News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I must warn before seeing some of the videos that one is not suitable for children. But after you view them, you will be apalled at what you see.



And if that one were not bad enough about speaking ill of the dead, this one is even worse (not suitable for child viewing).



Athiest-evolutionist, imagine if you will that this was your dad that these people were talking. Not saying that Falwell is your dad, just that this was your dad who just died. And these people were talking like that about him. Your children saw it. And maybe the grand children too. It made them cry. How do you feel that someone could be so hateful?

Now I want to know why that much hate spews from your side of the fence that your side would even stoop so low as to even do this? It's one thing to dislike someone. It's totally a different thing to stab someone in the back at their lowest point in life when a loved one dies. Does evolution teach this? Then where does this hate come from?

And if atheism is the alternative to being a Christian, and this is what you do. I'm glad that I reject your realities of Chimp to man. As Jeffrey Dahmer said: Evolution cheapens life. And those videos prove it.

I'm really not interested and I don't see what any of your hate videos have got to do with the topics under discussion. Would it make any logical sense for me to find the most repugnant person on earth who called themselves a Christian, and trumpet to the world that this is what Christianity is all about, this is what Christians are supposed to be, so they should apologise now for their existence?

Jeez, what's your deal?

Any religion is OK in my books as long as it teaches its adherents to love one another (though of course people can do this just as well without being religious). I thought that was what Christianity taught. You should try it sometime, it might make you happier.

And what is all the nice things said about people like Hovind? In fact, do you even have any positive thing to say about any creationist? No? Well it should not be dished out if you cannot take it.

Jeez, what's your deal? Anyone who disagrees with your views is a target for you hate?

I normally don't even do this. But I thought I would give a dose of what it's like to be on the recieving end of the hatred of every evolutionist on the web. So how does it feel getting a taste of what you dish out. Not pretty is it?

Hey Linda, I'm subbing tomorrow in a Physical Science class tomorrow!! : ) Its with a collab teacher, but I'm subbing for the main teacher. It is only for 2 hours unless they need me to stay on (slow - only 3rd day of school) but my daughter doesn't want to take the "cheese bus" as a Senior and wrecked her car a while back so I may as well get paid to drive her in : ) Consider this related to the post...through...science. (I couldn't find your post about chelating). You doing better? I'm kind of excited! A nice way to ease in. I get to see my kids : )

Evolution doesn't teach anything like that. Social etiquette does not fall under the purview of the Theory of Evolution.
Since Rev. Falwell never blamed the social ills of American Society on the gays or teachers of evolution, I can't understand why those two groups would speak with such venom. I remember when the reverend spoke about 9-11 attacks and placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of religious fanatics and not on the homosexuals and evolutionists.

That's because Rev. Jerry Falwell never spoke a word against his fellow man.


Here you seem to be equating the theory of evolution with atheism. Why would that be? You have conclusive evidence that they are one and the same?

Personally, I wouldn't take advice from Jeffrey Dahmer, but that's just me.

You also seem to be saying that the despicable actions of some people who adhere to a belief, cause that belief to be untrue.

It doesn't seem like good logic to me.

Attempting to derail the subject are we?

Nope - just what I stated. I was just talking to Linda. We had a convo going on another thread which I couldn't find. Sorry....

She's under a lot of pressure right now and not feeling well. We have working in High School in common. I apologize for getting off topic....

Up at the top of forum, you have a link that says: My stuff. You click on it and select posts. And all your latest places where you posted will appear with links for easy access. This way you don't get lost in big forums.:)

Jeanie, have a great time I'll add to my post on the mercury forum when I'm feeling a little better.

Ikester, I've pointed out before where Hovind is wrong. I particularly am not happy about what he says because I feel he misrepresents his position; he implies (without actually saying in so many words) that he was a mainstream physics teacher who realised that the textbooks were full of lies, and had a conversion to the "truth." This is not honest but it makes for good rhetoric. I've spoken about him before but my etiquette has got better since then. Do you work on yours, too?

I've also read about other creationists like Baumgardner, Woodmorappe, and Austin who use what they know about science to put forward "evidence" for creationism which appears scientific but which does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, Austin has deliberately set up radiometric dating exercises to fail. There is evidence for all of these claims and they are simple facts. As has been said before, why is it "hateful" to present the truth in a forum like this? This is usually the only place I even talk about creationism; the rest of the time I get on with my life.

I don't agree with all that Hovind says. And I don't agree with all that AIG says either. No body is perfect. And that includes me and you. Hovind got deluded because of all the hate he had to put up with. He also got deluded about paying taxes. He does not understand that you don't fight battles that only God can win. And that is why Christ said: Let Ceasar's money be Ceasar's money.

Hovind did not want to become non-profit because there are rules on what you can say behind the pulpit. He did not realize though that he could apply also for a different type non-profit, and before each speech he could announce which non-profit code he was speaking under so that he could speak freely about what ever he wanted. That's how Focus on the Family does it when they speak under the code they use for their Citizen magazine.

Huh? You omit to mention that Jeanie is utterly unqualified.

Trust her not, Jeanie. She may well be notifying the priesthood so they can attack your livelihood.

Here's a good starting point, if you care to follow a discussion about how believing any intelligent being even might have had anything whatsoever to do with creating life, or even planets and stars. LindaLou argued that any such belief, even if held on a personal basis and never introduced to students, disqualifies one from teaching science. I recommend finding for "Gonz" in the thread, if you want to follow that part of the discussion.

I invite anyone to PM me if they take the numerous slanders against creation scientists seriously at all. I've investigated some of these, and so far they're a pretty empty lot. I don't claim no creationist has ever made a mistake, but from what I've seen the evolutionists don't catch actual mistakes very often, if at all.

Instead they spam false accusations, in hopes that numbers will impress people. If there were actual transgressions, why would they obscure them behind a myriad of false accusations? One honest-to-goodness screw-up is about all they need, two or three max. Instead, they produce a blizzard of lies. Whose credibility do they call into question when they do this?

I don't know about others, but when I find 3 or more false accusations in a row, I write off the source as a liar and a coward. I'm tempted to hope some supporter of cowards will try to convince me I need to follow up in detail on every last lie they produce. That could make for a funny post indeed, if it isn't too sad or stupid.

CTD, thanks for sticking up for me??? Honestly I don't care.... I know I'm not qualified as far as having much deep scientific knowledge. And I'm not a real teacher! Subs don't teach normally - we go in and fill in - (kind of a no brainer except in some subject areas....at least not here) unless you do long term subbing and ARE qualified in the field in high school, at least. They will only let you do long term subbing if you have an Assoc. or above, but if the teacher will be out for an extended period, they will still direct what is taught each day as far as content, etc. Hopefully in those cases the sub is capable and wouldn't be used if not. I've only done long term subbing on a limited degree cause I usually only want to work part time. If I definitely decide to go into it I will be a special ed teacher anyway.

