor".

One might take a closer look at his statement ('These Christians are responsible for all the problems in the world'), because there may be some truth to it. Not that Christians of any sort could possibly be responsible for all the world's ills, because all sorts of people do contribute to issues. But I'd like to just focus briefly on this one incident.

Ted Haggard was accused last year of buying drugs from and having a relationship with an openly admitted homosexual prostitute. Mr Haggard did actually admit to some of the allegations. His church leadership and his own congregation subsequently asked him to relinquish his pastoral duties. They did not approve of his exposed conduct, this church and it's membership stand opposed to things such as homosexuality, and teach a more literal view of the bible. That God created the world, that he created man, and that homosexuality is sinful.

Yet, the gunman who left the weblog and obviously felt slighted by Mr Haggard's behavior, felt it was necessary to kill members of Mr Haggard's church, who in reality, did not support their previous pastor's actions. The gunman seemed to have been equating people like Mr Haggard (and we can only assume his alleged behavior takes top rank here) with Christians causing all the world's ills.

In reality, which so-called Christians, and others, do support the type of behavior that caused this young man so much distress? Christians who support homosexuality? Who are they? Other people support this behavior as well, a good portion of them are not Christians at all. Is it unjust to say that a good portion of 'Christians', and others, who support homosexuality also support non-biblical teachings such as evolution? As one of our friendly online comrades has pointed out to us, these two do seem to be inexplicably tied. As evidence, she gave us this link ( http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
) to an online petition of so-called Christian churches (though many Christians would argue a good portion of those named within are not Christian churches) desiring to support the teaching of evolution as scientific fact in favor of the biblical view that God spoke this world into existence and formed it's creatures, the biblical view of creation. Most of the churches named in the petition also favor same sex marriage or relations in some form or another.

What is it that drove this young man to kill? Confusion? Hurt? A sense of injustice, disillusion or hypocrisy? Perhaps. But it is clear from his statements also, that although Ted Haggard may have for a moment for him, encapsulated or symbolised all of the wrong doings that Christians could possibly commit and all of the world's ills, it's also clear the young gunman, in his distress and confusion, probably targeted the wrong audience. There is no doubt that the members of the church that he chose to attack, have all been equally as hurt as he appeared to have been by Mr Haggard's actions, and that they did not support their pastor.

. . . Or maybe he just flipped out. These gunmen are almost always on psych drugs. They might blame anyone for their actions, even the tooth fairy, but they're not in their right minds. Shootings like this were very rare before the era of psychopharmacology.

What on earth has this got to do with evolution? Is it now going to be blamed for all the evils of the world? It's a scientific model of how life works. The only morals attached to it are the ones superimposed by people who want to twist it to support their own ideologies.

I'm new here, so you will forgive me if I only post on a few threads, and only reply to the first response to my post (if you feel you have an important point that is not covered you can reply to a later post)

Can you explain how there is a link between these killings and teaching evolution?

It seems relatively irrelevant to me.

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. (1)

Enjoy.

(1) - see this link for the university of michigan definition

The problem with deception is that it is so often based in redefining basic terms so as to coerce a conclusion.

For example, evolution was taught to me in school as rock-to-cell and then cell-to-man evolution. As this became clearly absurd (to many academics at least), the definition of evolution changed. Not only that, but processes within the theory changed as well, like abrupt appearance; This being nothing more than an attempt to explain away deficiencies in earlier parts of the theory.

Today, even though rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution continue to be taught to children the world over, the "new" definition is the most watered down version yet.

"Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."

I say this to make sure we're always talking about the same thing because so often discussions like this devolve into a mass of misunderstandings because no definitions have been established.

Nevertheless, the best I can do to respond to your question is to repost a previous statement that I made.

In this light, I believe it's important to realize that there is an inherent system of morality in any belief system, and this is no more true anywhere than in the theory of evolution.

My contention in this regard is that concepts like "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" justify social behavior that end in killing, lying, or other harmful behaviors.


[color:"brown"]Following is the post I made reference to...[/color]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, a pearl of a post, Russ. I especially liked how you began:

[quote]The problem with deception is that it is so often based in redefining basic terms so as to coerce a conclusion./quote]

I'm printing that out and putting it on the refrigerator. lol <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for the reply Russ. You say:I note several things about your post:

First, that I gave a link to a website by the University of Michigan that supplies a definition of evolution as it is taught in earning a degree in evolutionary biology at that university, and it does not talk about "rocks to cell" or "cell to man" as being part of the theory of evolution or the definition of the process of evolution, rather it is evidence of natural history that is explained by evolution.

Second, I don't see you showing that my definition is false.

Third, my definition complies with Darwin's original statement of evolution being descent with modification, but it provides more information rather than any changes.

Fourth, my definition also complies with the “modern synthesis” which was made between 1936-1947: Fifth, you pasted a document that is really just irrelevant to the issue of kids shooting people because they were taught evolution. Nor does it provide a definition of evolution to show a contrast to my definition.

Finally, I don't see you explaining how teaching evolution by either my definition (or the one in the University of Michigan or Darwin's or the Modern Synthesis version), would result in kids shooting people in the opening post. Presumably these kids today would be taught a theory of evolution similar to one of these, even if the definition had changed in your life-time and is now “watered down.”

The point of the thread is that teaching the theory of evolution today would result in kids shooting people. That would necessarily use definitions of evolution and the theory of evolution that are in use today within the science of evolutionary biology.

Frankly I just don't see how this follows and ask for clarification.

A logical deduction based on premises starting with “Evolution is ... (insert your version if you want)” and leading by sound valid argument to “Teaching kids evolution will drive them to kill people” is the kind of thing I am looking for.

Please address the point.

This is my understanding of what evolution (not the theory but the process) involves, including recent research from 'evo/devo' on the formation of phenotypes with the modern synthesis of genetics with classical Darwinism.

You have your understanding of what evolution is, and it seems clear that both cannot be true. We can test our understanding against the evidence of reality and see which one is true.

Can you clearly state what you think the definition of “evolution” is (the process not the theory) so we can test each others definition against the facts to see which is true?

Perhaps we will find out who is trying to change the definition of evolution in the process.

Enjoy.

With evolution comes the breaking down of long accepted fundamental Christian principles. When Christians themselves are deceived enough to believe the world's lies, and begin acting in ways that might otherwise be acceptable for non-Christians, they are seen as hypocrites. Any slight wrong doing by a Christian, that might otherwise be acceptable, overlooked or brushed under the rug for non-Christians, is duly emphasied and shouted from the rooftops by those who would wish to defame the Christian or Christianity.

Evolution is the epitomy of the refutation of creation. It enhances any imaginable idea that opposes the supremacy of God; as the creator of this world, the life in it, and His laws which ideally sustain it. Evolution is godless, no god required, no laws of God to keep. The acceptance of evolution as scientific fact creates a social atmosphere which thus permits and even encourages a laughing mockery of those who believe in Christian-Judeo beliefs and values. Evolution teaches that creation is nonsense, a myth, a story without any truth.

