asdf

Hmm, I don't wish to belittle anyone's choice in reading material or the products which are being promoted on this website but aren't titles like Why Evolution is Stupid immature and unprofessional? I don't like President George W. Bush but if I wanted to write a novel detailing the reasons why I would surely think up a better name than Why the President is Poopoo. Heh, seriously. In fact, if I were writing such a novel I'm sure that my editors and/or publishers would at some point suggest I use a more appropriate, mature title. Especially if I want to convince my audience!

If I'm interested in disproving an idea I'll make great pains so as not to come across as emotional or that I'm simply writing an angry diatribe. Instead, I'll reinforce and strengthen my argument with the most mature angle I can adopt.

What's more, can you imagine the heinous offense people would take to a title such as "Why God is stupid". And maybe there is a book out there with such a title or a similar one, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it's a well-written piece of work.

It'd be interesting to see what this video has to say and if its content is better thought up than its title. I'm sorry to offend anyone's interests here but a name like that really does stick out.

I agree with you. The title does sound immature, but the truth is that evolution is so ridiculous a claim that I can truly understand why is would be called stupid. I have called it by that name myself at times.

I also don't wish to offend anyone, but the concept of evolution is so outrageous and silly, that I would truly be embarrassed to call myself an evolutionist.

For a similar scenario, research the "tomato effect".


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].


"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."

—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

Hello Russ.

With all due respect I think that's taking it a bit far. You can't understand why anyone, anyone at all, would accept the ToE? Is every geologist, archaeologist, anthropologist, etc., etc. (who believes in the ToE) silly and stupid? There are some rather brilliant minds writing on the topic of the ToE and I'd have a hard time calling them silly and stupid while keeping a straight face.

If we were to argue for the moment that the ToE is indeed entirely false, the whole shabang is a bunch of malarkey and it's all wrong. Even then is it hard to at least see why people would accept it?

I think the ToE is fairly obvious and I accept it as factual and as the best current model explaining our origins. But I want to put that aside for a moment just to point out the idea of saying something is so silly that you cannot comprehend how anyone would believe it.

Centuries ago people believed the earth was flat. I don't think they were silly and I don't think what they believed was stupid. They were ignorant. People once belived that blood-letting helped rid the body of toxins. There actually is some logic which would lead them to believe this (even if it's not exactly true -- or, let's say, not a suitable treatment for (most) ailments). I don't think they were silly and I don't think what they believed was stupid. Scientists once classified bats as birds. Now, to my eye they are so clearly not in many ways. But I can see the reasoning which led them to classify bats as birds (well, they do fly after all!). I don't think they were silly and I don't think that what they believed was stupid.

There are few beliefs in this world which I think silly and/or stupid. For just about every one I can see a path of reasoning which led them to their conclusion. I don't think the idea of the ToE is stupid any more than I think a belief in God is (and I don't believe in one; I only accept the possibility). We as debaters need to be careful how we word things. Even when we're correct about certain matters the methods used can discredit ourselves, thus destroying the observation we wish to make in the first place. Labelling people or beliefs as silly, stupid or laughable and embarrassing is known as argumentum ad hominem and even when I see people arguing for what I believe in, I disapprove of anyone using this method of arguing.

I'm sure you agree with me on this last point

I don't even think the fact that people once believed leprechauns sat at the end of a rainbow as absurd and ridiculous (I just think they were wrong, heh).

I'm sorry but I can't help noticing things like this and then not stop myself from chiming in (further).

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Suzanna Clark is a fairy tale for grown-ups, whereas the Harry Potter series is geared more for children and adolescents. The Chosen, by Ricardo Pinto is a fairy tale for grown-ups. The Chronicles of Amber, by Roger Zelazny is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

All of the aforementioned titles are both fiction and contain an element of magic, they are also written for adults each and every one. This is what a fairy tale for grown-ups is. Evolution is a branch of science and as such makes no attempt to cater to people's imagination. As an avid reader of fiction and as someone with a great interest in fairy tales and folk lore I can say with some certainty that evolution, whether true or otherwise, definitely cannot fall under the category of fairy tales. I know what fairy tales for grown-ups are - I read them aplenty - and evolution is not it.