That doesn't mean I take their "evidences" at their word, either, though. It could all be a bunch of fabricated lies for all I know. I don't know! I haven't studied it out. But in general it is something I have questioned and I have gotten my answers. My faith, as well, fills in all the holes I need in order for it to make sense to me not only spiritually but physically (or temporally....in the flesh, however you want to put it). I most definitely believe in the creation. It doesn't have to add up every jot and tittle to me. I think our Father in Heaven, who is a GOD, knew what he was doing so I'll take Him at His word and figure it from there. I think, personally, that all the details can muck up your mind as far as this debate, at least. It really is all derived or interpreted and someone's personal beliefs or misconceptions can sway the interpretation. Some here are saying evolutionists lie - some say creationists lie. My mind is muddled in my ability to comprehend as much at this point due to meds I'm on and the mercury. But I have good instincts and really just care about people. Really I'm just repeating myself on here a lot at this point.... Its likely time I find better things to do with my time cause I'm starting back to work tomorrow. I may delve into some evidence more deeply at some point over time...but I don't feel the need to figure it out other than to make sense of the points that have bothered me. I kind of get a kick out of the arguing on here and it is an interesting subject matter. But you are correct. I'm not qualified to give a studied, educated debate other than from a spiritual perspective and no one is real open to that - even the creationists on here are likely closed to my viewpoint due to my being LDS (Mormon). I have written in on those areas and no one says a word... But no one is knocking faith here at least. I appreciate that. I understand how LindaLou sees it but I see it differently. We don't agree. It doesn't mean I don't like her.

At least I'm not being (inaccurately) bashed as a Mormon here as SoSick was so happy to do... I don't like bashing period. I think people should all be given a fair shake and listened to. Someday if anyone is interested I'll post some things leaders of our church have said about the creation. I kind of feel like I've developed a trust in the people here overall. I've enjoyed the discussions. The perspectives... I've learned a lot, too. I will look further into the claimed evidences....but compare them to inspired revelation and use the spirit (as well as logic) to determine for myself what I believe. It may sound like I take what leaders of my church say at their word...but I've proven my faith in this gospel for over 32 years now. My faith is deeply rooted... I've said it before, but I will build my beliefs on spiritual principals and not vice versa.

And now for the important things. What to wear??? : )

Those are secondary criteria. You could have a PhD and years of experience teaching advanced college classes, but if you believe God or any other intelligent agent was directly involved in origins, or if you are merely unwilling to rule it out, you're disqualified.

They say "there's no conflict between belief in God and evolution." They do "yes, there most certainly is!"

What they'll generally accept: a god who didn't do anything, or a god who's just an imaginary symbol one uses to keep oneself content.
Mormons currently get somewhat of a "free pass" from me.

As the establishment is campaigning for free reign to violate any and all rights of persons just because they're Mormons, I feel it would be best to let them focus all their efforts on that issue. I fully support the (actual) civil rights of all individuals, and oppose transparent attempts to divide and conquer free people.

Don't know what you'd call bashing. I certainly disagree on more than one point, but I'm also confident more than one "Mormon" Christain will be present when the roll is called.
I suggest a smile, if you can manage it.

I do hope you'll find time to review some of the threads. A lot of effort went into some of those posts, and there's a lot of discussion that's intentionally geared to avoid going over anyone's head.

We were talking about posting etiquette not long ago. I don't see much here from you.

Would anything I said about Jeanie or her credentials here make a blind bit of difference? And what does it matter if she is subbing one class? If she were their regular teacher and was preparing to teach a unit about evolution, then I'd probably like to discuss the matter further; but at the end of the day I'm not going to bully anyone into doing anything and it's not my style to try.



I've never claimed that being a theist disqualifies anyone from teaching science. That's a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation and it shows you've not paid much attention to what I've been saying here -- or maybe that you only see what you want to see. I only recently said that a creationist might teach other areas of science very competently, but when it comes to teaching evolution they are going to be having problems with evidence there. It remains to be shown here how creationism is a legitimate science.

It's well known that Austin has had several attempts at "falsifying" radiometric dates by using the wrong procedural methods. For example, he was involved in an ICR project for dating the Grand Canyon. He took rock samples which were from disparate areas when he should have taken his samples from the same homogenous rock, e.g. one single volcanic deposit, and what he got was a date for the mantle from which the rock originally came, rather than a date for when the rock cooled in the Grand Canyon. Then he claimed that the radiometric dating method (Rb/Sr isochron to be specific) was flawed. It was actually his method of gathering samples which was flawed, among other things.

Now why would any geologist do these things? Shouldn't he know better? I'll leave it up to you to speculate on his motives.

It's interesting, by the way, that we are spending so much time chatting with creationists in threads like this. If you're not careful, people might get the impression that you are avoiding talking about any issues involving science.

LOL.

That's not a misrepresentation at all. I have precisely described ID, and you have argued that it was right to remove teachers on the basis of holding ID beliefs.

I didn't say 'theist' - you did. The thread's there, and you can't edit, so it looks like you're stuck.

So have you changed your mind about the Gonzales case?

This forum isn't just about science. It's about evolutionism too.

Please quote exactly what I said if you are going to make claims of this nature.

If the person is teaching a subject in which their creationist beliefs play a part, then I believe they are in a questionable position. This would include some, but not all, scientific subjects. I wouldn't have a problem if my daughter had a creationist music teacher or maths teacher (as long as they haven't learned their maths from someone like Hovind). And before you claim discrimination, it is not because of their religion but because the specifics of what they believe conflict with scientific evidence. You are presumably here to prove that this is not the case?



If you believe that evolution is not science, I'm watching this space for some evidence of your claim to finally emerge.

Hey CTD, just wanted to thank you for the "free pass" for being Mormon!!! And what the heck does that mean??? Seriously? Just don't quite understand. (Party with that one!) I'm sure its mildly derogatory and judgmental, but hope I'm wrong. But its ok if I'm not. I'm more on your side than being an evolutionist, but don't like the blanket statements being made.

I did wear a smile : ) And some white skimmers with a cool cotton black and white blouse... Some faux diamond ear rings with a small diamond necklace and my new black watch with black hills gold leaflets! (I'm tired.....). It was good to see the kids and staff. I saw some of the ones I had from last year : ) I always wear a smile. I've been called smiley before and not because of my little smiley faces.....

Hey Linda Lou, if a science teacher teaches science but is also a creationist I still hold she/he can teach science correctly. No matter what the theories of evolution are still theories....

I agree with you except teachers are removed from teaching positions all the time just because of their faith. And Linda agrees that one who does not completely believe in evolution should not teach it. Isn't that right Linda?

So degrees in education are not the main reason you can teach evolution. You have to "believe" also. Which by the way makes evolution into a religion.

Well I hope your hope was sincere, because you're wrong. I ain't sayin' nothin' bad 'bout no Mormons less'n it's gotta be said. They'll catch no flak from me on their issues these days without inviting it - maybe a prayer or a blessing, but no disputes if I have my way.

OK, let's imagine you are going to sub for a science class in which evolution is being taught.

You are going to say that it is "just a theory" and that there are other competing ideas, which gives some weight to those ideas. I'm not sure what else you would say; it obviously depends on you individually, and the state laws.