When children are taught Christian values, and then, as they grow older, begin to see adults engaging in behaviors that are directly opposite to the values that those adults taught them as children, they often become disillusioned. Their emotions are seered with the knowledge and awareness of the hypocrisy of those who raised them, and they often encounter emotional turbulence within themselves as a result. Hatred, distrust, disgust, depending on the degree. Most of us have experienced this at some time in some form or another. They are emotions we all know to some degree, Christian or otherwise.

The bible opens with the passage "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Evolution teaches that God did not create the heaven and the earth. You cannot have both, any individual must choose which one he will believe or believe neither. When a Christian promotes the teachings of evolution, he is engaging in the behavior of the hypocrite. He cannnot carry a bible, say he believes it is God's word, and then simply proceed to promote evolution. There is a conflict here. Either he truly believes it is God's word or he just likes to carry the book around for appearances sake. If he does not believe that God created the heaven and the earth, then there is no question that he does not truly believe that the bible is the word of God, and likewise does not believe in the God of the bible. Logically then, a person who claims to be a 'Christian' yet promotes evolution is more than a hypocrite. He is a liar. To be a Christian, it is presumed you are a follower of Christ, Jesus. To be a follower of Christ it is presumed you believe that Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the father. If a person does not believe in God, they logically cannot be a Christian because it is impossible to truly believe in the son of God without God. This is deception.

When this deception, that a christian can promote the teachings of evolution, is accepted without examination of the fundamental lack of logic that otherwise supports the Christian belief system that this requires, the door is opened for further deception. If a person accepts one deception without question, he will accept another and another, endlessly as his emotions and deception accepting intellect permit. One person may bawk at certain deceptive twists of otherwise sound ideas, while another may choose to allow them all without question. The possibilities become endless, it is up to the individual to decide which ideas to permit and which ideas to disallow. The Christian standard is thus lost. Other standards are likewise jeopordized the same way, even if unrelated to christianity; deception will always proceed in the same manner given a subject to work with. Once deception is accepted in one form, it is allowable in any other. Evolution as an idea, does not actually threaten christianity, because logically they cannot coexist. Either God created the world or he didn't. There isn't much room for argument. However, the person who claims to accept both as coexistant principles, is either, decieved by the deception due to lack of ability to apply basic logic to his own life, values, and beliefs, or he is a deceiver, a knowing and willing practicer of and participant in the deception. He cannot be both, he must be one or the other.

When a person or persons sharing the same perceived beliefs are perceived as hypocrites in a hypocritical society which enables and encourages the belief in two opposing beliefs such as christianity and evolution, you'll also notice he often becomes the scapegoat of accusations which include the phrase 'people like you'. It is a generalization which now equates Christianity with hypocrisy. It is usually applied as a means of defining moral hypocrisy. People like you, who lie; because the bible says one thing and you do another. The same phrase can be applied various different ways to various types of hypocritical behavior. It can apply to the banker or watcher of your funds found guilty of theft; people like you, who (should guard our money) steal. It can be applied the mother who mistreats her children; people like you who (should care about children) hurt children. It can be applied to the judge or police officer found guilty of taking bribes; people like you who (we should trust) are not trustworthy. The statement itself implies the perception that there is much of 'it' around. However, it also implies perfection and restraint from hypocrisy on the part of the person who made the statement. Bad people like you are not good people like me. Deception requires an attitude of innocence from deception in order to succeed.

Any Christian who promotes non-biblical teachings is in a hypocritical position of people like you. In a society which encourages and demands the coexistance of two opposing ideals or belief systems, a society which demands deception be allowed to flourish, such as within certain 'Christian' circles that promote the teaching of the theory of evolution, we should not be surprised to find deception at many other levels as well, within the society and within the personal lives of individuals. Deception has been accepted as the norm. Ideally, opposites can now peacefully coexist. Marriage can be defined in any manner and still be blessed by the non-existent creator god. Prayers can be said and the non-existent creator god will hear. The church can set up it's alter and go through the paces of it's age old rituals and masses and the non-existent creator god will be present. The church can pass it's offering basket and people will give their money and the non-existent creator god will bless them for giving. Baptisms are performed in the name of the non-existent creator god. People are saved and promised a place in heaven with the non-existent creator god. The problem with all of this is that the deception is so apparent and illogical that most 8 years olds begin asking the serious questions their parents pretend don't exist.

Come along a disturbed youth. Or perhaps a not so disturbed youth, perhaps a youth with eyes to see but not much moral backbone to logically and morally resolve the deceptive situation he rightfully perceives he is in. A youth that has grown up in a hypocritical deceptive society. A society that teaches and accepts immorality. A society that dumbs-down it's children in an attempt to avoid intelligent logical questions. A society where all Christians are labeled as hypocrites because of the deceptive behavior and teachings of some Christians, who knowingly are deceptive when they call themselves Christians. They are not Christians, they are wolves in sheep's clothing set about to attempt to create dissention among Christians, to carry those who will be easily tempted away with illogical teachings, and to cause confusion concerning Christians among the non-Christian rest.

The young gunman is not entirely incorrect in saying "Christians cause all the problems in the world". But he has confused Christians with hypocrites. Many who call themselves Christian are hypocrites, and hypocrites do cause a great majority of problems in the world, out of greed and selfishness, double standards, saying one thing but doing another, setting one rule for themselves and another for others, taking advantage of other people, deceiving, hurting, maiming, killing to 'get'. He may have been deceived into believing for a time that God himself could coexist with a non-existent creator above him. He may have been taught one thing in church and another in school and expected to somehow balance both himself. He was most obviously angry at Christians for their hypocrisy and deception, even if only perceived. Angry enough to kill. Empty enough to kill. But not smart enough to realize the Christians he pointed the gun at were not the deceivers that fed him the lies that fueled his anger. They are the ones who take the heat for fighting against it. They carry the burden of it, the burden of a deceptive hypocritical society that even often requires them to honor its standards while holding their own, unless of course, they be labeled intolerant hypocrites.


These are your Christian hypocrites:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

They have been generous enough to list themselves publicly in one place. Please applaude them for their great works. May their non-existent creator god continue to bless them abundantly. With him, they have achieved great spiritual and intellectual perfection.

Thank you sosick. A sobering post for sure. What a sad commentary, but an unfortunate reality.

So what is your definition of evolution SoSick? Do you agree with RAZD's or do you have your own?

As I said earlier, evolution is a model for how life works, and it's the model that best fits the evidence. It does not explain how life began, which is addressed by the theory of abiogenesis. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that requires a person to reject God or indeed morality. (The question of whether people can have morals without religion is also one I feel strongly about and can perhaps be addressed later.) Many scientists do believe that God created the universe. The method he uses for continual creation is evolution. You and Russ set up a false dichotomy by claiming that you must choose either evolution or the Bible because neither is compatible with the other. This is only the case if you choose to believe the Bible word-for-word as a scientific text, which the vast majority of Christians do not.

Thank you for responding SoSick.


Yet there are christians and people of many other faiths that don't have a problem with evolution. This tells me that it is not christianity per se that is “broken down' by teaching scientific truths. Perhaps it is your interpretation of christianity that is at fault.


Ah, so any christian that disagrees with you is by your definition not a true christian and they - and all people not of your particular faith - can be ignored. You can use the same logic to prove that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe or that pink unicorns are responsible for gravity.