Ugh. Phew! That was frustrating...

It is true that you have called evolution silly and stupid. In fact you have strongly implied the anyone who believes that evolution occurred is silly and stupid.

What is not true, is that you have done anything to provide substantive support for your conclusions regarding evolution.

I also don't wish to offend anyone, but your video posts are the weakest and most unscientific conglomerations of incredulity and conspiracy claptrap that have ever graced the pages of a website that tries to maintain a veneer of credibility.

When confronted with evidence that demonstrates the contradictions and egregious errors in those videos, you either fail to respond or you respond with another unsupported assertion or a video link that is just as lacking in substantive content as the original. Many times the second video doesn't even address issue being discussed.

I understand that you are a busy person and addressing some of the topics of discussion requires actual research. However, you do seem to have time to show up and repeat these same assertions.

In view of the observations I have posted above, I believe you can understand why I find it extremely difficult to ascribe any kind of credibility to these statements of yours that you regurgitate continuously on this board.


Interesting! However, which group is clinging to their beliefs regarding origins despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs? Is it evolution supporters or evolution deniers? What methods should be used to resolve this quandary?




Did you plan on providing a quote from this century or at least from the last 30 years? I would think that science has advanced a bit since 1976.

Mordred: Is that name from Lord of the Rings? I love that trilogy... My near 21 year old daughter use to wear a ring around her neck all the time : ) (THE ring : ) She even spoke Elvish with a friend from Alaska who still does : ) I'm about due to watch it again. Been a while....

I can't believe I'm actually watching Disney's "Enchanted" as we speak. Didn't realize it was a cartoon. May go trade it in for House. Sorry to be off topic.

Russ, wow, are you watching tapes on "how to speak with a Mormon?" I was just looking at the little tab for dinosaurs and then thought I'd see what it said about the one for why evolution is stupid.... I know Abishag is trying to be a light now... Unbelievable.

Sorry, wasn't trying to jump on the bandwagon. I was actually interested in what you sent till I read that, though. Im sure there are nuggets of truth....

Mordred was King Arthur's villainous illigitimate son by his half-sister Morgause. We'll let him explain why he chose that and not something like Percival or Galahad

Avalon was the fabled isle to which Arthur was taken when he was mortally wounded -- there to sleep through the ages until Britain needed him once again.

Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, was well aware of this most British mythology. The ship that travels from the Grey Havens to the far west at the end of the book is a direct parallel with Arthur's journey to Avalon.

I's a long time since I read any of this. Maybe I should pick it up again.

Cat's out of the bag now, I guess - thanks for blowing my cover, LindaLou

In actuality, I've used the handle Mordred since I was in my teens and I probably chose it then in the same sense a teenager might choose Darth Vader as an online handle (because he's 'cool'). I grew up on a healthy dose of Arthurian legends and similar tales thanks to my father (who also grew up on them). Mordred's villainy, however, is much disputed amongst we Arthurian geeks of the world In some tales he's not a bad guy at all, just a vengeful one who has been wronged (by the wicked King Arthur). I've always been attracted to this concept. The whole idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and vice versa (Lucifer has even been paralleled with Prometheus as a hero and light bearer amongst some mythologists - another concept which appeals to me). Mordred's also been used in some Arthurian tales to represent Arthur's dark half - and interestingly when Mordred dies (in any of the versions told) Arthur dies too, thus indicating that one half cannot exist without the other, lending the stories a sort of Yin-Yangesque quality.

There are a lot of aspects to old folk tales which their modern versions have washed out or done away with. Ever read the original Cinderella story? One of the wicked step sisters partially amputates her foot so that the glass slipper fits! Anyway, I could blather on and on but I'll leave it at that.

Lord of the Rings is great but it hasn't had centuries to resonate throughout the cultures of the world like the Arthurian legends has so I've had a tendency to favore the latter over the former (not that new legends and fairy tales are unwelcome - they just need a couple hundred years to sink in :D).