As we have so far seen in the debates here, there is a lot of evidence for evolution having occurred. What have you offered in way of supporting creationism? How exactly does it compete with evolution as a theory which explains the fossil record and the geological column?

Until creationists can make a solid case for creationism being scientific and a viable alternative to evolution, it does not belong in science classes, and it should not be given weight as a competing theory.

I am quite serious in asking creationists here to do just this -- show me why creationism should be taught as a competing theory to evolution. Show me why it merits a place in school curricula other than in religious classes. Can you?

I'm serious too : ) I may've appeared to have made too much of what I was saying in my initial statements that drew us into this when I first got on as a newby. I did sub for the regular teacher, but was in a long term position for the collab special ed teacher so before had only been helping a dyslexic kid and tried to help keep order with the ADHD kids but wasn't directly teaching for this particular class - but one period when we happened to be covering Darwin briefly she was out and left me by myself. Normally you aren't in the classes with the kids that long and barely know what they are even going through, (as a sub) but I'd been in this class for several weeks and knew the kids pretty well along with what we were covering. We went through the assigned video, vocabularly, etc. (don't remember all of it) but I actually stood up FOR evolution. These are southern kids. If you want to label them they are generally either in the category of partiers or kids who are pretty religious. Actually most are religious even so, unless from elsewhere. Its the culture here - the Bible belt. I told the kids after we went through the thing on Darwin's story that you could accept evolution as fact and still believe in the creation.... I had this Christian kid just sitting there shaking his head no at me. I found out the next day I was misunderstood and they thought I was saying I believed in evolution (as debated on here). I said - no - I believe in the creation, but there is truth to the science of evolution!!!

We just don't get that deep in these classes anyway unless from discussion. The next day I talked to the teacher and she went through it more with the class which is when she talked abour Darwin getting a bad rap. That was the extent of it. We moved on. In a resource class, though, with some below average kids who need more intensive help for one reason or another, they were confused when that part was covered. This teacher told me she believes in a longer time period for the creation privately. But she didn't even touch on it in class or belabor the point or bring up the creation that I remember. They teach as they are required to because they have to...they are graded by the state and it is state mandated! The kids are tested on some aspects of it at least. I would like to get hold of one of the booklets they're given on that....(to get ready for what they have to know to pass). I'm only saying that it IS still a theory. Evolution, obviously, happens, but we do not know that we sprang from abiogenesis and/or then evolved from lower beings. The evidences in light of what I believe and have faith in - and irregardless of that - just don't hold up to me. Its not enough to convince me. Honestly I see it as a stretch and have heard conflicting evidences over the years. There is obviously truth to evolution....life changes. But I draw the line with how we began. I'm sure even evolutionists on here are more open to certain aspects of that than others, too. Sorry I keep repeating that... but as far as teaching things in school...unless you homeschool or go to private school where things are taught around religion you're going to learn about it. My point is that you can teach good science without taking it that far or belaboring that area or those theories. I'm sure in college these issues are debated with a lot more intensity, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for steering another from their faith over it. I think that both sides really should at least be mentioned or at the very least it should be made clear that it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC LAW. But the materials I've seen used did leave it somewhat open ended..... or just focused on the known facts and touched on Darwin's story and how evolution was discovered with the mention of possibilities....(Lucy, etc.) I know this year they are changing curriculum. I'll be curious to check it out. Honestly I do have to agree with CTD and Ikester that likely the mind warping of the latter days is being pushed partly through this along with tolerance of "alternative" family units in some areas. And I would like to iterate as well, but if we believe in general that we are just animals (and don't believe in God) that would be a justification to live amorally. I'm not labeling or saying you people are like that - or that all are. But you could see how it could be used in that way as far as indoctrinating children. They're already confused enough by the media. I use to like MTV for the music videos but while searching one day saw some "soap" on there with gay folk making out like it was perfectly normal. Even commercials are pretty sexually explicit. I remember being embarrassed for general underwear commercials and now they go way beyond that selling the most generic products in a sexy way. I use to love House - the genius Dr., but then it got all weird at times that way. I could go on. But I feel strongly about the implications on a much larger scale than just "science." Not all evolutionists can keep a balance with that and the spiritual aspect of life.

CTD: Well I hope your hope was sincere, because you're wrong. I ain't sayin' nothin' bad 'bout no Mormons less'n it's gotta be said. They'll catch no flak from me on their issues these days without inviting it - maybe a prayer or a blessing, but no disputes if I have my way."

LOL - my hope was sincere. That actually means a lot to me. Thank you CTD. I gotta ask...are you Elvis???? (the previous poster). That had me rolling..

Linda Lou: Until creationists can make a solid case for creationism being scientific and a viable alternative to evolution, it does not belong in science classes, and it should not be given weight as a competing theory.

Jeanie: I can see where you think it should be separate in a way - but I see them as related as a believer. Depends on your point of view, I guess. But scripture and the whisperings of the spirit, to me, are much more compelling an argument than Lucy and her supposed relatives and abiogenesis or a primordial soup just because of some of the behaviors of bacteria. They are amazing, though! I'll grant them that. (Bacteria).

Obviously the subject of creation in depth is best saved for a religion class but my argument is that it should at least be represented. The truth is there is way more intelligence behind the creation. Today after the Science Dept. head told me her opinion about evolution (as a believer even) I thought to myself that she is, apparently, looking at things from an unbalanced point of view. She was sitting there eating a cherry on a stool outside the classroom while the kids came in from the hall. I found myself musing about how nutritious cherries are and then thought about how amazing it would be for some spontaneous formation to take place which just happens to put forth all the plant with the nutrition our bodies need...all the medicinal herbs...the delicate balance of of the ecosystems. THAT to me is evidence. I feel a connection to my creator and refusing to accept what He has stated through his prophets is going to cause a disconnect from Him. I would rather appear simple if that is what believing has to mean in some people's eyes. It goes back to the simple and maybe not so simple principle of faith....

Jeanie, I should have made it clear that my comments above were in response to Ikester's post. Sorry about that.

I think it's quite possible to be in awe of life and to feel a connection with it, without coming to the conclusion that it came into existence in an instant due to a god's will. That isn't what the evidence from the natural world shows. But I do feel strongly that all life, and indeed all things, in the universe are connected. Science does not understand this yet and may never do completely.

It's interesting to hear what you've reported science teachers in your school as saying. I suppose that must be par for the course in a southern state. It would be very rare for a science teacher here in the UK to say they had creationist leanings and I'm honestly glad that the phenomenon is mostly limited to the US. Most people here don't even go to church. I'm quite relieved to be away from a society which is so steeped in religion. That isn't to say people don't pursue spirituality, but they do it in their own ways. I think this has much to do with history. The US was founded by devout religious exiles, and the UK has a long hisotry of religious wars and persecution that people do not miss.

This question is easy for you to ask because you guys make the rules. Turn the tables and let's see if you could meet our criteria and not say that it is bias and double standard.

But then again as long as your side always wins, anything is fair, Right? Like stabbing Falwell's family in the back after a death in the family. You win, so it's okay right?