Not in my belief. I am a deist and so I believe that evolution is the process that is set in place, that the evolution of life is an affirmation of that creation. I, and my belief, are not alone in this, and this tells me that it is not evolution per se that is the culprit.


Strangely I, and many others, don't have that problem. Therefore your conclusion is false.


Sorry this is not a logical argument, it is just running at the mouth against the evils of evolution, which you have falsely redefined to be something evil. It also leaps to your conclusion at the beginning and is begging the question. This is a logical fallacy.

Evolution is just another scientific truth, like gravity and the age of the earth. It involves theory based on observation and facts, evidence of life evolving. Evolution is just the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

How does teaching scientific truth lead to immoral behavior? Science is amoral and agnostic. Belief and faith are different dimensions to being, and morality and faith are not taught in science nor affected by the teaching of scientific truths.

You have not presented an argument that goes from:

Evolution is .... (insert definition of the process of evolution)

to

Therefore teaching evolution will necessarily drive kids to kill.

Please address the issue.

Enjoy.

You didn't give me one to insert. You have to choose one for me don't you? .


Thanks, have a nice day.

hope that helps.

Why did Jesus spit in the mud and put it on the blind man's eyes to heal him?

Tell me, I want to know.

I agree there appears to be no connection between this insane act and evolution.

You are correct. There is no connection beteen Christianity and evolution.

Where is Buddha buried?

What is the sound of two dead hands clapping?

Do you prefer to play fill in the blanks or tic tac toe? Do you like to play Yatzee?

Thank you, SoSick, for taking the time to answer my post.

Actually, because it is your argument it is therefore necessarily based on what your understanding of evolution was before I answered. If you don't have one I can understand why you might be confused.

In fact there are several reasons that many people are confused, and part of this is caused by using “evolution” to mean several things. From the dictionary we get:

Definition 1 is the original usage and it was applied to embryology by scientists, including Haeckel and his critics, to describe fetal development, and before it was applied to Darwinism. Darwin never used evolution IIRC. Definition 3 is obviously the one that would apply today to biological life, with 3a being applied at the microevolution scale and 3b being applied at the macroevolution scale.

This is the definition of evolution as a process, something that happens and that can be observed happening or to have happened (ie instances of evolution that are a fact).

But evolution is also a theory and a science, and it is easy to muddle the three together when one is not being careful, and this results in careless equivocation between the meanings. This is another reason I asked for your definition, to make sure we were talking about the same evolution (I hold scientists and the media responsible for not paying more attention to this part of the problem).

To clarify what I mean, I use “evolution” for the process (through the action of any of several mechanisms, including mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and epigenetic factors), I use “the theory of evolution” or “ToE” to talk about the theory, and I use “evolutionary biology” to talk about the science that studies evolution (the process), tests the ToE, makes predictions, and studies the theories (based on evidence) for different mechanisms that cause or modify evolution, and that tests the overall theory with the natural history of the diversity of life that we know from the present day, history, the fossil record and genetics.

Perhaps that will help you formulate how to express your understanding of evolution as used in your initial essay, perhaps not.

For instance, are you talking about teaching evolutionary biology, the study of the changes in life, or are you talking about teaching about the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation?

I will take the rest of your post as agreement that your second post did not answer the question I had about your first post. Thank you.

The place to start is with your definition of evolution that the argument was based on, and then develop the logic to the necessary result in these killings.

If you don't have a valid and sound logical argument, then I think an apology posted for the readers of this thread would be in order, don't you?

Enjoy.

Actuallly it is not my argument.

but you seem to desire to make an argument of it.

if you read the post it's about deceptive churches who support evolution and the issues that causes.

It actually a thread more about ethics.

any definition of evolution will work, just go ahead and pop one of your favorites in there, doesn't make any difference.

it makes you look really smart by the way.

I notice you were not able to answer the question about where Buddha is buried.

Let's try this again. It's not that complicated.

Answer me this:

Do you believe that cells evolved into mankind?


Let me refresh your memory.


The problem with deception is that it is so often based in redefining basic terms so as to coerce a conclusion.

For example, evolution was taught to me in school as rock-to-cell and then cell-to-man evolution. As this became clearly absurd (to many academics at least), the definition of evolution changed. Not only that, but processes within the theory changed as well, like abrupt appearance; This being nothing more than an attempt to explain away deficiencies in earlier parts of the theory.

Today, even though rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution continue to be taught to children the world over, the "new" definition is the most watered down version yet.

"Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."

I say this to make sure we're always talking about the same thing because so often discussions like this devolve into a mass of misunderstandings because no definitions have been established.

Nevertheless, the best I can do to respond to your question is to repost a previous statement that I made.

In this light, I believe it's important to realize that there is an inherent system of morality in any belief system, and this is no more true anywhere than in the theory of evolution.

My contention in this regard is that concepts like "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" justify social behavior that end in killing, lying, or other harmful behaviors.


[color:"brown"]Following is the post I made reference to...[/color]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



[color:"brown"]And this for our new friends, via Linda.[/color]

I thought I would make an addendum to my previous post to help people understand the fundamental problems evolution has in dealing with symmetry.

There is no good argument to explain how an organism can evolve, and this problem is no more apparent than when you deal with the problem of symmetry. Simply put: How do we explain the idea that organisms can become perfectly symmetrical through mutations?

The concept of "cell-to-man" evolution involves the idea that small changes over a long period of time eventually caused the development of extremely complex structures, or machines. This idea has serious fundamental problems explaining the development of the eye, for example.

The eye consists of many parts that work together. There are rods and cones that detect light. There is a lens that focuses the light onto the rods and cones. There are muscles and an iris that control the amount of light that reaches the rods and cones. There is a nerve that connects to the rods and cones to carry the electrical signals that they generate to the brain. There are muscles that allow us to quickly position our eyes in sync with each other so they can provide stereoscopic vision. There is also an inner fluid and a cleaning system, plus a wiper system that lubricates and cleans the eyes, not to mention a myriad of other parts that enable the eye to work.

Now, if most any of these parts were missing, the eye would not function and would be basically useless.

For example, if the eye did not contain rods and cones, there would be no way for the eye to convert light into electrical signals for the optic nerve to carry to the brain. If there was no lens, there would be no mechanism for focusing the incoming light. Without the optic nerve, there would be no pathway for the electrical signals generated by the rods and cones to make it to the proper area of the brain. In fact, if nearly any single primary part of the eye were missing, it would be basically useless and would only be another body part that the rest of the body is burdened with nourishing and supporting with no benefit to the host organism.

This concept--that no single primary part can be removed and still allow the system to work--is called "Irreducible Complexity". In simple terms, you cannot reduce the complexity of the system and have the system still be useful. All (or most) of the individual parts are necessary for the whole to function.

Evolution teaches that small mutations caused extremely complex systems--such as the eye-- to form over long periods of time. These mutations, when they were beneficial to the organism, were somehow "remembered" in the organism's DNA to be passed along to its offspring.

When you consider the eye, it's impossible to form any single component of the eye and call it "beneficial" over a long period of time.

For example, let's say a single rod formed that detects light and converts it into electrical signals. (Of course, this formation of a rod would be a miraculous task considering the sheer complexity of one of these devices. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument we will continue.)