Part of the charm of The Lord of the Rings, though, is that it draws upon British mythology and cultural heritage, all of which are older than the story itself. Tolkien was in fact hoping to make the book a new kind of myth for modern Britain.

I'm not familiar with the different Arthurian stories you're relating here, this is interesting. I like all of these different themes, such as the embodiment of the "dark side" of Arthur. I'm mainly familiar with L'Morte de Arthur, upon which most modern versions of the myth are based.

Ever heard of Joseph Campbell? I considered going to university to study comparative mythology. Ended up teaching English in the middle of England instead. Go figure.

Yes, the original Grimm's fairy tales were . . . grim. As were some of Hans Christian Andersen's. Different stories for a different age.

Yeah, I didn't mean to downplay LotR by any stretch. Especially since, as you said, he's drawing on existing mythologies (including elements of Arthurian legend). I also like that he made a point to avoid Christianizing his works, unlike C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels. I've always felt fantasy literature should deliberately leave out political or religious promotion (otherwise it's not fantasy!). I was disappointed as a child when I found out the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe were meant to teach religion. I would be equally disappointed if I found a current fantasy novelist was trying to comment on some political situation in the world (in fact I remember reading an essay by Tolkien somewhere where he said he made great pains to avoid having his works look like parallels with the real world and any that do exist in his works are coincidence - that he wasn't drawing on WWI or WWII, etc. as inspiration).

But I digress - something I've made an art of

I'll have to dig up where I read about the Arthur-Mordred duality. There are a number of modern fantasy novelists who've written variations on Arthur, with Merlin sometimes being an evil wizard and so on. I haven't read any but I may yet.

I have indeed heard of Joseph Campbell. His novel the Hero with A Thousand Faces is on my must read list. Stephen LaBerge's Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming mentions it and I've since intended to pick it up. That would've been awesome, having studied comparative mythology, I have a particular interest in the phenomenon of mischief gods and the parallel with Prometheus and the Devil, I like stories which make him a misunderstood persona rather than a demon (Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil springs to mind here). Though teaching English has its merit as well (but maybe I'm bias since that's what I do too :D)

"The Hero With a Thousand Faces" is a seminal work on the subject, and the hero myth resonates with me -- as I think it does with everyone, because it occurs in our own lives if we recognise it. There are a couple more Campbell books which are a little more accessible -- "Myths to Live By," and "The Power of Myth." The latter was my introduction to the spiritual and mythological world outside of Catholocism. It's just a long dialogue between Campbell and Bill Moyers transcribed from an old PBS series, but it's thought-provoking and beautifully illustrated. When my parents found out what it did to my Catholic faith, I discovered that the book mysteriously disappeared, LOL. I had to buy it again for myself when I was older. They even forced me to go see a Jesuit priest in hopes that he would . . . I don't know, purge the evil thoughts or something, and I was also forced to continue to attend church. Not sure what they thought they would accomplish but anyway, that's years ago now.

Tolkien did say that he was trying not to make a political or religious statement, and he was quite upset when people tried to draw parallels between the evil in the east (Sauron) and the Communist eastern bloc. Maybe that was there to a small degree, but I don't think it was conscious. What I do see much more of, despite his words, is World War One. He fought in the trenches and that must have been with him, vividly, the rest of his life. You can see it so clearly in the descriptions of Mordor and the hardhsips Frodo and Sam face there. Likewise, it's a pretty good metaphor for depression, though I don't know if Tolkien was ever depressed (i.e. when Frodo says he has no memory of bird, beast or flower, or of the Shire).

Like I said, it's a long time since I thought about these things, and there's really no one around to discuss them with. Thanks for this, I'd forgotten how much I enjoy it.

I suppose you like reading about Loki in Norse myths? He did horrible things but somehow he always seemed to be a necessary part of the pantheon, which would not have been complete without him.

My husband is playing this "evolution" computer game called Spore. It's very unscientific but quite creative -- think theistic evolution crossed with the Sims. Your creatures "evolve" in some very silly ways, e.g. eating "DNA points" so that next time your creature mates, you can change/improve bits of its body (I suppose this is supposed to be like mutation). Who thinks of this stuff I wonder.