Your apparent disdain for the scientific method wouldn't by any chance have something to do with a failure to be able to present evidence for creationism using that method, would it? It doesn't work for you, so you're going to claim it's unfair? Here's a suggestion: by all means validate creationism for yourself in other ways; but if you cannot present evidence for its validity as science, don't call it science and don't claim that it ought to be taught in science classes.

Telling me that the "rules" for creationism are different would also seem to place it outside of the realms of science, because scientists have to employ the scientific method and have their work peer reviewed by others who do. But please tell me, because this sounds really interesting: how exacly are your own rules different, and why do they demonstrate the truth of your position and the falsehood of mine?

LindaLou, you want validation? Let's see you validate a few things first since this is your requirment. That would be only fair since all things in science are validatable, right?

1) Can you validate where the matter came from for the big bang? Need time and no god to make evolution work.
2) Can you validate abiogenesis in a retestable real world conditions where no cheats are used to get desired results. And show that not only the building blocks for life can be made. But that life itself can form in that same puddle of slime?
3) Can you take bones from millions of years ago and make them show the actual observable process of how they evolved? Validation.
4) Can you tell us which systems in the human body evolved first, in what order, and why? Evolution is a scientific theory and a true fact. So you should have these answers.
5) How did DNA evolve and what programmed it to make life?
6) How did DNA become the template for all life?
7) How and why did we become related to all life through DNA when there are many more possiblilties for evolution of life?

With respect, ikester, why are you answering questions with questions?

Does the reason you refuse to explain a) what creation science is and b) how it is a science truly have anything to do with your wanting an answer from your opponents first?

Frankly, if I had an answer to a question I'd be only too happy to share it. To prove to my opponents that I know what I'm talking about. I think that the evolutionists of this forum will be only too happy to answer your seven questions above. And if they can't answer, there is plenty of online literature readily answering all of the above.

The issue I'm facing here is, I literally can't get an answer about creation science. Not from a poster or any online literature. And it's not for lack of trying either.

So here I am asking. Can any poster here either tell me or direct me to where I can find the answer to the following:

a) What is creation "science" and under what label should it be taught in in schools? Science?
b) How is it considered a form of science? ...or is the use of the word science as part of its appellation not meant to be taken literally (i.e., is it not really science)?

I am not asking this out of rudeness or contempt. I am not asking so that I can have ammunition to fire down your argument with. I am honestly and openly asking because I actually want to know.

Just a couple of points of information ikester

Could this standard be debating concepts without evidence?

We did that. It's where we started, with Aristotle and the greek philosophers discussing the natural world using just argument.

Then we discovered that this was no guarantee for determining the truth, that you had to test for this with evidence of objective reality.

From this we developed the scientific method.

As a point of reference, alchemists and astrologers meet this standard: this is not to insult your position or views, but to demonstrate that this standard is low for determining truth and validity.

Science meets this standard plus it's own standard with the scientific method.

If you have some other standard, then please elucidate it.

The question comes down to testing for truth, and what method you use.

Enjoy.

Thanks ikester, great questions.

In science it is okay to say "we don't know" and this is usually followed by "let's see if we can find out".

It would be silly to pretend you know something when you don't, wouldn't you agree?

Enjoy.

1) Trying to show that the same standard that you guys want creation to meet, you cannot meet yourselves (double standard).

2) There is and never will be "any evidence" The evolutionist run science will ever accept as evidence for creation. Right?
If it's freasible, then the person either lied, frauded it, or carved it, right? Even though past evolution frauds are okay.

So guess what. I'm not wasting my time putting up any evidence for creation that will be shot down unscientifically with unfounded claims.

Example: When the dino and human prints were found together in the paluxt river. What was the very first rumor the evolutionist started and the news media picked up on? That some creationist that lives near by, went out in the dark of night and carved those prints. And that my friend was a bald face lie. Why?

1) No wittness was ever prodiced that saw the alleged crime.
2) It is a federal offense to deface government owned property.
3) the slab it was found under weight several tons. How did he move it by himself, then carve the print and move it back?
4) There was no court case ever heard on this. Not even one charge brought up against accused person for doing the federal offense.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm

So I guess when it comes right down to lying for evolution, it's all okay as long as you win, Right?

The observation of the world around us that leads us to believe that the universe was ultimately brought into existence by a superior intellect/designer, which explains what we observe in life around us.

"time" "order" "laws" "purpose" "life" "animation" demand a "life giver" "a time giver" "a law giver", as all things result from "something", rather than the accidental results of chance. Or an "unthinking" event. In fact, they RELY on a scientific/mathematical unfathomable intellect. Consider the planets, the alignment, the balance, speed/time, etc. Not one element can be off course. It is, in a sense, perfectly orchestrated, run by a perfect conducter! Let me know when order has erupted out of disorder/explosion?

As we ourselves are thinking individuals, constantly designing something (even arguments). Ohers see the results of that "design" which is only a reflection of ourselves.

Since we know chance doesn't produce anything from nothing, but design with existing material does. How then can we assume in a scenario otherwise, if life has dictated this to us all along? We can observe evidences of design everyday. In fact, it doesn't really require a long complex lecture to make it "sound" plausible and most of this is engaging ones brain and using basic common sense.

Frankly there is so much on here, that I am convinced anybody can search and seek for themselves if they are TRULY interested. It really depends to on what you consider the world around you a result of.....chance or purpose? There is an abundance of information for either side, so much so, that there really isn't any excuse for anybody to remain "uninformed". You make your choice based on what is presented and whether you feel it's evidence or baloney.

Because theories and fashions continue to change. But the biblical word remains constant. I truly believe the bible has the answers Pwcca, though one may scoff. That's ok, the bible predicted that too

I'd like to make an analogy here. I think there may be the possibility of a giant primate existing in remote areas of the world, in the US called bigfoot or sasquatch. I've done a lot of reading about this and as usual with me, the jury's out -- I'm open-minded. This is also an area in which evidence is ambiguous, and you do encounter hoaxes. You can't accept everything you hear or read because you want to "believe," and the more carefully the evidence is scrutinised, the better. People have been caught hoaxing tracks, and sometimes those tracks had previously been endorsed as genuine by people with scientific credentials. People can make mistakes and at the end of the day, the best way to get at the truth is by having a lot of experts examine the evidence in as wide a variety of ways as possible, with comparison to other similar types of evidence.

That appears to have been the case with the Paluxy tracks and judjing from what I've read about them, even most creationist organisations nowadays no longer claim that they are "man tracks." The particular print that your video shows does indeed appear to be carved -- by Baugh or someone else, I don't know, but that is what the evidence indicates. You can read about it here. Of note:



So it would seem that on closer observation than a cursory look on a video, there are features in the print which you would not expect to see in a natural print.



So we have the provenance for at least some of the tracks: we know they were carved. One would have to be increasingly skeptical about the authenticity of the remaining ones.



So now we have evidence of fakery in the past, and an explanation of how it was done. If we compare this method to the appearance of Baugh's tracks, we see that this is indeed a possibility.