Without an optic nerve, there is no place for the rod to send its electrical signals. Without interocular fluid (the fluid inside the eyeball) and the outer structure of the eye, there would be no protection for this delicate component of the "future" eye.

Because this complex component has no useful function, it would only be about as useful to the organism it is attached to as a mole. Since evolution states that useless parts are burdens to the host organism and that these organisms that have these burdens die off as part of natural selection, then how could evolution ever get an eye to form when hundreds of other extremely complex structures have to form to make this rod functional. Again, without nearly all of the parts of the eye, most any individual component would be a harmful mutation and causes the organism to be at a disadvantage and to die off through natural selection.

Just to dig a little deeper, we have to consider how intricate and mind-bogglingly complex a single rod is. The internal structure and the way it converts light into electrical signals that are perfectly calibrated to be understood by the brain is a miraculous feat indeed.

Not only this, but the way rods are connected to the optic nerve and to the structures around it would be considered a feat of engineering genius by today's standards.

Now add to this the eye's structure, a fluid and fluid pressure regulation mechanism, a lens assembly, a cornea, the eye's "windshield wiper" (the eyelid), the lubrication system, the optic nerve, and countless other parts that make the eye functional.

Furthermore, consider that evolution claims that two eyes formed in perfect symmetry and that the muscles and the complex mechanisms in the brain that enable stereoscopic vision all came together in perfect harmony as if designed by a master craftsman using technology far beyond what mankind is capable of today. Even the simplest cell is a sophisticated machine that rivals the capability of modern technology.

When you put these facts together and look at the human eye as a whole (or even in parts down to the cellular level) the sheer engineering and design complexity of this system makes it difficult if not impossible for any logically-minded human to imagine that this type of structure could form by itself from small changes over time. When you add to this that evolutionary theory itself states that non-beneficial parts are eliminated by the die off of the organism, you can clearly see how evolutionary theory contradicts even our own clearly visible observations about the eye.

Now let's take a look at the fundamental faults in the explanation given for the symmetrical formation of the eye in one of the previous posts. This explanation states that signaling molecules were used to carry information between the two structures to aid in their synchronous design.

I already explained how this claim makes the overall feasibility of the formation of the eye even less reasonable because of its increased complexity, but it may be unclear to some why increased complexity reduces the likelihood of speculated evolutionary processes.

We must first realize that the formation of complex structures--such as human cells--through mutation is astronomically low, but without going into the math involved (you can easily find these calculations on the Internet), we will explain why increased complexity depletes this virtual impossibility further.

To understand this, we must first grasp some fundamentals.

First, we have to understand that all structures in the universe (as far as science currently knows) act in a predictable (repeatable) way under a given set of conditions. In other words, all matter and energy follow a set of rules. The purpose of science is to discover these rules.

For example, we know that atoms may contain an electrical charge. We know that there is a rule stating that atoms with opposite charges attract one another just as the opposite poles of a magnet attract each other. This attraction under these conditions is a rule. In this particular case, it is a well-known and scientifically sound rule.

Now that we know how this rule works, we can utilize it for our own purposes. For example, we may design and build an electrostatic air purifier that uses this rule to clean our air.

To further understand how the universe works, we need to understand that there are design patterns that occur.

One design pattern that we find involves "layering".

Layering is the concept of placing a set of rules in a "box" and combining it with another "box" to achieve a desired outcome.

For example, we might combine the rule that charged particles attract one another with the idea that clean air improves human health and derive the following "derived" rule:

Ionic air filtration improves health.

This becomes true now because of the combination of more than one rule to create another "higher-level" rule.

This layering of rules is used in human engineering of all kinds.

For example, computer programming has a "low-level" set of rules that define how numbers in computer memory affect the microprocessor (or CPU). This is called "machine language".

A higher set of rules define how a C-language compiler takes commands that were typed in using the C language "syntax" (rules) and converts them to low-level machine language.

An even higher set of rules define how a PERL-language compiler takes commands that were typed in using the PERL-language "syntax" (rules) and converts them into machine language using the C-language syntax (rules) in the interim.

This layering is a useful and universally-employed method of managing complexity throughout man-made technological systems, whether it be electronics, software, or other types of engineering.

Not ironically, we see this same method of managing complexity in design patterns found in nature.

For example, we see physics, where charged particles participate in chemical reactions according to rules of chemistry. This happens in mystical complexity inside individual cells of the liver. The liver--being made up of many of these cells--provides well-defined functionality within the body, but this functionality, that is, the rules it follows, are ultimately defined by the processes that take place in the individual cells which is ultimately defined by molecular chemistry.

So you see a complex chain of ever-decreasing complexity as you move down into each deeper set of rules.

In working to understand our universe, we are really attempting to be able to predict the future. How? We are trying to learn more of the rules of "nature" so we can predict how they will react under certain conditions... in the future.

This knowledge of these rules allows us to design buildings and computers and cell phones.

For example, we might build up silicone-based physics (rules) to make a transistor. We build upon the operating rules of the transistor to make an integrated circuit. We build upon the rule set of the integrated circuit (defined in the IC's "data sheet") to make a circuit board. We build upon the proprietary rule set of the circuit board to make a cell phone. We build upon the well-defined rule set of the cell phone to make a call, which communicates through a network of technologies all based on rules (in communications, these rules are call protocols).

Because the work of science is to discover these rules (usually so we can put them to use for our own purposes), we must discover and catalog the rules beginning with the most simple rules and progressing up to the more complex ones.

For example, if we discover a repeatable (predictable) rule that says that a magnetic field will actually move electrons through a conductor, then we have the knowledge we need to build a generator.

If we now discover another rule that states that electricity changing direction in a wire (called "alternating current") produces a magnetic field, we now have the knowledge we need to build a transformer.

If we combine the rules related to transformers with numerous other rules related to electronic components, we can eventually build a radio, and then a cell phone.

The point here is that the continued discovery of rules that build upon previously-discovered rules enables us to control more and more physical attributes of our universe. For example, using a cell phone, your voice can be heard clearly thousands of miles away.

As science discovers more and more rules, we have to remember that each of those rules are based on previously known rules until we reach a point that we discover a set of rules in which we don't understand why the rule works the way it does. Nevertheless, we can still utilize the rule because it is predictable.

This set of rules we are amassing in science is a continuous chain that begins with the most simple, low-level, fundamental rule to increasingly complex rules based on all the rules below them.

Evolution is not exempt from this requirement if it is to be accepted as a viable rule set.

To explain this more clearly, evolution should--if it is true--lead us down an unbroken path of ever more simple low-level rules until we reach rules that we know are true. As we test the predictability of each successive rule, we can then test the next lower--more simple--rule in the chain until we reach a point where we have proven that evolution is predictable (repeatable).

For this reason, it is not logical or even useful to explain a theory by expecting that the rules that govern one of its subprocesses will be more complex than the theory itself. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is taking place by attempting to explain theoretical evolutionary symmetry with signaling molecules. In this explanation, you are explaining a subprocess (rule set) using a process (rule set) that is more complex than the process in question.

Although in nature there are processes that enable other processes, and in some cases the dependent processes are more complex than the original process, in this case, the proposed process (signaling molecules) that supposedly enables the process in question (eye formation) is so vastly complex, irreducibly complex, and disconnected yet interface-able (contains very complex disconnected parts working together and communicating with each other) that it cannot be explained as being formed through known natural processes at any level.