Yeah, Loki is right up my alley. I also like searching for "gods of mischief" in folk lore, such as Puss in Boots.

My last post mentioning Anne Rice's novel had me doing some wikisearching and I just found out that not long ago she converted to the Roman Catholic faith and essentially disowned every vampire novel she ever wrote, as if to insinuate that she sinned by writing them! This is horible! Is someone paying her to say this? How can you diss years of artistic expression. AGH! Now, admittedly my Anne Rice phase disappeared when I parted ways with adolescence but this is still very disappointing to me. Really, I'm speechless.

Sorry to hear about what you went through with your parents for reading Joseph Campbell. I can't quite relate since I was raised sans religion (thank God, heh). I wouldn't ever wish to trample on anyone's beliefs but I remember as a boy visiting other family member's homes and to be brutally honest the ones with all the crucifixes and nativity scenes, etc., really left me feeling uneasy. I think it's all about one's view point and associations.

Anyway, all that aside, I get what you mean about Tolkien's unconscious parallels. I don't think even the best intentioned writer can avoid it, and that's fine. It's great, actually, IMO, because you can learn about the person (even after they've passed away). IMO, when we talk about the notion of a spirit or a soul I think they can be found in the works of writers. I was a huge fan of Roger Zelazny, still am, during high school and yearned to meet the man. Alas, he died in the 90's and I always revisit his novels and feel I learn a little bit about the man I'll never get to meet.

Anyway, the Frodo and Sam connection to Tolkien's experiences with the war are certain, but I think readers can apply the theme to other aspects of their life. The greater theme there being simply: relentless struggle.

Mordred, Are you interested in the occult or something? You aren't saying you do believe in satan but not God are you? Just curious, do you tend to take up for underdogs? I do that too. I've always had a thing about appearances being deceiving sometimes. But i'd tread carefully in these areas. satan does have a lot of power. It is not to be trifled with...

You guys are interesting. I'm about to let go of the idea of teaching...not sure. These little freshman have been driving me crazy. (But still, its special ed i would go into). I have thought, though, that English Lit. would be very interesting and meaningful to teach due to the idea of being able to actually talk more about life via what you read. My daughter is planning on becoming a secondary English teacher. (The one who was into LOTRs). Funny you both ended up in England, too. I have a DVD (National Geographic i think) that actually says Tolkien DID draw his analogies from WWII. The growth of cities from the country (losing the trees, etc.) I do personally see lots of ideological inferences, but guess its all open to interpretation and we do see into things how we believe. I loved Star Wars, too. I just noticed that Sunshine who is really English likes Star Wars and us Americans like British stuff.... Of course my ancestors are British...

Hey, Jeanie. What do you mean by occult here? Occult to me has religious connotation and I'm a non-religious person so my interest per se in anything that might fall under the category of occultism is purely academic (in other words, it's fun to read about things but I don't take them literally or believe in them). I like mythology and folk lore. I've read my fair share of christian tales but my interest in them is parallel with my interest in say the Hindu pantheon or the Aztec gods. For me it's enjoyable storytelling the same as reading a comic book, nothing more. That isn't to say I am invalidating christianity as a belief system, just that it's not my belief.



Well, just for the sake of argument here it's not possible to believe in the christian version of Satan without believing in the christian God, is it? But to answer the question, no, I don't believe such an entity exists; I don't believe in Satan or God. Since I'm agnostic I do consider possibilities however. IMO if there were a creator god and an archetypical Lucifer figure that went along with it, they would actually have to be allies not enemies, integral parts of each other: this ties in with what I was saying about Mordred and Arthur being one entity. Buddhist concepts of duality spring to mind here. The fact that some animals or forces in nature are seen as both giver and taker, friend and foe, etc., by many religions.