Now I'm quite keen for genuine bigfoot evidence to come to light; but if these were alleged bigfoot tracks, I'd have to say that the probability is very high that they have been faked. You don't get closer to the truth by accepting false evidence.

Would you like to try again?

You know what I find the most funniest about your post? That you would grasp so far into a lame excuse to disprove creation evidence. I give you a 5 star for effort.

This whole thread reaffirm something to me about the way evolutionists think about anyone who disagrees with them and their lifestyles.

Not one person posting here even made a lame attempt to condemn the hateful, deplorable action of other people who agree with them. Even to the point where I made an example of how it would affect their kids or grand kids if they saw this.

At the extent of thinking that all of these actions are okay, as long as evolution always ends up in a positive light. And creation in a negative one. Proves to me even more that evolution is a theory of hate and death. Why?

Snide remarks are made to defend these actions. Attempts to derail thread was even used to defend such actions. No one even addressed how the Children may have been affected because I guess the hate for Christian children is just as bad as the hate for Christian parents.

I was actually hoping to see different responses. But did you know that every forum where I posted similar threads, it was "always" the same responses? You all think a like, and hate a like. And because it was a Christian, whom you guys disagree with. It's open game. Even to the point of hurting small Children.

You guys are no different than they people who run the Rational Response Squad. In fact I'd bet that most of you are members and supporters. And if not, you should be.

Now you might say: that was mighty mean things to say. But remember, your own peers dipped even lower than I did or would and none of you even flinched. Now ask yourselves why you would prefer to defend instead of condemn such action?

I've shown you some details of what we know about the specific prints you were referring to, and I showed you the steps in my reasoning.

Instead of explaining why you disagree, you have employed what appears to be a typical tactic of ad hominem and cries of how the methods used to assess your claims (logic and the scientific method) are unfair.

I had expected more than "boo-hoo" in response but maybe my hopes were a little high.

If I would have come up with the same idea about Big Foot. I would have been accused of being an uneducated moron that believes in myths. Then laughed at. But it's okay if a evolutionist does this and can get away with it. Double standards for evolution. Just as bad as lying for evolution.

Notice that I did not simply say, "Human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints? Impossible!" I instead showed you how I would approach the evidence. If you disagree with anything I specifically said about that, let me know. Remember that some creationist organisations also do not accept the Paluxy prints as genuine.

Yes there are a lot of people who say, "Bigfoot? Impossible!" I've debated with them. We present evidence. There isn't a lot for bigfoot, which is why I said I think it's a possibility rather than "I believe."

If you have more convincing evidence to present yourself, please do.

Good on you Bex! My sentiments exactly. You guys keep asking for evidence - that IS our evidence. The strongest out there. Scientific laws themselves are the evidence.

Concerning Bigfoot, some think he is Cain.. (yes - from the Cain and Abel story). He was cursed to walk the earth and not die.

Hi Jeanie, thanks! That's a VERY interesting comment you made by the way.

And here is a very apt shakespeare quote:

I used to use this as a signature in science forums until I realised it was drawing attention to me. It's a provokation in a way -- but only to those who are closed-minded.

Having said that, evidence is always a good way to prove a point. Please don't involve me with claims that bigfoot is Cain (lots of problems with that), or an alien, or a being from another dimension . . .

LL:
I used to use this as a signature in science forums until I realised it was drawing attention to me. It's a provokation in a way -- but only to those who are closed-minded.

Having said that, evidence is always a good way to prove a point. Please don't involve me with claims that bigfoot is Cain (lots of problems with that), or an alien, or a being from another dimension .

Jeanie: LOL. This would be contradictory to your way of thinking : ) I agree it sounds fantastic. I'll try and dig up where I just saw that.

Profound Hamlet quote!!!

Please don't.

It's for reasons like this that rational people usually laugh when bigfoot is mentioned, and it makes people who want to approach it in a scientific way look pretty stupid.

What is this thread about exactly, and where is it going?

I don't know. You brought it up LL.

Um Linda, the arrogance you are displaying on here right now is totally unnecessary. From what I'm picking up here, your disdain for ANYTHING that someone suggests from the bible, means it's an utter joke or then makes a fool out of us all.....how totally insulting can you get?

So basically, according to lindalou, even the IDEA of Bigfoot isn't a joke UNTIL (if) someone may have a biblical thought about it....

Do you realise that some people find the idea of bigfoot alone hilarious? You could have clearly been made fun of on this forum for bringing that up in the first place and I seem to recall you were not. So please give other people the same respect in return for expressing their own ideas, which may of course be completely off base.

So basically bigfoot is quite "ok" with Linda, so long as there are no biblical ideas given about it.

Linda, in my dictionary here it says about science "systemic study and knowledge of natural or physical phenomena", it's the search for truth is it not?...if that "truth" is something you do not agree with because it just might have biblical connotations, do you then decide "well it isn't true or rational then"....

Is this what lies at the bottom of your beliefs? Nobody is even pointing in your direction regarding Cain or any other ideas about Bigfoot. This was just an idea that "some" may have which Jeanie pointed out. This is just you being high and mighty and disrespectful towards anybody with a Christian belief system. Not surprising coming from someone who is a legend in her own mind (or mini god).

No we do not know IF bigfoot is real, OR if he is, WHAT bigfoot IS, whom/what/where "it" comes from etc. Ideas come from many different quarters, the only one you can't stand is any that may come from a biblical idea. Nobody expected you to agree, but you consider yourself above it all, superior to such "irrational beliefs" whilst you display some of your own on here as though they are completely rational.....uh huh.

Yeah, would not want to mistake you for a fundie lol.

So if bigfoot exists, it's a realistic possibility that there is only one, and it is an eternal being that walks the earth?

If you do accept it as a realistic possibility, OK. If the people I debated this subject with, whom I was giving scientific evidence to, read these comments, they'd be falling out of their chairs laughing. It's a little frustrating. But I'm happy to leave off discussing this, it's O/T in this forum.

It's only okay because you say so? Your reality does not change real reality. Thought you maybe able to create a virtual reality where all that you say and claim are always true.

Linda, I seem to recall not actually claiming I believed in the "Cain" scenario, but rather saying it was interesting....I suggest that people can throw any ideas into the mix when they are discussing a possible "being" that none of us know for sure exists... Since that seems to be the case and it's not be captured, how can you then laugh at anybody's ideas about a being you yourself haven't seen either? Who knows how many there are (if there are).

Could you please explain what scientific evidence you were discussing regarding this? I'd LOVE to hear it, because something you haven't seen, haven't caught, haven't been able to observe may well have US falling out of OUR chairs laughing....

To be honest with you, it isn't a subject I have the time or energy to re-open here. You're welcome to have a peep at what we discussed though. Molbiogirl loves me really.

There must be a stopping point somewhere at some initial cause, though. You believe that the initial cause was God, others believe it was the universe itself.

A fusion explosion results in helium from hydrogen. Helium is a gas which doesn't react with other elements easily. It is more ordered than hydrogen.

Because snowflakes exist from the random change in temperature and the random accumulation of water vapor in the air.