The roulette wheel issue clearly comes into play here.

It must be realized that the chances for hitting any "beneficial" number on the wheel this size are astronomically small, and when you combine this with the fact that a huge number of successive numbers would have to be "hit" in order to form something complex that would be a workable complex machine, the probability of this complex machine forming through natural processes spins down firmly into practical impossibility.

The most commonly overlooked factor in this diminishing probability is the fact that, each time the roulette wheel is spun, there is the same astronomically-low chance that it will hit a "beneficial" number. Most evolutionists fall into the same trap as a Las Vegas vacationer by falsely believing that the second time the wheel is spun, the better the chance that a "beneficial" number will be hit. Any statistician will gladly admit that this simply isn't true, although every casino firmly counts on humans to falsely believe that it is true.

So again, combine this with the probability that a "beneficial" number will hit twice, three, or twenty-thousand times in a row, and probability moves multiplicatively towards the negative and quickly takes on exponents in the negative-tens (10^-27 is one mathematician's estimate).

If there is some attempt at an explanation for the formation (evolution) of this signaling molecule system available, it would make for good entertainment as evolutionists that create these theories in an attempt to solve an ever-deepening pit of illogic dig some of the most interesting, fanatical, and unscientific holes that have ever been created.

The net result here is a man-made religion that requires so much speculation and faith in spectacularly improbable events that any logically-minded person would be ashamed to be associated with it. However, the incessant promotion of the misrepresentation that "most" scientists believe evolution plays upon the human tendency to follow and the inability for "most" to accept a very real scientific fraud, so these persons choose to accept the more emotionally-comfortable and socially-safe notion that extremely-complex machines form out of rocks given enough time so they can bask in the mass-media-created perception that there is safety in numbers ("I won't look so dumb if it turns out to be false because everybody else believes it too.").

When we see this type of (ill)logic being employed, it should send flags up that someone is trying to tie our logic up in a loop. They are not moving to connect the chain of ever more simple rules to known processes, but instead, they are attempting to confuse an issue and/or render it as an unsolvable problem.

The prudent person should continue asking "how" to these continued mazes of explanations until they can tie a process to a known and well-established process. Of course, moving backward in this chain only makes explanations more difficult and are a symptom of an attempt to confuse an issue rather than to solve it.

Again, this all comes down to political maneuvering and not a process of scientific discovery... a common debate tactic that attempts to prolong the debate rather than breaking it down to its component parts. This tactic is common in politics and among sociopaths.

For example, someone might ask why a senator voted a certain way on an issue. If there is some special interest at work that the senator does not want you to know about, they may claim that the issue is complicated in an effort to prevent ever having to explain it to you.

When we look at the explanation of symmetry as being a system of molecular messaging that is more complex than the eye itself, we have to conclude that someone is not interested in allowing us to find the connection between rules governing evolutionary theory and the simpler lower-level rules that are already established. Instead, they are interested in sending us in the other direction; the direction of complexity.

Nevertheless, if we are to play the game and continue to follow the evolutionary line of logic that signaling molecules coordinated the synchronous design of complex components (such as the eye), then the next logical question is:

How did this complex and sophisticated system of signaling molecules come to establish an encoding mechanism, a decoding mechanism, a suitable medium, and a protocol (a language of communication understood by both the encoder and the decoder)?

In conclusion, if we analyze evolution by breaking down the rule sets in the direction of simplicity, we find that evolutionary claims simply don't connect with the established rules of science. Evolutionists simply attempt to provide the appearance of science by increasing the complexity of rule sets, which only serve to confuse and impress an easily "dazzled" audience. This entire charade is not unlike a magic show, complete with distraction, misdirection and fanatical claims.

It would be more intellectually feasible to believe in a new and evolving theory such as panspermia (the implantation of humans on the earth by aliens) than the development of rocks into highly-complex machines.

In fact, don't change the channel now...the next show in this line-up of global magic will be the promotion of aliens seeding human life on earth, which will become the next "accepted" "scientific" theory to explain life on earth.

This will conveniently solve the evolving mass of tangled illogic created by evolution that is finally being seen for what it is by a growing number of people. This will be the deus ex machina that entertains the masses while they wallow in their inability to grasp the illogic of it all for the next hundred years.

The show must go on.
---


Our Solor System

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Do you mean you plagiarised it from someone else and passed it off as your writing?


No, what I am doing is responding to a false argument that has a false representation of evolution and of people that work with evolution, one that demonizes science teachers for no rational or ethical reason. It draws a superious post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that is not just a logical fallacy but a conclusion unrelated to truth.


How do you determine which churches are deceptive and which are being truthful? What is your test of reality?

What issues are caused by teaching scientific truths? Isn't a rational view of the world based on truth?


So what is your opinion of creationists that make false claims, don't validate their concepts with a test for reality (commonly called a reality check), and think that blanket insults of school teachers is ethical? Can you tell me why - if creationism is true - virtually every creationist website lies about reality, about what evolution really is and what the age of the earth is?

Do you think school children should be taught falsehoods? Known falsehoods?

What do you use to determine truth?


In other words you have no real working definition for evolution, you have no idea what the science really studies, you are ignorant of what evolution involves, but that didn't stop you from portraying it as evil. Can you tell me how this is an ethical thing to do?

This also says that you don't care what the true definition is, what reality is, as it doesn't affect your opinion based on ignorance and - no polite way to say it - bigotry.

And you presume to lecture about ethics?


Thanks.


I notice you either did not read or did not comprehend my first post - I will only reply to the first responses to my posts. This is my policy to prevent being piled on by many different people answering the same post. It's a policy I can recommend to anyone who has been on a forum where they are outnumbered.

Enjoy.

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People
(The evolutionists says: Hey, they're just apes, so what's really wrong with it?)

The Government Always Tells the Truth
(depends on who's listening)

The New Order of Barbarians
(or just a new order)

Funny. is it that impressive? No, it's mine, straight off the desktop, unedited. I have been writing for quite some time. A few decades. People say the same thing to me about my paintings. Funny. Ok. Get a life I guess.



but I didn't mention science teachers so how did you draw that conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that it is a false argument when I gave a link to the website of so-called christian churches that do support evolution? Do you know anything about this incident aside from what you have read here? Do you know any people who go to those churches and attend missionary school with YWAM?


I explained that above. Either God created the world or he didn't. Just read it again if you are confused.


Depends on your perspective I guess. Evolution is not a scientific truth. it's 100% theory.


Truthfully, I don't read a lot of creation or evolution literature. I don't make a point of it ,that is. Too busy, sorry. i stumble across it here and there so I really cannot make a claim either way. I know the basics, was taught evolution briefly in HS myself, everyone knows the basics for that reason. The stuff I have stumbled into, i haven't noticed a lot of lies from creationists. I have noticed quite a bit of conjecture on both sides to be perfectly honest. essentially I think that if evolutionists can conjecture then they should expect others to conjecture in return. Conjecture does breed conjecture. I do know for sure a lot of the dating is way off. Hundreds of millions of years off. I used to do a lot of fossil hunting as a kid. things can fossilize quite quickly under the right conditions. Also, pterosaurs still exist. Too many stories of that to ignore. no I have never seen one in person myself. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were a couple living in the palisades near the G washington bridge in NYC. did you catch that short video?



absolutely not. It's a big problem. we don't teach them the truth (in public schools) about a number of things. sometimes I get the impression the school systems are more interested in workers for the corporations than in education. If you've ever had a chance to compare the educations kids receive in private schools as opposed to public schools, you would have a hard time disagreeing with that too.