All that aside, my interests in the Lucifer character are purely from a storytelling standpoint. I'm not talking about secret midnight pacts with demonic entities and standing in the middle of a pentagram I've drawn on my apartment floor surrounded by candles and things like that. As I said, I don't believe in such things. But I do like where some tales deviate the traditional Satan character and make him into a more sympathetic entity. In some stories he is the light bearer and in no way represents evil deeds. In these versions he's simply a misunderstood persona who rebelled for the sake of individualism. But I'd like to differentiate this as storytelling from whatever your beliefs in a Satan persona might be. The characters (and versions of characters) I discuss here are not meant to reflect the same entity you believe in so I hope you don't consider anything I've said as offensive. To illustrate what I'm saying with an example here, it'd be like me writing a story about a character patterned after Jesus Christ and using the same name but having my character perform slightly different actions. He's not meant to reflect the authentic Jesus Christ, this one is just a character in a story. The connection ends there. Sort of like historic fiction if you will.

I just wouldn't ever experiment to find out if he is real....(for proof). You can't get on his good side. No such thing. He would spit and chew up anyone....You aren't personally offending me, but I don't like that someone is using Jesus' name to portray him differently. Pretty disrespectful.

I'm not using Jesus' or anyone else's name to portray them differently. It was a hypothetical example.

And I'm not experimenting with... gosh, I don't mean to sound condescending here, Jeanie, but did you read my post or just gloss over it? I tried to make it clear I was talking about storybook characters, not real life entities.

Mordered, I never thought about the similarities between Prometheus and Lucifer, but I'm not sure how I missed that -- it seems obvious now. I found this link, which discusses the subject in more depth. I like this idea of personifying the dawn of consciousness or knowledge.

By the way Jeanie, if you're reading, why not train to be a special ed teacher? That seems to be your forte.

Thanks for asking LL. (And thanks!) I've been racking my brain, lately, trying to decide what to do. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons.... I am already a Medical Assistant and could make better money in a medical office or hospital - my last job that way I worked in an ER admitting triage/and in back with the Doctors and nurses ordering labs and taking care of the records - very interesting - they had us up front for some time with no nurse so we had to have good medical instincts! More responsibility than I was sometimes comfortable with. Actually I got paid just slightly under what I make now 20 years ago doing that. BUT not sure I completely believe in allopathic medicine although it has its place. Right now its good to be there at school with my SR. She's still a little girl. I was right there across the hall from her recently when she was sick. The normal little turds at our school are spoiled and the first couple of years there at least (9th and 10th) think they are special and can do what they want. We are the more prestigious uppity high school for our county at least. I like them more as they get older especially if I've known them through.... It is rewarding having helped and been there with the ones who needed extra support. The REAL special kids are just sweet. I drove up the other day and this one kid was all smiles waving at me and it was a nice way to start the day. I DO love special ed. I use to work in a nursing home for "retarded men and boys," too. I actually showered grown men sometimes....cleaned up their diarrhea, etc. I am not physically up to (nor desirous) to do such physical feats anymore, but do love the special ones of all levels. I also care for the under dogs of the world and zero in on the kids who are different or don't quite fit in. I like the goths here, and the musicians. I think some of them are the sweetest sometimes....or the ones who are searching. Maybe I see Mordred that way : ) (Don't take that as insulting Mordred...you're obviously grown up and beyond a student as I had suspected before if you teach). I suppose techincally being a medical assistant or working with special ed are both nurturing roles. Nursing would've paid better. Although I have 5 years of college technically, though, only have an associates that would apply to a degree so would have roughly 2.5 years to become certified. I went to a local jr. college in St. Louis (Meramec) for a semester and took general secretarial courses. Then went out to Southern UT and did get my Associate in Science. Then transferred to BYU, Provo, and it was too big for my taste and intimidating. I soon wouldn't be able to support myself (had been living off SSI from losing my dad) so instead of trying to get into a nursing program (and fearing not being able to...am not strong in math or chemistry) I chickened out and transferred to an easy Administrative Medical Assisting course at a business college who NOW can't find my transcripts. (I'm working on that). I also have military schools behind me....in Petroleum laboratory and medical. I made emotional decisions back then. I could've done any school available from my ASFAB tests, but opted to go to VA so I could see the ocean and end back up in my boyfriend's unit : ) I was all about the experiences rather than making sound decisions for my future. Then I had kids and THAT was my job. I home schooled them for 7 years. I have tons of curriculum I hang onto for some reason. Honestly, I'm a little scared to go back to school due to the pressures and need to also work...my carpal tunnel...and brain fog! But at the same time would love to learn again and be able to actually help kids and have a solid professional degree. When it comes down to it, my love is psychology. You could use that in Special Ed. Actually you'd be with kids more day in and out and have more influence with them than even a counselor. I saw that in action the other day at school. When I thought about what I wanted to do when I grew up, I wanted to be a psychiatrist! (Or psychologist). I opted for something I could easily get a job in and wasn't all that seriously career oriented. But thank you!!! (Sorry to unload...I've been needing to). I am good with these kids. I have seen that.... But I worry about getting older too. I would no matter what, still love to actually have a bachelors to show for all the school I did go to. But then there are the student loans!!! I'm thinking right now of updating my resume and see if I'm marketable with such a lapse in the medical field. I do have a strong resume as far as medical experience, but its dated. So far not having the greatest experience with the school year, but haven't worked in special ed much, either. Mostly you are dealing with attitudinal teen agers. Sometimes they're sweet, though...and make it worthwhile. Do you deal with attitude? I imagine England is more disciplined that the states. Georgia, too, doesn't rank so high in the educational fields. My grammar has gone down the tubes living here even!