If you flip a coin enough times we see a pattern of 50% heads and 50% tails, produced from random/chance. Order from nothing.

That which is "common sense" is not necessarily true. You wouldn't say that someone sacrificing his son for your misdeeds is "common sense", would you?


Even if we decide that it must be the result of purpose, that does not eliminate evolution and lots of time as candidates for the method by which that purpose was/is to be accomplished.

Is belief a choice?

There are documented changes to the Bible since the time of Jesus.
Tom Sawyer, Mien Kampf, and the Bhagavad Gita have remained constant since they were written. Should we also believe that they have the answers?

I'm not knocking the Bible down to the level of Tom Sawyer. However, you are saying that we should trust the Bible because it has not changed. You need to supply a better reason than that for trusting the Bible about science.

Sure, scientific theories change....because knowledge increases. Do you think it shouldn't change? Why?

I'm not quite understanding the way you've worded this Linear...a stopping point? (perhaps my health is interferring with my comprehension).

Since everything (as I've repeated) are all run by laws and time and are gradually winding down/ageing, it would indicate that there was a beginning/starting point, as everything we observe has a starting point and of course, winds down. The same with all things. I have repeated, how the universe itself must have been designed, since all that exist in it are perfectly aligned mathematically in just the right distance, revolving at just the right speed, reflecting the unfathomable mind behind it. Without such a mind, no amount of elements can in themselves get together, plan, cooperate and construct such intriciate mathematical design and outcome.



What has helium or any other element we have, got to do with creating a universe, earth and other planets in perfect alignment? And can be considered responsible for it?



No, but it's a good idea to use it on occassion. God does always makes perfect sense to us, considering God does not think as men think. However, He gave us common sense for a reason also. Probably better not to throw it completely out the window.



It doesn't require it either. Although God could well have done it that way had He chose to do so. But there is no observation of such, neither now or in history....I see no reason to consider it happened in any other way than what God has already revealed. His explanation suffices and more than explains the world around me.



Is it not?



The bible has been dissected, studied, scrutinised, meditated on, almost more than any other book . The fathers of the church/scholars etc, have studied it extensively. This book has remained loyal to the original scrolls, varying only slightly in "some" language interpretation.

Perhaps you might find this link interesting in regards to study/origins etc.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/is-the-bible-true.htm

The bible is inspired by truth (Holy Spirit),an ancient book surviving thousands of years. The story books you mention are not comparable with the inspiration of the holy spirit of our history. Though yes, those stories you mention too remain the same, because they are self evident for what they are and do not require ongoing changes.

The bible, also doesn't need to alter it's basic foundation, because it's the truth, self evident/constant and not requiring to change as more "scientific" evidence comes to light. God already knew these things and can easily survive men's "scutiny". Prophecies included. Or do you suppose He can't?

If it was a bunch of stories hailed as truth, it would not have survived such scrutiny, nor would the prophecies have ever come to fruition, including Christ Himself or the conversions that are occuring around the world as a result. THe healings in His name, the miracles etc, would also not exist (nor defy medical explanation/science).

Nothing wrong with scientific theories changing Linear as new "evidence" comes to light, but it indicates our limitations and ongoing search for answers. God Himself gave us a mind to think/comprehend and study with. God cannot possibly be threatened by science, since we require it to further comprehend His creation. God has not required to keep "updating" His word because He is "all knowing". The bible would have been torn to shreds easily long ago if it were a mere story book or the people in there were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but rather relying on their own "intellect".

We've had enough people give it a darned good shot though. They usually don't get too far for those with a good foundation in biblical scripture and grounding in Christ. To those more ignorant or with lofty ideas and problems with pride, they may well convince them. Misinterpreting or re-interpreting scripture with their own antibiblical twists is a popular tactic. We've enough of that within my own church. The wolves in sheep's clothing! The worst of the lot. At least the obvious enemies are spotted, but the ones within the church are the worst.

Yeah...sorry. I meant that someone could say that this God had to have an initial cause because He is so complex and ordered. You would say that He is the uncaused initiator of everything else. Since He is unseen and, so far, no one can verify any of His intercessions in the workings of this planet, some would say that the universe is the uncaused initiator of everything.

I understand your use of the anthropic principle regarding the universe's design. I happen to agree with it.


You said order cannot come from an explosion....I showed you that it can. I don't know if you are implying that the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not.


Genesis explains the world around you to you because you don't seem to look too deeply into the world around you.

Why did geologists in the 1700's, most devout Christians who were looking for the sediment layers that were placed there by the Flood, eventually conclude that the Earth was much much older than 6000 years?

How do we see stars that are more than 1 million light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old?

Why are the DNA strings for the chimpanzee and humans so closely matched in the locations where they have been affected by Endogenous Retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses are the leftovers from when viruses attached themselves to the DNA of a seed cell (Egg or Sperm). This is a random event, yet the chimp and human have at least 10 that are in the identical place in their DNA.

These are the kinds of things that make scientists go "hmmmm".

Then choose to believe that there is no God for one week and then choose to believe that Jesus is God again. During that week you must actually believe there is no God, no evidence of God, and that your former Christian family is deluded and their prayers are completely ineffective.

Can you do that?

Not talking about prophecies here. However, I will join you in the Bible forum if you would like to start a prophecy thread there.

The Bhagavad Gita is a "a bunch of stories hailed as truth" according to Christians. It was first written down before the Bible was and Hindu's fervently hail it as true, yet it is still here. The Koran is a "bunch of stories hailed as truth" according to Christians. The rate of conversions to Islam exceeds that of conversions to Christianity. Also the Koran has undergone intense scrutiny by Islam's religious leaders and is still here. Does Islam's success in conversions say anything about its validity?

Please name one verifiable healing/miracle that we can investigate. For a healing, we would need permission to look into the patient's medical record to verify that the disease/injury existed prior to the healing and was no longer present after the healing. Replacement of an amputated limb would be a good one to look for.


Yet many don't search for answers because those answers might clash with their interpretation of the Bible.
He is only threatened by a lack of faith.
This argument supports the "inspiration" of the Koran and Bhagavad Gita.

And you know they are misinterpreting/re-interpreting scripture because....?

Linear: There are documented changes to the Bible since the time of Jesus. Tom Sawyer, Mien Kampf, and the Bhagavad Gita have remained constant since they were written. Should we also believe that they have the answers?

I'm not knocking the Bible down to the level of Tom Sawyer. However, you are saying that we should trust the Bible because it has not changed. You need to supply a better reason than that for trusting the Bible about science.

Sure, scientific theories change....because knowledge increases. Do you think it shouldn't change? Why?

Jeanie: Don't know if you've caught my stance, but the Bible has been changed which is why Mormons use other scripture and modern day revelation to help clarify it. This does not change the fact that the Bible is inspired (so far as interpreted correctly) but I haven't seen anything Bex has said that I disagree with concerning that personally....