I use experience to determine tuth. Actual facts. Proven evidence of proposed theories. One proof is not even enough for me. If something is true, it will repeatedly result in the same effect or observable action. Truth can however be affected in rare instances by uncommon circumstances.


Of course I have a working definition (life evolved), but it's apparent that anyone who loves to argue about evolution has a dozen different ways to define it. In the end it's all the same isn't it? Life evolved, no matter which way you cut, end result is the same. Definition complete in two words.


Right Christian bigot. that's me. Would you like me to define you?


You're welcome.



since you felt free enough to move off subject I took the liberty myself. is that a problem? Would you like me to define you again? If you move off subject, I am required to move off subject.

Please follow the same guidelines you just set forth in regard to the thread as it was begun, and stick to the subject. The subject is so-called christian churches using deception and the problems that causes for the Christian community in general, and likewise affects our perceptions of things like ethics and morality within society as a whole. The question of why teaching evolution is inexplicably tied to the same churches that promote same sex marriage has also been raised.

Hey Russ, thanks again for responding. Maybe we can get down to the problem you are having with the concept of evolution.

I notice that this has nothing to do with (a) the topic “The cost of Evolution, and other things” that supposedly discusses the killing of people due to the teaching of evolution (although the original poster seems confused about this), or (b) what is meant by the term “evolution” on this thread. So far SoSick has not supplied us with her version, her understanding of what evolution involves.

We also discussed the issue of what definition should be earlier, and I thought you were going to provide something more than your “slogan” version of “rock-to-cell” and “cell-to-human,” which I noted previously is not a definition of evolution but a (cliff-notes version of the) natural history of (part of) the diversity of life we know about on earth.

• It is not a process that can be applied to actually studying biology.
• It is not a theory that can be used to make predictions about biology.
• It is not a description of the science of studying the full diversity of life we know about on earth, from the natural history, to modern scientific studies, to the theory of evolution (ToE), the facts that show evolution has occurred and the testing of the theory(ies).

So do you have anything more to add, or are we at the point where we have identified that you do not have a working definition of evolution? One that we can test for validity and reality.

Once we have that definition that matches what is used in science then we can test it with your slogan to see if it is valid as well.

Enjoy.

ps - all responders please note, from my first post here: [color:"red"]“I'm new here, so you will forgive me if I only post on a few threads, and only reply to the first response to my post[/color] (if you feel you have an important point that is not covered you can reply to a later post).” This is my policy to prevent pile-ups, in case of having a number of people making responses, and if you point is important we will get to it, but if it isn't then don't waste other people's posts that may be important. Thanks for your consideration.

right. Because this thread is not a dissertation about the differing possible aspects of evolutuon.

it is about deception and ethics.

gee whiz, get the message already.

the links are quite pertinent Russ, thanks I will check them out later.

Maybe if I simply say, it's about the problem of mixing two opposing beliefs systems (eg; creation/evolution) that will make it easier for you to understand? Whether or not either qualifies as truth to you personally is not really the issue here.

you can start your own thread to make your dissertation about your personal definition of evolution you know.

You'd do a lot better in this one if you started with a defiintion of the church since that is the root object of the entire discussion that you seem to have difficulty with. Since you're new here you don't know everybody, but we do know each other and have a pretty good feel for each other's beliefs so for me to define that outside of saying 'Us Christians' would be excessively redundant and is not neccessary.

So you just happened to call it “The cost of Evolution, and other things” even though it has nothing to do with evolution.

Glad you cleared that up.

You mean things like the ethics of deceptively calling a thread “The cost of Evolution, and other things” when it has nothing to do with evolution? Or equivocating on the meaning of “argument” in a previous response? Interesting approach.

You want to talk about ethics, but so far all you have provided are examples of things NOT to do - is this the christian way of teaching ethics? I'm just curious how that works.

What makes them pertinent - that they play to your fears and your biases (ie the exhibited bigotry of talking about “deceptive churches” and the like), or have you tested them for reality?

From your first post:

I post this to point out (1) that you did talk about teaching evolution as being evil (in spite of your later denial), and that (2) by this little conflation you tie teaching evolution to the causes of your whole diatribe against the “so-called christians” that you blame for this sad event.

Yes it is unjust, it's another <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> logical fallacy that assumes (a) homosexuality is wrong and a cause of social problems, (b) that teaching evolution is also a cause of social problems, and (c) that both of these have something to do with the killing in question. As an example of making a logical argument that is valid (based on true premises), or sound (has a valid logical structure), it is a complete failure. It's based on falsehoods and logical fallacies.

Now you are equivocating on your position and saying that you are not really attacking evolution, but are just raising ethical issues. As an example of making an ethical argument it is also a failure, not just because it is based on dreadfully poor logic, but because you are begging the question by pre-defining “so called christians” as bad and then blaming them for all the evil in the world with a blanket condemnation that does not discuss the beliefs and practices of a single person that you so condemn. Bigotry is like that.

Can you tell me, as someone outside the christian religion, how someone outside christianity distinguishes “(true) christian churches” from “so-called christian churches”? I'm curious. I thought christianity was defined by belief in christ as a savior, the teachings of christ.

Can you tell me how this ties into the issue of ethics? If one bases their ethics on the teachings of christ does that make the ethics christian even if they are not? What if they just happen to be the same?

Enjoy.

ps - all responders please note, from my first post here: [color:"red"]“I'm new here, so you will forgive me if I only post on a few threads, and only reply to the first response to my post[/color] (if you feel you have an important point that is not covered you can reply to a later post).” This is my policy to prevent pile-ups, in case of having a number of people making responses, and if you point is important we will get to it, but if it isn't then don't waste other people's posts that may be important. Thanks for your consideration.

Here is an example of dumbing down for instance, from today's headlines:

Principal Tells Teachers To Dumb-Down Standards
http://wcbstv.com/local/central.park.east.2.610529.html

It rather common these days especially in public schools. Public education is not about teaching truth, it's not about quality. It's often more about teachers making the grades to get funding for their school systems. Some of these kids go on to become teachers themselves, some might even get a break and become doctors, dentists. Some might become clergy at one level or another. They often do not actually have solid fundamental basic knowledge in many subject areas. The entire quality of our society is affected by these deceptive practices that begin with our children. Why is this happening? It's not only happening in schools it's happening in a portion of the church too.

The title of the thread is not just 'evolution' RAZD. the word 'cost' implies something altogether different from science. look it up. and the phrase 'other things' is pretty wide open I'd say.

Get over it please. You sound like an angry guy. Have you considered a cup of chamomile tea before bed?

Most Christians also believe that christianity is defined by belief in christ as a savior, the teachings of christ.

But there is a portion of the church that has sprung up, separated from the main churches is a better way to put it, kicked out essentially, in the past decade or two whose teachings actually oppose the teachings of christ and yet they still call themselves christians. it's not just deceptive to non-christians it's deceptive to the unwary christians who wander into those churches too. It is extremely unethical what they are doing.