Is it more conservative over there Linda Lou? Really its no different than when we were kids, but kind of shocking sometimes how experienced kids seem to be these days. I generally love the House medical soap...but its getting stupid with the constant sexual references. I think they're running out of material. I get the DVDs when they come out, but season 4 is a let down.

I was telling Erica the other day, (as if she didn't know) that I'm not the authoritative type. I'm a support system... I don't really LIKE being in charge, but when I have to be don't like having to assert authority being stern. Its not that way, really, with special kids, though. Obviously I'm still going round and round a bit. Thanks for listening : )

I know Mordred... Not accusing you of doing that. Just warning against. I knew someone once who really had made a pact with the devil. Sorry....the casual references just concerned me cause I see him as very real. I have healthy respect for his power.

I'm talking about storybook characters. If I had children and one of them had an adoration for Darth Vader I wouldn't exactly be concerned that he plans to take control of the universe one day I feel the same way with my fascination for Luciferian/Promethean character types. My interest is on par with a comic book collector's interest in the Incredible Hulk. I realize some people may find it insulting but I don't view it in a religious context so I see it as a moot point.

I wouldn't make a pact with the devil because I don't believe in him, just as I don't believe in Darth Vader or the Incredible Hulk I just enjoy reading and analyzing fairy tales and mythologies containing the Luciferean/Promethean character concept.

The hyperlink you provided was an interesting read, Linda. It starts with a Carl Sagan quote even. How cool is that!

I'm posting this here for lack of any other suitable thread and the fact that I'm allergic to starting my own threads (or phobic maybe?).

BuuuUUuuuuuuut - I haven't heard even a whisper from any creationist doomsday theorists saying the world is coming to an end this Wednesday due to the large hadron collider being turned on.

Any takers? Betters?

I'm not so worried about the LHC on a global scale, although, I wonder if there will be long-term side effects from the EMF exposure to those working there. I hope not for their sakes.

I am a Christian conspiratorialist simply because that's where the (strong) evidence leads, and I'm not paranoid about being different from other people, as most seem to be.

Are Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid?


"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."

—Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

Come on, moles! Here moley moley moley!

Probably have better luck elsewhere, M. Apparently this forum isn't deemed important enough for the atheist hate groups to assign many moles hereunto. And since it isn't run by evopushers, we don't seem to have the pathetic sock puppet moles around here either.

CTD, hey there.

What is a sock puppet mole?

Actually just to add, if someone from an 'atheist hate group' (does that mean they hate atheists or they are atheists that hate ... something?) were to show up and start posting here, what makes them a 'mole' rather than someone posting their own opinions on the matter?

Hey Mordred,

It's all part of the conspiracy theory. You know, caused by cognitive dissonance, when it is easier to believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists from all kinds of different branches and the media, all involved in a conspiracy to hid the truth, rather than admit that ones (ill-informed) opinion is wrong.

Enjoy.

It is interesting that our viewpoints are at once parallel and opposite at the same time. I too am not paranoid about being different from other people. It is for this very reason I have never felt a nagging call to christendom despite growing up in a heavily christianized society. I don't say this with an ill will towards your faith in that regard, simply that I haven't let the majority, the teeming, all-encompassing mass (in this case, the christian fold) dissuade me from my accepted beliefs and the ability to look at all possibilities, to differentiate a fact from a maybe from a not likely.

I read the hyperlink you've included in your post. I have to be honest, I see neither strong evidence nor any whatsoever indicating that the path of a christian 'conrpisatorialist' is the obvious one that we should take. Somehow I tie this remark in with your stating that anyone who believes in evolution is being silly and ridiculous because, according to your research, it (evolution) is so obviously wrong. The trouble with statements like this which I can't quite get past is, how do you tackle disproving people like geologists who have spent decades researching these subjects when you yourself are not a geologist? That isn't to imply that just because something is in a book it must be the truth but logic dictates to me that if you wish to discredit numerous fields of science you need to have volumes and volumes of supporting evidence. Making statements like 'people are afraid to know the truth' and providing hyperlinks to videos can't be the way to do this, can it?

I find it interesting that you believe all evidence not only points you in the direction of the christian conspiratorialist but that it strongly does - I find the evidence supporting evolution is quite apparent and (I've said this in a previous post) even if it were wrong it sure looks like the truth. If I were to arguably speaking ask that you point me in the direction that took you down the path you have arrived to, that I wished to understand things as you do, what would you say the first step is? Where can I access the information which leads me to conclude what you have concluded? I would very happily look at what your claiming step by step, piece by piece.

I'd also like to ask if you believe all conspiracy theories are really happening or only some. You seemed to indicate that every known conspiracy theory is claimed to be false but in actuality is truth. Or perhaps I misread what you were saying. For example, do you believe ancient Egyptians were visited by aliens? Do you believe there is a cover up and that Buzz Aldron (sp?) never really landed on the moon and that it was faked?

What makes a mole is posting opinions which are not their own.

As you may not be familiar with the term, a 'mole' is a category of spy.

In this context they're usually hard to miss, and if it weren't for sheer desperation and a juvenile thrill at the thought of "getting over on someone", the lame moles I've seen would probably have stayed at home.

I understand the term mole in the context of a spy, as used in films and novels, etc. (and in the real world of course). I wasn't certain how someone on a discussion forum could be a mole.

Or how someone knows one is a mole.

Or what they're moling for in the first place.

Especially on a discussion forum about evolution and creation.

That part I didn't quite get and still don't.

Yo, RAZD

It's ok. For example I recently learned in another thread that Chelsea Clinton is an out of the closet Satan worshipper. I'd be curious to know which denomination of Satanism she follows, as the ones I've read about don't actually use upside down christian crosses as part of their symbolism. But we all learn something new every day.

Well now's your chance to ask one.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41742#Post41742
Guess we're more important than I thought. Would've been a larger compliment to send one with more experience, but I'll try not to take offense. "It's the thought that counts."

Hummm, ((( Smiles )))

For example, do you believe ancient Egyptians were visited by aliens?

The New Agers do..
They think the aliens may have built the pyramids in Egypt.
They call them arcturians ect..
About the aliens among us..
I call them supernatural beings most likely fallen angels ect..
Of that catagory..
The Giants the offsprings in the Bible they built citys.
But lots do believe that to be true..
Weither aliens, fallen angels or the giants..
Interesting subject indeed..
Do a search on it..
It's all over the web.
And one never really knows till they see one.
Maybe someday that day will come for you.
Not that it would be a fun expirence at all..
Just because you have never seen one over a pyramid..
Doesn't mean one hasen't been there before..
Or one is not comeing back..
Either..

Lots of subjects going on on this side of the board.
It gets really deep here..
But one really never really knows do they..
And some people do..
We shall see..

Lynn