GOD has not changed, though. He does not adapt according to the fads of the day...yet He (actually Jesus Christ) does give revelation to guide a modern church with it's modern issues. God is the literal father of our spirits and created us, but Jesus Christ (along with a few other helpers) actually created the world and is the one who guides the church which is why it's called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Linear: Please name one verifiable healing/miracle that we can investigate. For a healing, we would need permission to look into the patient's medical record to verify that the disease/injury existed prior to the healing and was no longer present after the healing. Replacement of an amputated limb would be a good one to look for.

Jeanie: I have heard several personal stories of actual healings that were medically documentable.. (People I know). These are the words of the President of the church at the time I became a member, Spencer W. Kimball,

Quote:
The question is often asked by wondering or skeptical people: Why are there not the spiritual manifestations today, including healings, as in the days of the Prophet and the days of the Savior?

The answer is clear: There are infinitely more healings today than in any age and just as wondrous. The religious history of the Savior’s ministry and the period following is written in a few short chapters, and as John said, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25).

As the years of history were condensed, it would be expected that only the most spectacular of the healings would be chronicled, giving the impression that all miracles were spectacular ones and all who asked were healed. Little mention is made of the possible numerous times in Christ’s and the Apostles’ times when the blessings were not so outstanding, when a headache was stopped, when a recovery was greatly speeded up, or when agonies were relieved. Today the walls of libraries would bulge if all the miracles of our own time were recorded.

When I visited the European missions in 1955, I heard the testimonies of hundreds of missionaries. In many there were repeated stories of miracles, astounding in their performance. For instance, there were many who told of serious operations required by the medical profession for serious maladies. The times were set for surgery, and after administration and prayer and fasting, the same doctors came forth with new X-rays to say that something had happened and the surgery was not necessary. It happened so many times that it could hardly be a fanatic interpretation or a fanatic imagining things. All of them could not have been imagined or misinterpreted or fancied. Such cancelled operations have been reported in many countries by missionaries from many towns in different times and at widely separated places and under different circumstances to many people at home and abroad.

Instantaneous healings are numerous and range into the areas of sight, hearing, lameness, internal organs, skin, bones, and all parts of the body. Incurable diseases have been healed. We are grateful beyond expression for the great skill and accumulated knowledge possessed by our physicians, but it must be that numerous healings credited to doctors and hospitals have been the healing of the Lord through the priesthood and by prayer. We are generally too ready to give the credit to the physician when at best his was but a contribution, small or large.

It must be remembered that no physician can heal. He can only provide a satisfactory environment and situation so that the body may use its own God-given power of re-creation to build itself. Bones can be straightened, germs can be killed, sutures can close wounds, and skillful fingers can open and close bodies; but no man yet has found a way to actually heal. Man is the offspring of God and has within him the re-creating power that is God given. And through the priesthood and through prayer, the body’s healing processes can be speeded and encouraged. Again, how grateful we are for the skill and patience and understanding of our great men who are trained to give us such marvelous service.

There are many who run to the doctor first and then go later to the elders when all other hope is gone. Elders are often called to the hospital to administer after the medical profession has done all it can. Then when the ill one is on his way to recovery, his recovery is credited to the scientist; or in case of death, some wonder why the priesthood did not heal him. It must be remembered that whether the Lord sees fit to heal instantaneously or gradually, whether it be through surgery and treatment or without it, the healing is still the Lord’s miracle. While doctors have worked hard to gain the accumulated knowledge of today, it must be remembered that He who created our bodies has known since the beginning how to remodel, re-create, and repair them.

When elders bless and recoveries do not follow, frequently there is not only disappointment but sometimes a diminishing of faith, especially where many prayers and long fastings have been part of the program. Again, it must be remembered that all the sick and afflicted were not healed in other dispensations either. Even the first great Apostles asked, “Why could we not cast him out?” And the answer from the Lord seemed not to condemnatory: “This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer.” (Matt. 17:19, 21.)

Though Peter and his associates performed numerous miracles, many of which are recorded for us, even to the raising of the dead, it is known that they did not heal all who desired restoration. Also, even the Savior with all power on earth and in heaven did not heal them all. He could have done so, that is certain, but many did not have the faith to be healed. In his own world of Nazareth he found so little faith that few of his miracles were performed there. He was the boy from Nazareth. Without honor in his own home town, “he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief” (Matt. 13:58). Others he did not heal probably because they were not to be healed.

Death is a part of life. People must die. There can never be total victory over disease and death until the end of time. Much headway has been made, and statistics concerning death are encouraging; more infants survive, more mothers go through childbirth successfully, and people, generally, live longer than in centuries past. We are grateful to all those hardworking scientists who have contributed to this great accomplishment. But die we must; otherwise there could be no resurrection, and without that there could be no immortality and further development. We seem to be rapidly changing our mode of dying from the sickbed to the street, or at the side of the road, or the canyon in traffic accidents. But die we must.

Naturally we all properly postpone our deaths as long as possible, but the day must come. To pray for or bless even the very aged or the seemingly incurable still seems proper—for we do not know when a person is to die nor when one should return to the next world. So we pray and bless consistent with the mind and will of the Lord who does know the end from the beginning and who can heal if it is right. But there will not likely be a healing if the appointed time to die has come. There have been exceptions, however, when the time has been postponed. Notable among these is the case of King Hezekiah who pled for an extension period and who was granted 15 years—after which he moved on to the next world. Many times, in our own experience, it would seem that there have been time extensions granted through monumental faith. Thoughtful folks must realize, however, that there often comes a time when it is imprudent to demand an extension of the Lord and most unsound to ask in an unqualified manner for an extension. Sometimes such an extension would prolong, unwarrantedly, the time of suffering and deprivation and, in some cases, the burden upon the family. Consequently our prayers are properly offered and blessings pronounced if there is not an unqualified demand for restoration. Sometimes the body is healed through such unconscionable demands, and the mind is left impaired. Sometimes the body, under such circumstances, neither dies nor lives. It seems to me that until our wisdom and judgment are as great as the latent power we hold, we must be extremely careful in telling the Lord what he must do. Perhaps no one would ever die if we had our way; and perhaps, sometimes, some would die too soon for their good or ours if we could reach the height of the power that lies within the priesthood.

Occasionally people become oversentimental and sometimes fanatic and ascribe as a miracle everything that happens. But for every person who is overpsychic or fanatical, there are numerous persons who fail to see the miracle in numerous healings. “They would have recovered anyway,” they say. I give one example:

The Lord said to his own, “O ye of little faith.” (Matt. 6:30.) Aren’t we all? Once when far away from home, after three days of quite intense suffering, I finally admitted to my companion, Brother Harold B. Lee, that I was in distress. He gave me a sleeping pill he had, then knelt by my bed and blessed me. Though I had gone through three nights in pain and almost without sleep (it was then 3:00 a.m.), I was fast asleep moments after the blessing. I am now ashamed to confess that the next morning when I awakened, my first thought was of the potency of the pill. Then, as hours passed and I knew the effect of the pill must have passed, the distress did not return, and I fell on my knees in remorse to ask forgiveness of the Lord for having given credit to the medicine rather than to him. Months passed and still there was no return of pain or distress. I am ashamed, but I probably represent numerous people who have done likewise. O we of little faith! “Brother A. was not healed.” “Sister B. got well, but it was a long process.” “Brother C. would have gotten well anyway.”

As I went into surgery a few years ago, I was still conscious when the doctors and nurses were standing around me waiting, I said to the specialist, “There are numerous people full of faith who are praying for you this morning.” He quietly replied, “I’ll need their prayers.” It is my firm conviction that the numerous prayers were heard, that his hand was steadied and guided, that his judgment increased, and that as a result of the blessings of the Lord, healing followed and my voice returned to a satisfactory extent. The skeptic might have other answers.

Sometimes I have cringed to hear elders tell of miracles in which they were the administrators. It has sounded like boasting, reminding me of the Lord’s caution to the triumphant seventies:

“Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20).

I would fear to boast of miracles in which I was part for fear the Lord might be displeased even to the extent of curtailing his power entrusted to me.

The blessing belongs to the recipient, who may wish properly to bear testimony to it, but it would seem ill fitting and presumptuous to even approach boasting, for none of us can heal. Only by the priesthood are results manifested. If an elder charged the afflicted one never to mention those who laid on hands, it would further take away the temptation to take honors unto oneself. All honor should be given our Heavenly Father in every instance. Such a procedure seems to be in line with the Savior’s life, for in many healings he charged, “Tell no man.” To the leper asking mercy he said, “I will; be thou clean,” and immediately the leprosy was cleansed. Then Jesus said, “See thou tell no man.” (Matt. 8:3–4.)

I know that the healing power is in the Church and that numerous people are healed or improved or restored through the blessings of the Lord, sometimes with and sometimes without the skill of men.

We should do all we can for ourselves first: dieting, resting, taking simple herbs known to be effective, and applying common sense, especially to minor trouble. Then we could send for the elders, the home teachers, the neighbors or friends in whom we have confidence. Frequently this is all that is required, and numerous healings can be effected. In serious cases where the problem is not solved, we turn to our skilled and helpful men who can help so wonderfully. One young woman who was sent to the hospital for serious surgery, and who was very nervous and afraid, stated that when the doctor came to see her the night before the early morning surgery, he indicated he had been to the temple. She relaxed and felt at peace, realizing that she was in the hands of a righteous, skilled man of faith and the Lord was watching.

Let not the skeptic disturb your faith in these miraculous healings. They are numerous. They are sacred. Many volumes would not hold them. They are simple and complex. They are gradual, and they are instantaneous. They are a reality.

Linear: Is belief a choice?

Jeanie: Of course, but we can also arrive at a point of actual "knowing"

Linear: Since He is unseen and, so far, no one can verify any of His intercessions in the workings of this planet, some would say that the universe is the uncaused initiator of everything.

Jeanie: Actually God the Father walked and talked with Adam as well as other Old Testament Prophets. And Mormons would argue that point..... He (God) has shown himself in these latter days but only to introduce His Son. There are things going on on this earth that many are not aware of, but He and Jesus Christ are very much involved in the going's on of this earth. We are coming to a crucial turning point in the earth's history. In the future He will make himself very much known to the entire earth and every knee show bow and confess that He is the Christ...including the Jews.

That was an interesting post, Jeanie. It seems that your religion/denomination has miracles associated with it also. It looks like they are connected to Christ's power as much as any other Christian denomination.

Certainly, there are many that can be skeptical about the validity of the healings, but that is because there are no well-documented healings from your or any other denomination.

I understood that the miracles performed by Jesus were to verify to doubters that He had the authority to speak for God. The miracles were to convince non-believers to come to Christ.

Are there any missing limbs being restored by miraculous healing in your denomination?

Limbs??? LOL : ) I don't know why but that strikes me very funny.....

I don't know of any limbs, Linear, but there is a cool story I can try and find. It would make more sense that way. A kid's hip was blown out by gunshot back during what is called....blanking. let me find it - The Haun's Mill Massacre.

Here it is:

On 30 October 1838, three days after the extermination order was issued, some 200 men mounted a surprise attack against the small community of Saints at Haun’s Mill on Shoal Creek, Caldwell County. The assailants, in an act of treachery, called for those men who wished to save themselves to run into the blacksmith shop. They then took up positions around the building and fired into it until they thought all inside were dead. Others were shot as they tried to make their escape. In all, 17 men and boys were killed and 15 wounded.

After the massacre, Amanda Smith went to the blacksmith shop, where she found her husband, Warren, and a son, Sardius, dead. Among the carnage she was overjoyed to find another son, little Alma, still alive though severely wounded. His hip had been blown away by a musket blast. With most of the men dead or wounded, Amanda knelt down and pleaded with the Lord for help:

“Oh my Heavenly Father, I cried, what shall I do? Thou seest my poor wounded boy and knowest my inexperience. Oh Heavenly Father direct me what to do!” She said that she “was directed as by a voice,” instructing her to make a lye from the ashes and cleanse the wound. She then prepared a slippery elm poultice and filled the wound with it. The next day she poured the contents of a bottle of balsam into the wound.

Amanda said to her son, “ ‘Alma, my child, … you believe that the Lord made your hip?’

“ ‘Yes, mother.’

“ ‘Well, the Lord can make something there in the place of your hip, don’t you believe he can, Alma?’

“ ‘Do you think that the Lord can, mother?’ inquired the child, in his simplicity.

“ ‘Yes, my son,’ I replied, ‘he has shown it all to me in a vision.’

“Then I laid him comfortably on his face, and said: ‘Now you lay like that, and don’t move, and the Lord will make you another hip.’

“So Alma laid on his face for five weeks, until he was entirely recovered—a flexible gristle having grown in place of the missing joint and socket.” 20

There were many witnesses to this.

Linear: Even if we decide that it must be the result of purpose, that does not eliminate evolution and lots of time as candidates for the method by which that purpose was/is to be accomplished.

Jeanie: I agree with this. No one knows for sure how long the creation process took place. The only thing I disagree with is that we had to evolve from bacteria or even from apes. Technically I can see having a hard time with that idea, though. Even the scriptures say we came from dust so you could argue your stance is Biblical except that that would contradict other aspects which are Biblical concerning the creation. Obviously we are related genetically at least in that we are all made up of the same DNA give or take (don't quote me on that...I don't have that idea fully developed or understood cause I'm not an expert on genetics). Basically, though, that each creature is made separate and that we did not evolve from other creatures. Humans are unique and were made as we are from the start. I can find something to try and explain that better... but for now I need to go shower and go get some herbs for a kidney cleanse. Feeling better than i was, but still sick.

The helium is the result of fusion. The explosion itself results in disorderly dispersal of matter.

They have decided the term "explosion" should not apply to this hot, violent, imaginary event. Any imaginary English-speaking person viewing it would use the term 'explosion', but this is another trick to portray people as ignorant.

If it quacks like a duck...
'Determine' would've sounded more objective. But thanks for this spark of honesty.

Why don't you provide a few names?

Yes. Compromisers come to mind, and those who interpret scripture as a collection of myths.

He cannot be threatened.