Here's another one from today's headlines. this isn't related at all to the church or evoluton, but's still deception at it's finest.

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=

tax tax tax what can they do next to get at everybody's money? Today it's this next year it's something else. Al Gore gioes around making speeches for big big bucks. If he were really concerened he would ride his bike. But he prefers his jet. Just don't you do that or he'll yell at you next.

a quote from the article:
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

tell me truthfully, do you really really believe that all the money in the world is going to help the UN change anything? They tried a tax like this in the UK a couple years back, all that happened was the power companies made egads more money but there was no actual effect on the environment because.... there's not really anything they can do ... and there is still quite a bit of question about whether or not it just a natural phenonema for the most part. And sending out jets to drop chemtrails, it is happening all over the world... tell me, have you seen the pollution those jets generate? Who is deceiving who?

A Christian is defined by a belief that Christ is who He claimed to be.

[color:"brown"]"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he."[/color]
—John 4:25-26

The Bible provides numerous predictions about the future, one of those being that the "Churches" will "fall away" into a state of self indulgence close to the return of Messiah.

[color:"brown"]"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."[/color]
—2 Timothy 4:3-4

The delineation between true Church and false church is revealed by their doctrine, i.e., are they following fables or Scripture.

An example of this is that most of the largest denominations today have accepted homosexual behavior as acceptable. The idea that this behavior is acceptable to God is a "fable".

[color:"brown"]"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."[/color]
—1 Corinthians 6:9-11

So, the false churches today are those who do not endure sound doctrine. There are many and for those who know the Scriptures, they are easy to find.

Another false church is the catholic "tradition". It is, in fact, the ante-church. An interesting study is the Jesuit connection with the vatican and the city on seven hills.

Here is an introduction:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm

There is an astounding set of prophecies in the Bible that can only be properly understood by a conspiratorialist. More later if you wish.

[color:"brown"]"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."[/color]
—Revelation 12:9

A fast-growing number of those who have done their homework are recognizing these events unfolding right now.

It is a study that takes years to complete (for the skeptic like me) but it is well worth it.

So the answer is: "Doctrine".

Here are some developing parts of the puzzle. Beware. It does raise many more questions than it answers until you methodically tackle the questions one-by-one, at which point it becomes really interesting.

Return of the Nephilim, Chuck Missler
(unfortunately, this video is missing. I will do what I can to locate a copy soon)

From Freedom To Fascism

One Nation Under Siege

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Kennedy On Secret Societies

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

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

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

New Age Bible Versions

I am not sure about 'most of the largest denominations', Russ.

UPC a bit, but hardly all. Episcopalean really is at the forefront with United Methodist right behind. And then a few odd Lutheran branches. There is an odd baptist chuch or two that qualifies. Most any church with the word 'Unit' in it... United, Unity, whatever. Oh yeah United Church of Christ on that list too. A bit eery eh, united... what else fits that?

for the main part though, the Baptist churches strongly oppose those teachings, strongly oppose, likewise most evangelical and even non-denominational churches.

It's really just the Epicopal church, united methodist, ucc, and Lutheran leading with a few odd UPC and others. Sooo many people have left those churches over this issue, I have heard plenty of people complain about it, the 'schism' they call it, just like when the protestant churches separated from the catholic church..

an odd catholic church here and there too promoting those beliefs, empty pews Russ, a lot of empty pews.

For what it's worth i'd be real wary about drawing a line in the sand with the catholic church over these issues. They have actually been one of the most vocal churches against it ((teaching evolution instead of creation, same sex marriage). And as big as they are, all over the world representing so many many people, I think you might want them on your side with this one.

I can't say i agree with all their doctrine but they stand real strong on basic moral issues and can be quite an ally in that area.

i disagree strongly with their eucamenical teachings though, which, as strongly as they oppose certain teachings, will most likely result in the acceptance of them if they continue.

we'll see I guess. Bex says there's a lot of something down under. But officially, they do not support it.

I wasn't real impressed with some of videos on that list in the post just up one from mine here btw... I mean, there is a lot of great info in all of them but I also noticed a good amount of conjecture here and there that someone who doesn't have the facts already straight about certain things might get taken in by or basically even drop a few of them in disgust at that point because it's obvious conjecture, which derails the whole video(s). Some of them need to be cleaned up a bit.

conjecture kind of really bothers me. If they aren't sure they should say so rather than try to make everything appear as if it's fact. kind of the same problem we've got with evolution.

But againn, a lot of great info in all of them.

someone was just telling several weeks ago about the united pentecostals, there aren't many of those churches around so i don't know if you've run into one or not, i never have but I know they're out there... but anyway I was told, they've required their women to dress in long dark dresses sort of amish style, and they have decided that Jesus is not really the son of God, he's just a guy, a prophet i guess. You could look it up, I am sure there's more but i was told something to that effect. i haven't researched it myself though I should.

we are pretty lucky to have a really strong church here in the middle of nowhere almost... some lack of worldly influences, old families, old beliefs. It's a baptist church. we're not really baptist, i love this preacher though, he's super. the other baptist church nearby, same thing pretty much. Big baptist area. They'd burn down the school house here if they tried to teach certain things there, really they would.

Another source is parents that don't know what they are talking about telling schools what to teach and schools afraid of annoying parents. I agree that there should be some national standards and some state standards that depend purely on quality of education and not any political considerations. History curriculum should be set by historians, math curriculum my mathematicians, science curriculum by scientists, etc.

You could have the states set the standards for graduation from elementary school, and the program for middle and high school, and the federal government or a board made up of state universities, set the standards for graduation from high school, thus the authority setting the graduation standards are the ones that get the product and they are independent of the ones setting the programs. No conflict of interest with making it easier to turn out graduates.

I also think we (society) may want to consider stopping mandatory public school with 10th grade, but then provide public funding for anyone that wants to continue at any time with further education in a combined high-school / technical college of their choice. They would graduate with an associates degree, and the standards for that graduation would be set by the state universities to replace freshman year in university degree programs (thus reducing costs to parents by ~25%). This would let those that want to drop out to try it for a while with little cost, and it would let classes focus on topics of interest to students who want to continue rather than ones they are required to take.


Perhaps a large factor is population increase overtaxing the systems. Since I was in high school the population of the US has doubled, and this means the interactions needed have ~roughly speaking~ quadrupled.


So your off-handed "character assassination" of homosexuals and teachers teaching evolution just happened to be included in the rest of your diatribe, and people are free to just rant about anything? They shouldn't take any such comments as valid evidence of your personal beliefs? Perhaps you only want people to respond that "bobble" their heads in agreement with you?

The fact remains that you singled out evolution in the title. You did not call it "The cost of evolution, homosexuality, low school standards and things affecting ethics" you called it "The cost of Evolution, and (maybe some) other things."

The fact remains that you blatantly portrayed homosexuals and teachers of evolution as evil, and suggested that the behavior of homosexuals and teachers of evolution caused those kids to kill. Sorry, but I just do not think it is ethical or rational to make such broad statements, and pretty blind not expect to get called out on it. Such statements amply demonstrate ignorant bias and unreasonable intolerance, which are just polite (PC?) words for bigotry.

You may be right about the behavior of Ted Haggard, but not because of his homosexuality so much as his blatant full bore foaming at the mouth hypocrisy.


How would you subjectively measure the quality of society, so that you aren't just making judgments based on personal opinions? Would you say we could compare states on a number of relatively arbitrary standards such as (feel free to add any):

• rates of divorce
• rates of domestic violence
• rates of murders
• rates of abortions in teenagers, un-married 20+ yr old women and married women
• rates of hate crimes against people for religious beliefs
• rates of hate crimes against doctors and nurses running pregnancy alternative clinics
• rates of hate crimes against people for sexual behavior
• rates of hate crimes based on race or ethnic background
• rates of people living below the poverty level
• rates of homeless people
• rates of people going to soup kitchens

etc etc etc.

It seems to me that a lot of these have been around a long time and are not a modern phenomena. Personally I think it would be wonderful if the worst one we could come up with was the rates of speeding tickets.


I like warm milk and a cookie actually.

Now, unlike Russ, I won't automatically assume that this comment is a sign that you are lying, just that you are running out of reasons to defend your sad argument in the opening post. That is usually my experience when people start using ad hominem comments about the author of a post rather than deal with the substance of the post.

We've already established that you don't know jack about evolution, are confused about ethics, and use poor logic, to say nothing about the evident bigotry in your beliefs. You're running out of options, so either you have to realize your mistake(s) or attack your critics.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

Actually, I'd say disillusion, confusion, and a very strong sense of betrayal is what causes these types of mass shootings more than any other factor. The causes can vary greatly. I only gave one example within the church above. You can ignore it if you'd like but to me, since that's my home territory, I think I should pay attention.

You do sound like an angry guy, angry and bitter.

So you confirm what I said: christianity is "defined by belief in christ as a savior, the teachings of christ."

Would you say this is the ONE (1) defining characteristic that all christians\churches must meet? Or are others that are more important? Are there some that are optional?

Well I've also heard that some of the tenets of christ directly were

• love your neighbor as yourself, and
• judge not lest ye be judged

Does this mean that Fred Phelp's Church is a false church because it teaches hate and judges homosexuals?

That would be Fred Phelps et al again, yes? And anyone who reviles others? I'm just curious about where the line is here.

So does reviling them, and judging them make you a "false church" or "false chrisitian" by this definition?

Would you not say it would be extremely difficult to find a single church that could absolutely meet this definition, that could be found that does not judge others, that meets all the tenets (down to not eating pork, washing feet, eating fish on fridays, etc)?

Isn't there also a tenet about not bearing false witness? What about all the creationists that lie about the definition of evolution? That lie about the truth of evolution in everyday life?

Ah. Dogma.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

So now the cause of the killings is this confusion etc was within the church all the time? Nothing to do with evolution? That's a relief.

But I'm still confused why you had evolution as the primary (capitalized, singled out) noun in the title, made a totally irrelevant connection between homosexuality and the teaching of evolution to these killings, and are totally unable to justify it in any way except to make pathetic excuses that you're talking about something else ...

... and then say that it must be because I am angry.

I asked you in the first response why you included evolution in your post and you have been totally unable to define evolution or give any reason for including it in your post...

... and you now claim that the reason for this is because I am angry.

Perhaps I just see that you are a fraud and a hypocrite, that you would rather prevaricate than admit that you were wrong or answer a straight question about your bearing false witness.

Maybe I just don't like falsehood being paraded as an ethical or moral or just or rational or valid or intelligent position worthy of a human being.

Perhaps there are reasons - good reasons - for anger, rather than passive acceptance of what is really unacceptable behavior. Or perhaps I just have fun watching you dance. Entertaining. After all I don't own a TV and can't watch reality shows.

Chocolate chip cookies tonight. (tollhouse)

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

Evilution it is then.

Thanks for a glimpse of the strong delusion it has recompensed you with.

Thank you again for your response SoSick

I notice that (a) you failed to address a single issue or in any way provide any substantiation for a single one of your positions, whether it is on this thread that you started and cannot seem to justify in any way, or any others I have read. All you do is post irrelevant confusion. I thought that to have a mature sound rational opinion one had to have a basis for it, a foundation, a reason. Apparently you don't have any.

And (b) You still have not posted any concept for what you think evolution involves, the closest you come is a circular tautology (that incidental recognizes the fact that evolution has occurred):
Certainly you cannot believe that this evolution is what caused those kids to kill, nor would teaching that fact cause those kids to kill. If that is your definition you used when you wrote the post, the inclusion of evolution in the title and in the argument blaming the teaching of evolution for the kids killing, makes no rational sense. None. Zero. Nada.

When you argue that the definition doesn't matter, that "in the end it's all the same" then you are in essence arguing that evolution can mean {A} and it can mean {notA} without affecting your argument. This is a proof that you don't really have a single valid reason for including the word "Evolution" in the title of your article, or any reason to blame the teaching of evolution to those kids (especially as they could have been taught {A} or {notA}).

Without an understanding of your misconception of what evolution is or involves, it is not possible to judge the reality of your opinions. Without substantiation all you have are your opinions, ones that have frequently involved reviling people out of hand and without cause, and for no apparent rational reason. For the record:
Notice that to be delusional in the psychiatric sense (delusion/3) you need to be in denial of objective evidence that contradicts your belief. Simple delusion (delusion/2) like ignorance, can be cured by learning the truth.

I have posted a true definition for evolution, substantiated that with the facts of definitions from several sources, and further backed that with evidence that is observable by anyone with eyes: that evolution occurs in every generation, as offspring are not clones of parents. If you have any doubts about my position on evolution you can read Evolution and the BIG LIE.

Neither you, on the one hand, nor Russ on the other hand, nor any other poster (I've run out of hands), have provided anything more than a falsified mantra and equivocation. No substantiation from any source and certainly no evidence that supports your totally absent position, nor Russ' silly mantra that he rolls out with the assurance from learning it in high school (and that he hasn't learned the error of it since). You certainly have not even provided a logical argument for your pathetic claims in your original post: was there some reason you wrote that? It seems to have evaporated as you continually back off from your previous positions.

As such there is no evidence for me to be in denial of, while there are a few facts for you to consider:

(1) evolution is a fact (as you recognize) as well as a fully scientific theory AND a mature science - Evolutionary Biology - based on fact, theory, prediction, testing, evaluation, and - when necessary - reformulation or revision of theory (that happens in science).

(2) the earth is old, the evidence that it is old is as overwhelming as the evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe with everything else in orbits around it, and the full understanding of the fact of old age was beginning to be known before well Darwin developed Darwinism.

(3) this fact of old age is independent of evolution, and is based on the evidence and science in geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. The evidence is readily available to anyone interested.

(4) modern Evolutionary Biology is not Darwinism as it contains many sub-fields, like genetics, that are not part of the original Darwinism. Science grows, develops, expands ... evolves.

(5) the modern Evolutionary Biology definition for the process of evolution can be simply, truthfully and honestly stated as:

...[color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

(6) "rocks to cell" or "cells to people" is not part of any definition of evolution used in science by scientists studying evolution.

(7) the truth shall set you free.

Enjoy.

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

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index...._id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb