I'm wondering if people could clarify here for me. If you classify yourself as a creationist and an anti-evolutionist, what does that essentially mean you believe? Do you believe that the earth is a few thousand (rather than a few billion) years old, that there was actually a global flood in which 2 of every species was saved by Noah, that everything was ceated by God as it is with no evolution occurring? If this is so, then how do you square these beliefs with what science says? How do you explain a young earth? Do you believe that radiometric dating, for example, is wrong somehow? If you believe in Noah and the flood, do you also believe, as some creationists appear to do, that the whole fossil record was laid down during the flood? To be honest I find it difficult to understand how these things are explained to people's satisfaction. Would anyone like to choose one or two creationist tenets and enlighten me? Please don't just give me links or videos to watch, I'd like to hear about what the creationists here honestly think.

I'll propose a kind of answer to this, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to say so.

Creationists' best arguments for creation are the "apparent design" in the natural world, and the Bible. Most anything else they say seems to attempt to explain why evolution is "wrong.," thus setting up a false dichotomy seeming to say that because one is wrong, the other must necessarily be right.

However, the Bible's testimony is rendered unreliable by independent evidence; and the conjecture of a designer to explain the appearance of design is enormously contradicted by a vast weight of evidence from many different scientific fields. So neither of the creationists' two best pieces of evidence amounts to anything. The appearance of design in nature is better explained by a natural process that results in the appearance of design -- a process we have abundant, independent evidence for.

Hi Linda,

I think there can only be two possibilities:

1. We were made by a God (an omnipotent being)
2. We were not made by a God.

If we were not made by a God, then we are here by random chance. If we are here by random chance, we had to evolve from something else.

In that way, there can only be a choice between Intelligent Design and Evolution. This is different to saying Christianity and Evolution. Other religious groups believe in creation.

Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security.
Bene Gesserit Coda

Though taken from a work of fiction, truer words have never been spoken. It is for this reason alone that we can see the gears of mythology working their machinations behind Christianity, as its foundation is based upon a set of rules, commandments (of what you shouldn't do rather than what you should.) This is one of the greatest conspiracies of all time, similar to the mercury conspiracy polluting our world. If you do the research, you'll see real fast that biblical laws were created specifically for people to fail. They were rules intended to be violated so that powerful organizations could become more powerful, so they could prosper. After all, what good are police if there are no criminals? That isn't to say 'to hell with rules!', but building a religion upon a set of rules (ones deceitfully created for people to violate) is morally wrong.

The moral of the story is, don't mix government with religion.

Moreover, times change and societies differ. Attempting to create a moral framework upon ancient laws and never deviating from that path will always lead to stagnation - and I daresay it will sooner lead to the destruction of entire civilizations than homosexual acts will (as one poster here audaciously claims to be the case.) The implementation of unadaptable rules is utter folley.

And if you believe that the Undead States of America created its laws based on biblical law, here's even more fuel to add to the transparent Christian conspiracy.

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other.
Addenda to Orders in Council The Emperor Paul Muad'dib

From the same source of fiction but, again, no less true and accurate a statement. Read through any legal document in the US and you'll see the parallel here.

This is a bit of an off topic comment, I realize, but it's more food for thought, and for the Christian oppression which for a long time has dominated this forum. I'm glad to see other lines of thought being introduced here in recent months. It lends the forum a sense of openness and acceptance, a feature which goes hand in hand with homeopathy.

I was thinking specifically about Christian creationism, though I'm aware that there are members of other religions who believe in a version of creationism. My position here is that any such belief, which denies the science and evidence underpinning evolution, is untenable. The science is flawed. If anyone wants to challenge me on this I will be happy to discuss. Alternately, you could take your views to the Creation vs. Evolution forum, which is devoted expressly for this purpose. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi

The Bible, which is the foundation for "Christianity" teaches love, freedom, personal rights, ownership, and principles of life that when employed properly—such as in the founding of the United States—has only led to peace and prosperity. This is history. Those with no Biblical background have no basis for understanding how true this is. (Don't believe that you can get your Biblical education from the Discovery Channel.)

People who say things like "you can't mix government and religion" have no fundamental understanding of the fact that every law is a moral judgment. Every law is, in fact, a religious statement. The only question in forming a government is:

Which system of moral law will we follow?

Those who are educated in these subjects will quickly realize that every democracy quickly degrades into a fascist state. Again, this is history, and in fact, this is the purpose of the spread of democracy in the world today:

The establishment of a one-world socialist government; a fascist super-state.

Without Christian (Biblical) laws to buffer the powers of this super-state, this world-government will continue to degrade into feudal-serf system continually diminishing the rights of individuals. This degradation will be promoted into acceptance, and it will be accepted by a people purposefully ignorant of Biblically-established inalienable rights. The necessity of this degradation of personal freedoms will be justified in the minds of its subjects as the price of "security". The United States is already well engrossed into this state of affairs as I write this.

Eventually, the people of this new global fascist state will be required to receive a mark on their right hand or forehead in order to conduct any type of commerce. This will also be done in the name of security.

In the end, people will (globally) realize what true Christians already (should) know and the Bible warned us about, and this is that the world has been duped by a decidedly anti-Christian, power-hungry group of deceitful super-wealthy persons info accepting and believing anti-Christian ideologies that only lead to the disintegration of civilization.

This is your wake up call.


"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

—Revelation 13:16-18


"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

—Revelation 14:9-11


For those who have an ear:
The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast


<BR />
<BR />

<!-- Embed Google Video BEGIN -->
<div align="center">
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5522575736561316064&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
</div>
<!-- Embed Google Video END -->

umm, excuse me, but why do you present this statement with approval while denying the same idea within biblical law?

Times may change... well not sure really, technology has advanced but mankind is pretty much the same creature he's always been just in a fancier suit... and certainly the laws of the universe haven't budged a micrometer.

whew that is a hard video to look at Russ. I will finish watching it sometime earlier on another day.

Give a standing ovation to Pwcca's friend baal.

well, a good american hillbilly keeps lots of potassiam iodide on hand. People keep telling me Jesus is coming soon I do believe it. surrender youir heart but keep your hardhat on.

"They that give up liberty for security deserve neither"

—Benjamin Franklin

What has any of this got to do with creationism?

Uh, no they won't. They'll just be identified via eye and/or finger/thumb/hand print scanning. We already have our own "UPC" symbols on our bodies. No need to tattoo them - that'd be a little bit behind the times. Our bodies already have everything governments need to institutionalize us. A thumb print is a whole heck of a lot more reliable than a tattoo (the latter of which can be removed - the former, not so easy, especially not eyes! Who's going to escape the system through self-blinding? Not a whole heck of a lot of people.)

The idea of a bar code tattoo is so 1960's. It reminds me of the movie THX1138, for those of who who've seen it. It's an outdated view of the future and it just ain't gonna happen given current and upcoming technologies.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Linda <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I didn't mean to derail it so much.

I disagree.

Although other technologies exist that utilize biometrics in more "natural" ways, the bar code has a number of considerable advantages that make it superior for their purposes.

- Invisible To the Naked Eye. This makes them more attractive psychologically as they don't muck up your body and are non-invasive. If the ink used responds only to certain light bandwidths, impersonation will be extremely difficult as you would have to physically cut off someone's hand to commit identity theft.

- Fault Tolerant. They can be read in any direction and require only software AND hardware that already exists and is a proven technology. As any programmer knows: Simpler is better.

- Robust. A simple cut on the thumb could render a print-reader useless. People's irises change considerably over time making this technology flaky and unnecessarily complex. Finger/thumb prints also change size over time incurring the additional expense and inconvenience of rescanning necessary as children grow (this can be overcome with complex and CPU-intensive software in some cases). Bar codes are robust and not easily affected by the material they are attached to.

- Scalable. Because of the familiar 6-6-6- synchronization bars on either side and in the middle of a bar code, they can be sized to fit the person they are being applied to. The small hands of children are no problem.

- Legally Sound. Because there are no incisions for RFID chips and there are no physical contact points for current biometric readings to spread germs and disease, the manufacturer(s) has/have less risk of liability.

- Convenient. Bar codes can also be read at considerable distances requiring less work and/or responsibility from the subject in terms of positioning and distance. This also improves speed and reliability.

- Sanitary. There is no need to come in close proximity to or to touch a surface in order to complete the identification process. This prevents the spread of germs.

- Cheap. The hardware and software that reads these codes already exists and is inexpensive and proven.

- Theft Tolerant. It's possible to fool a machine that reads irises or fingerprints. Using special inks and possibly a secondary authentication method (using these along with fingerprints, etc only when additional security is necessary) would provide even more security for sensitive or large transactions.

- Fast, Efficient, Portable. Any graphical form of biometrics is memory and CPU intensive as you have to store graphical information, and considering the numbers of subjects involved, this becomes a real issue. CPU utilization also increases dramatically with biometrics as graphics have to be rendered and analyzed in 2 or 3 dimensions and/or complex and expensive pressure sensors must be utilized for physical contact analyzation. Bar codes provide a quick, easy 2-dimensional single vector (extremely small) image (actually, it's never rendered as an image, saving even more memory and CPU) that can be scanned and processed as quickly as the mirror in the device spins. The only long-term database storage necessary is a simple number instead of a biometric graphic, the number being many times smaller and therefore less expensive to store. Readers can be small, fast, cheap, and reliable—even battery powered.


For those who have an ear...
The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

The material presented in the video you posted, Russ, has severely offended my sensitive loving nature.

However, I thank you for sharing the information. It is very insightful.

Hi Linda. While I find science interesting, I don't have the "trust" in it that many people seem to do. In many ways, science has become a new religion - one that is set up in opposition to other faith systems, one that certain people put all their faith in. I personally can't do that, not given how science is continually advancing and old theories continually proved wrong. The scienfic knowledge of today may be no more than a scientific myth tomorrow.

As to creation versus evolution, I don't personally believe creation had to either happen in days or millions of years. I don't know, and I don't believe science does either. To me, trying to know how we got here is like an ant trying to wonder how the paving slab its walking on got beneath its feet. If a God made the universe, or more specifically the world, then the power of that God (compared to human) would be awesome. Thus, that God could manipulate nature so that what appears to science to have taken millions of years, could have taken God only seconds - i.e. could speed up nature at his will and then slow it down to our mortal pace. If a God can create the laws of nature, laws that science attemps to study, then that God can manipulate them.

Science does not, in general, concede that there is a supernatural world i.e. one that exists in energy rather than matter. But because we lack the technology to detect non-material entities, doesn't mean they don't exist. A scientist should, at the very least, be open-minded, because a closed-mind cannot investigate without prejudice. Everyone is prejudiced, of course, but it is a scientists job to understand the natural world better and not exclude the supernatural world because they personally have not had supernatural encounters. So many people have claimed to, in so many cultures over so many generations.

Here's a photo of an angel taken at a Sid Roth meeting in Charlotte NC about 6-7 weeks ago. A friend sent me this photo, the person who took it was sitting in the balcony.

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

Trust is a relative thing when it comes to science. Science says do not believe a thing unless you have proven it for yourself. This is why most science classes are equipped laboratories. Don’t take the professor’s word that Chemical A mixed with Chemical B causes the concoction to bubble over, prove it for yourself so that you know that thing. Moreover, nobody “trusts” science explicitly, as you seem to suggest. That’s like saying many people today trust religion. Whoa, wait a minute. Which religion? You’re using far too broad a term.

Of course you should distrust science, as one should distrust all things. Everything in this world should be questioned, right down to our very existence. That’s when truth can be most revealed. Science, not religion, teaches distrust, not trust. It must teach questioning, not acceptance of stock answers in order for it to actually be science. It's for this reason that I find it amusing every time someone says evolution is religion.


I am religious. I don’t feel that science has ever once challenged my belief system. It strengthens it.


But all you’re doing when you say this is disregarding the entire field of science. You don’t deny gravity, do you?


It may be, yes. It wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened that humans have made mistakes. But it might also not be. Some theories stick and become provable fact, others don’t. Your logic suggests that anything that possesses any faults whatsoever should be thrown in the rubbish bin. Our computers which we communicate through are faulty. Should we discard them as well?

To get back to the purpose of this thread, I think the real statement is in the fact that, thus far, none of Linda’s statements here or in her other posts on the Evoultion/Creation forum have been even challenged. No one has even tried to prove her wrong. To me this says an awful lot.

Looks like someone's been having fun on Photoshop.

People don't "trust" science. Science describes observable and testable physical reality. Some theories have been around for a very long time because they best describe the evidence. As Pwcca said, do you "trust" gravity, or do you accept through evidence that it exists?


Science is evidence-based. Religion is not. Evolution is the accepted theory for how life came to be the way it is today. Do you have evidence you can present for your own alternate ideas? What are they exactly?


Good science throws out unworkable ideas in the light of new evidence. I think you will find, however, that in the case of evolution the scientific disagreements focus on aspects of the theory, rather than the validity of the theory itself.

Are you also waiting for someone to throw out the theory that the sun travels round the earth? Are you afraid we might fly off the planet tomorrow in case someone got gravity wrong?


On the contrary, scientists believe that the earth is about 3.8 billion years old, and the universe is about 13.5 billion years old. These calculations have been arrived at in a variety of ways. I suggest you have a browse of the Creation vs. Evolution site http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi because you will find answers to these kinds of questions there. You can ask questions yourself if you like.


You seem to be saying that God can play around with things any way he likes. For all we know, everything could have been created yesterday, and all these false memories planted in our brains. I would ask what motivation a god would have to fool people in such a way.

You also seem to want to think that all known physical laws could have been different when things were created. At which point did God fix them the way they are now, then? And how does this explain all the evidence for the earth being a very old place in a very, very old universe?


If your point is that scientists by nature don't believe in God, then how do you explain all the theistic scientists?


I have been discussing this very thing on CvE. If you spoke to scientists, you will find that they tend to be very skeptical people. It is the nature of their job. They do not accept the validity of something until sufficient evidence exists to support it. Personal anecdote is not evidence because people can be mistaken or lying. What other evidence can you think of to support the existence of the supernatural? Photos like the one here? Not very likely.

A skeptic uses a law called Occam's razor; you may have heard of it. It says that when determining the likely cause of an event, the most "normal" or mundane one should always be chosen. OK, was life today created by a supernatural being, or did it evolve? There is extensive verifiable evidence for evolution. Can you say the same for creation?

You could, of course, decide to believe that evolution is God's way of creation. This is what many people believe.

Thanks for getting the subject back on track here. I know it's hard arguing with a skeptic, particularly one who calls your beliefs into question. I've had a pasting from them myself lately, but I'm learning that a good dose of skepticism can be a very healthy thing. It's the way we learn about the world.

I don't by any means believe that science and faith are incompatible. I enjoy science and am a theist. I also have several Christian friends who are professional scientists with Ph.D's in their respective field. I was merely saying that some people believe without question what mainstream science tells them and thus will believe evolution without question. That, to me, is the equivalent of someone believing everything they are told by various religious leaders without question. Most of my religious friends have thought deeply about various issues, struggled with others, and come to their own conclusions eventually. I believe my own caution with science is merited, especially as modern medicine poisoned me, and for me personally, the case for evolution has not been proven. Fundamental science suggests an Uncaused Cause, independent to itself, intelligent and eternal, thus to me that is far more evidence of God than it is evolution by random chance. I believe we were created. I didn't say I didn't believe in some form of evolution and I didn't say I do - I don't know. I have had several supernatural experiences, including interactive encounter with a spirit of a dead person. If seeing is believing, I trust my own experience that there is life after death to what a non-believing scientist would tell me. I have experienced the supernatural, therefore it is real to me. I can understand someone not having the same view without the experience. I can say it was real, someone else can say it was delusion - the difference is only opinion, not fact.

I don't have time to discuss these issues at length, and to be honest, I don't like internet discussions - things have already been implied from what I wrote that I did not mean i.e. I believe faith and science are imcompatible, and that I question fundamentals like gravity. That's the danger with e-communication.

I generally only present my views as food for discussion, not to debate. No one ever seems to change their mind, anyway, and people just seem to get hurt. I leave confrontations to those who enjoy battling opinions. I mostly keep mine to myself. I also don't believe there is anything I can say to convince someone there is a God, neither do I think it is my responsibility to do so - if there is a God, that God could reveal himself to anyone at anytime without my help <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Actually, Linda, that is not a photoshopped image. It really is a photo that simply came out that way taken by someone sitting in the balcony of a sid roth event... it was sent to me by a pastor of a church who does lots of mission work in africa. I doubt very much he has reason or desire to fake the photo.

It's interesting though that you place more validity on your 'theories' and doubts than the real life experiences of others. Personally I think most of your ideas are rather unfounded, both scientifically and experientially. Yet you continue to promote them, something I find rather odd considering the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary.

It's kind of like you take a position of 'everyone who believes in God or creation is stupid or lying' without ever exploring the possibilty that they might actually be telling you the truth.

Might I suggest something? The next time you hear those little voices in your head that tell you God does not exist, those little voices that curse at God, or say it's all a lie, or even, those same voices that urge you to hurt yourself... consider arguing with them Linda, tell them no instead of following their cue and then see where you are at.

Responses to Linda,


As I've repeatedly stated: This is true if you're actually speaking about science, but much of what is touted today as science is not but is based on a political agenda.

Did you know that the media is continuing to spread the myth that the mercury in vaccines is virtually harmless?

True science knows better, as Dr. Haley has said, but when he tried to continue research related to his findings about the connection between mercury and autism, NIH pulled funding for all mercury-based research (according to Haley).

Ask yourself why they would do that.

Answer:

It's not science the NIH is promoting in this case. It's a political agenda that are making some extremely wealthy, and the years of legal study that I have performed has panned out the real—the actual—political agenda connected to countless public policies.

There are still many well-meaning yet naive people who have not made this pseudoscience connection to evolution or even the global-warming myth.

In the same manner, evolution is not scientific and is purely a politically-based myth that make a small group of people wealthy.

More information about Haley and the mercury connection:
http://herballure.com/MediaCenter/HaleyOnAutism.html


Yes, real science is, but again, you're being naive about the political agendas promoted as true science.


First: As a Christian I can tell you that my relationship with God is evidence-based. Without the evidence that God provided me, I would not be a Christian.

Second: As someone who has not read the document that is the basis for Christianity (the Bible), how can you make such a statement? (It is clearly only bias and nothing else.)

If you were honest about it, you would state that you know of no evidence to support "religion". There is a huge difference between what you know and what other people have discovered through evidence you have not yet witnessed.

You're not being intellectually honest.


Evolution is "accepted" by some, but if you did your homework, you would learn that this myth has been decreasing in credibility (for decades) the more it has been looked at by honest scientists.

Again, just like the "mercury-is-safe" myth, the evolution myth will eventually dissipate, but not without a fight by the powers-that-be.


In previous posts, I've given you ample opportunities to read and view them. Why haven't you?

If you were to be honest with yourself, you should—at this point—get to know yourself and try to discover if you may actually have an agenda, perhaps one you don't even know about.

You keep these conversations going in a loop because you keep saying the same things over and over without checking out the evidence.

No surprisingly, there are numerous people who call themselves scientists, doctors, and even dentists who do the same thing and cause great harm.

If you were a dentist, would you be one who still uses mercury because you have refused to look at the real scientific evidence?

Know yourself (before you hurt people).


Why do these numbers keep changing year-by-year in the textbooks?

Here is another opportunity to check out some compelling evidence:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks


Right, but the textbook teaching of evolution is based on "science" that has been proven completely wrong.

Evolution is not based in science.


Again, the Bible does not claim the Earth to be young. This is a common Biblical misunderstanding.


In the same way that humans now have the power to move water to a corn field using pumps, pipes and electricity, God is the master and inventor of this incredible technology we call "nature". Knowing the inner workings of this technology enables Him to manipulate things just as I can turn a walkie-talkie into a radio because I know about electronics.

To be able to grasp the Christian world-view, you need to expand your mind to be able to accept that a tree is a machine just as a human body is a machine. Even a single cell is a machine. Our modern nanotechnology is striving to mimic this incredible work of genius (that evolution says happened by accident), but it's certainly going to take some time.


I agree with you there.

I am a skeptic and it took quite a lot for me to accept the integrity of the Bible, but I eventually had to let the data lead me and put my personal biases aside if I was going to be intellectually honest.

It is clear from reading your posts that you have not yet come to that place in your life. That's OK. I don't condemn anyone for it as long as they are trying. Are you?

People who know nothing about the Bible and what it really says and how it has foretold the future and how it has been confirmed time-after-time by archeology and how the depths of gematria provide a powerful authentication for vast intelligence involved in its writing are at a real disadvantage in trying to understand the world because they are void of the most reasonable and intelligent explanations that have ever been offered.

I would encourage anyone to study, not allowing their personal biases to cloud their judgment, and learn what real science (not politics) says about the universe.

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Conspiracy Thread

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

A photo that was sent to you by a friend? I should have realised. I'm now 100% convinced, how could I have been so skeptical.


Example please? I'll play nicely and leave my personal opinions about your own ideas out of it completely.


a.) Please define which of my ideas you have in mind.
b.) Please explain what the enormous evidence to the contrary is.


OK, centuries of science out the window then. I'm a creationist. How could I have been so blind? All the talk about angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon, and the redshift of stars etc etc . . . don't know how I'll break it to my sister-in-law the geologist that she is doing the work of the devil. I think I'll have to let her down gently.


I haven't been hearing voices, have you? On second thought, let's make that a rhetorical question.

You're shifting gears here completely Russ. We're discussing evolution. I fail to see any political agenda there; scientists all over the world accept it. If there were better empirical evidence to the contrary they would revise their views. I've seen you claim a few times that science is a giant conspiracy but I would need to see some extraordinarily convincing evidence in order to believe this. If you think you've got it then do tell me.



How is evolution unscientific? It is evidence-based. Which evidence for evolution do you take issue with?

Who is getting wealthy from the theory of evolution?

Dismissing all of the evidence for evolution whoesale, and telling me I am naive, is not engaging with the issue.



Anecdotal evidence which you accept. That's fine, that's how religion works for many people. However, stating that you have a relationship with God is not going to be accepted by anyone other than fellow creationists as proof for creation.

The Bible is very clearly support for religion. So are all the other holy books. I'm not talking about religion here though. I'm not criticising anyone for what religion they belong to. What I'm debating about is the pseudoscience of creationism. The Bible is not evidence for special creation, and even many Christians think this. Scientists do not look to the Bible for scientific explanations. if they did we would still be stuck in the dark ages and none of us would be using these computers to communicate with each other.



Russ, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. Find me a biologist or a geophysicist who doesn't accept evolution. There is no decrease in credibility in the scientific community. By "respectable scientists" whom are you referring to exactly? "Dr." Hovind? Duane Gish? Henry Morris? If you are repeating what you have read or heard them saying then it explains a lot. Specialists in scientific fields have explained time and time again where the pseudoscience on AiG is wrong. It has not been changed. People with little scientific knowledge are still able to go there, read something with a scientific veneer, and be convinced.



I was addressing this comment to Demi. Specifically I am talking about creationism here. I have read your statements about creationism and responded to them elsewhere in this area of the forum. If you want to carry on discussing that's fine with me.



Is this something you've noticed personally? Can you give examples? The estimates get refined, but they do not get changed by a billion years here or there.

Do you honestly expect me to watch another Hovind vid? I already paid the courtesy of sitting through one. And it would take me hours of note-taking to refute everything the vid says. Besides, someone's already done it for me: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html However, if you want to bring up one or two points of his for discussion at a time, I'm fine with that. You are presumably aware that he's currently in prison for defrauding the US government of a great deal of money? He's been engaged in some interesting activities. I can detail them if you like. He's also so confident in his ability to deflect criticism that he's had YouTube pull a number of anti-Hovind vids, claiming they breached copyright -- even though he says on his own vids that the material is not copyrighted because he wants it to be distributed. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.



By whom?



And creationism is? Please explain.



I haven't yet seen any empirical evidence that any of this is the case. Can you provide some examples?

Really? Is that why you haven't seem to come up with even a single sentence to retort to any of Linda's arguments in your thread here?

If your answer is that you're simply busy putting something together, doesn't that mean you're digging up information to counter her argument? And if you're deliberately seeking out information which counters her arguments, doesn't that mean you've chosen your side out of bias? Out of emotion and not the pursuit of fact? Why not consider her statements as possible (question, always question, but consider possible nonetheless) before paralleling them with mercury conspiracies that have next to nothing to do with this debate? You seem to categorize anything which challenges your beliefs with mercury. What, there's some ancient Far Eastern document which is said to date back to the 6th century BC but it can't possibly be that old according to your scripture on when the Earth was made? It must be part of the mercury conspiracy.

You say you love science and yet you slander every single field of science - I can't imagine there exists any science text book which you wouldn't find massive disagreements with, just based on your statements here. You're so against the Catholic Church yet you espouse the same practices as they. You're so against George W. Bush yet you sure seem to share more beliefs with him than differences.

For someone who preaches that others need to do their "homework", you sure need to practice your own sermon once in a while, my friend. From your colossal conceit to your fanatic refusal to respect other religions and ways of life (ways which in no way hurt or injure others, let alone "bring about the downfall of civilizations"), I really am quite beside myself. Thankfully you're not in a position of power and are simply sharing your thoughts with us - otherwise we'd be retreating to the medieval days of yore when innocent people were torturously burnt alive for daring to live outside the oppressive manacles of your exceedingly violent belief system.

As an aside, there are ancient documents from other religions besides your own which possess revelatory and prophetic information. Just when we think we've done all our homework, there's always another heap of assignments awaiting us.

I don't say these things (as emotionally as I am) out of meanness or spite, I say them because you're posts are rapidly becoming more and more offensive (not to mention bigoted.) And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Sure you have. But you are so well educated you are convinced by now that they are your own voice, your own thoughts, your own ideas. Really though, just the voice of sin, the voice of tempation leading you around all day because you are so willing.

Spend some time time in church and you'll hear preachers discussing it quite a bit. If you weren't affected by it you'd be pretty unique because most people are. Some aren't aware of it though, like yourself.

That voice, which you think is yourself, already tried to do you in once, maybe more I don't know. Eventually it will win because in this life there are really only two choices as to who will rule us, God or the devil. Pretty simple, whether you want to believe it or not. Your spirit isn't actually any different than those of the ghosts you would like to chase and you are connected to the spiritual realm even in this life and you do consort with it, or they with you. If God is not present in your life, than that void will be filled by another. Pretty simple.

Are you going to address any of the points I raised, or just insist that there are voices in my head telling me to do bad things? I'm feeling pretty good these days actually. I have zero inerest in going to church so don't try to persuade me.

It's very easy to generalise. It protects you from having to put your money where your mouth is, because when you give specific examples people can challenge you. I'm waiting for you and Russ to give the examples I was asking for. Can you make a logical case for yourselves? How is science so wrong?

This is only because you have not researched this issue. If you have, please tell me what you've done. I'll be more than happy to steer you in the right direction, although I already have on several occasions and I don't believe you've followed up at all.


...and scientists all over the world don't.

We need to be intellectually honest here Linda.

Did you watch the video I provided a link to previously regarding the solar system and creation?


With all due respect...

This is a fantastically naive position.

There is an enormous difference between science and the lies that are being taught in the textbooks and universities. We are experiencing soviet-style indoctrination the world over.

I have honestly and thoroughly done my homework on these issues which is why I am a Christian. If evidence for evolution existed, I would be defending evolution with all the fervor that I currently use to defend the truth.

I'm not defending Christianity purposefully. I'm defending it incidentally—simply because I'm defending the truth.

You are putting blind faith in what people say without checking out the fact. Ironically, in past posts you said that we should always question, but you are not practicing your own philosophy.

Are you saying that there is no empirical evidence that amalgams cause disease?

By your own belief, you must accept this, otherwise the scientists would have changed their positions.

If we remain so incredibly naive about the way the world really works, we're all in a lot of trouble.


You are marginalizing my research. This is another common debate tactic that is simply untrue in this case.

I believe you should ask yourself this question:

"How am I qualified to judge the integrity of the Bible while knowing nothing about the Bible myself?"

Again, we need to have some intellectual honesty here.

The truth is that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing (speaking about something of which you know nothing). I respectfully challenge anyone who reads this thread to come to a different conclusion.


Again, you are making a vast speculation based on no knowledge of the Bible at all.

The Bible predicts the use of technology to track all purchases on the globe. That is a direct reference to technology.

The Bible also predicts the existence of smart weapons and many other technologies as well.

There are countless examples of the Bible not only predicting the future, but making references to modern technology. About 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy and a considerable amount has already come true.

I challenge you to search through the excellent references on Misslers website:

http://khouse.org/

You are simply unaware of these facts because you know nothing about this Book that everyone should read. It's truly amazing and life changing and because of it, I have offered my personal testimony in part on this forum.

The statement about living in the dark ages is the opposite of true.

You see, the United States grew to be a super power by following the principles laid out in the Bible. These principles hold true throughout time because the nature of mankind does not change.

Some of these principles are:

• Private land ownership
• Personal hygiene
• Work ethics
• Family ethics and values
• Civilized conduct
• Government accountability
• Personal accountability
• Personal responsibility
• Inalienable rights
• Equality of men under law
• Judicial processes
• Personal sacrifice
• Contributing to the community
• Many more...

The Bible is the foundation of civilized life.

You are supporting a belief system that is openly rooted in communism. Evolution is a fundamental premise of communism. This is openly stated in their own doctrine and well known.

Communism brings people into subjection to "state" authority which is a breeding ground for corruption and poverty. This is—in fact—the reason for the promotion of this antiquated theory.

Your beliefs about the Bible and the effect Christianity has is perfectly backwards, and this is simply because you're trusting what you've been told about it without doing the research yourself. (Again, don't get your Biblical education from the chronically-lying Discovery Channel, or any companies owned by the same people, and there are many of them.)

Linda, you're believing things that are exactly the opposite of true.


You are complete wrong here (again) and are simply blindly believing what you've been told without questioning it (not doing what you tell others to do).

The estimates of the age of the earth has changed by billions of years on several occasions. Again, you have done no homework on this issue and are simply blindly believing those who are telling you these things.

Here is some information you should review carefully:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

This outstanding video provides specific examples and I encourage everyone to watch it.


Character assassination is often a desperate attempt to discredit an opponent in a debate.

I personally spoke to Hovind's son several weeks ago and the family is suffering at the hand of this illegal ruling. Unfortunately, the United States judiciary has a history of illegal rulings, especially in recent years as the Bible has been forced out of the conscience of more and more Americans and corruption has spread as a result.

- The U.S. government says that amalgams are harmless.

- The U.S. government says that diet has no effect on child behavior.

- The U.S. government said that there was no air contamination around the WTC site after the collapse. (Are you familiar with this issue?)

- The U.S. government says that a single bullet killed J.F.K. (Are you familiar with physical absurdity of the single-bullet theory developed by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter?)

- The U.S. government says that mercury in vaccines has no effect on humans.

Is this the organization that you're placing so much faith in by blindly believing that this ruling is legally sound?

You will be the first to say that conspiracies existed and horrible rulings were made when Christians controlled civil life but now you put your faith in the current regime and believe they are being honest. This is horribly naive.

Hovind is ahead of his time and I completely support his assertion that the Internal Revenue Service has no law that requires the payment of income tax. I studied the IRS code for years and have yet to find it, and I am not alone.

You may want to watch this video as well...

From Freedom To Fascism

Linda, you have no idea how far down the primrose path you have come.

You see, the Bible predicts that one day, Christians will be lined up and killed as they will be the central victims of this new tyranny. The "new" world view that you have accepted has already conditioned you to accept and endorse this position, and your world view may even call it an act of love, for the good of the community.

Those deceiving you will defame the truth by calling it "hate speech". You will be forced to make a decision, and there is no neutral position.

The truth is, they will be killing the only ones who have the courage to tell the truth when the truth isn't popular or comfortable, and only the truth can provide the road to true freedom.

The following scripture is a prophecy.

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

—John 16:2

There is a lot behind this prophecy and I suggest that you read and become familiar with it lest you become a victim of the very system you now support (which has already happened to a large degree because they—who now control the system—have cheated you out of experiencing an amazing and life-changing relationship with the Creator, which is exactly what they want to accomplish).


I have already provided these answers for you, but just for those reading this thread, here's more...

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html


I provided a beautifully illustrated video narrated by a respectable and educated scientist. Did you watch it? It answers your questions for you.

I respectfully ask that you take a look at the evidence. There is much.


Have you looked? If so, where.

The videos I have provided give you exactly what you have asked for over and over. I don't mind posting them again for the sake of those reading this thread:

Our Solor System

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast


"But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death." "

—Revelation 21:8


Please don't ignore the warning that begs you to know yourself so you may be empowered to become knowledgeable about these things and to gain the courage it takes to know the truth and the courage it takes to be free.

You see, freedom is only for the brave.

You may be able to connect with the movie Bravehart. What was the last word spoken by this courageous character?


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

—Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Please show me one that has come true.

I will also point out to you that the Bible is the only book that deals with the issue of "the other gods". Other "religious" writings avoid this subject because they are attempting to subvert the knowledge of the one true God.

Here is some additional in-depth information about this (excellent information):

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser


Following is a brief list of Biblical prophecies about Christ that have actually been fulfilled:

• Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
  A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
• Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
• Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
• Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
• Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
• Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
• Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
• Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
• Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
• Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
• Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
• Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
• Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
• Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
• Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
  1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
  2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
  3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
  4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
  5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
  6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
  7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
  8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
  9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
  10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
  11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
  12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
  13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
  14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
  15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
• Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
• Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
• Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

For more information, see...
http://www.allabouttruth.org/


I will also refer you to a number of radio programs about Biblical prophecies on Chuck Missler's website:

http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/prophetic/

You allege that evolution is some kind of grand conspiracy. The burden of proof is on you here as the maker of this statement. What convincing evidence can you give me? I want it to specifically involve evolution and nothing about mercury or global warming or the end of the world.


Why can you not tell me in your own words why you believe that scientists all over the world don't accept evolution? Are you telling me you believe it because someone in a video told you? Who is this person, Hovind? How does he know? I said in my last post that I'm not sitting through another one of his videos, nor is it my job to exhaustively make notes on all the scientific errors and fallacies it includes so that I can explain them to you. If you watched the video yourself and found it convincing, can you not pick out one or two things that were said and present them for discussion here?


Go look at TalkOrigins or the Creation vs. Evolution sites then. Many creationists are only able to claim that no evidence for evolution exists because their science education has been severely lacking and they honestly do not know what the evidence is. If you are getting your own evidence from sites like AiG then you are accepting, unquestioningly, the fallacies that are dished out there. If we can get down to some specific examples here I'll be happy to discuss them. So far everyone's been skirting around this.


On the contrary. I've been checking out a lot of facts since I started discussing with creationists here. I've had to learn a lot about geology and biology depsite the fact that they're not exactly the subjects that interest me most. What do you claim the facts actually are? I haven't seen any creationist arguments that stand up to scientific scrutiny. Do you, Russ, check out the "facts" that people like Hovind tell you, or are you content to believe that he is a fountain of wisdom?

Please let's leave amalgams out of this. Mercury has nothing to do with evolution.


No, I'm saying that your evidence is anecdotal. You claim that creationism is truth because you are religious and have a relationship with God. That is something personal for you, but it proves nothing scientifically. A Hindu could be telling me that Kali the Destroyer is on her way here tomorrow. By your logic I should believe this too because the Hindu is a religious person.


The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific one. I don't mind what people believe about it; but when it causes some people to claim that the scientific knowledge that has accumulated over centuries should be thrown out as lies, and that children should be taught this, I take issue. There is no case for creationism being scientific in any way. And many Christians who believe in the Bible are not creationists. You are again branding your own personal reading of this book as the one and only truth.


Exact quotes please?


I'm not hunting through a fundamentalist website. If you have evidence for what you say then give it here please.

The relationship of the Bible to the United States, and the politics of communism, are completely separate issues and I want to focus on evolution here. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.

You are fond of telling me that I don't understand the Bible. I understand that believing in literal creation flies in the face of hundreds of years of accumulated scientific knowledge. You accuse me of an ad hominem attack on Hovind. Maybe that's true. I despise the lying idiot. We don't have to discuss anything else about him personally, let's focus on some of his ideas. Present one or two of them for discussion if you will. If not, then every time you tell me to watch a video of his, I will tell you to read this. http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html It's called the 300 Creationist Lies Index and it's all based on Hovind's knowledge and wisdom. If we are agreed not to attack Hovind personally, then I'm going to ask you to do the same for me. Over and over you accuse me of being naive, a pawn of the system, unquestioning, unthinking. You're attacking me -- baselessly, I might add -- and are avoiding the discussion of any actual details.


Of course I have. I could explain to you how scientists determine the age of the earth and the universe if you like. Why don't you tell me how this is wrong, and give me examples of how the textbooks have changed? Can you actually do this, or are you just parroting some of Hovind's favourite sayings back at me?

There's no evidence in the rest of your post either, only more links to videos and claims that I just can't see the truth. It's tiring hearing the same song over and over. Let's get back to the point here shall we. You claim that God created life as it is today and that evolution is a pack of lies. I say that there is abundant verifiable evidence in many fields of science supporting evolution, and I would need equally convincing verifiable evidence for creation if I were to consider it as a plausible alternative theory. What I am getting here is generalizations, links to websites and videos by creationists (I'm familiar with enough of those), and endless attempts to sidetrack the issue and belittle my own position through accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about.

This seems to be a theme here. A year or so ago, a scientist calling himself Tito talked in this area of the forum with you, Russ, do you remember? He got the same sorts of replies you are giving me. He said you were indulging in ideological rhetoric. After repeated failed attempts to get you to say something specific about your beliefs, he went away.

Are you going to take up that challenge now? Give a logical argument in your own words?

Nope, wouldn't waste my time with it again.



I am not trying to persuade you. But your discussion fails right there because you have no foundation to discuss the things you are dscussing, no foundation to make the judgements you are making, except, the little ideas that pop up in your head to carry you along.

Modern psychology defined pretty much the same thing as Super-ego (higher thoughts, good conscience, Godly thoughts), Ego (you, the middleman), and ID (bad conscience, evil thoughts). I think it was Carl Jung who went as far to say that most people, though they are aware of their 'id' they rarely have the strength to confront it. For the most part though, psychology loses the spiritual essence of who we are by these same definitions.



Oh. Well that's interesting. Because I have given you, in the past, examples, even here i posted a picture of an angel which you laughed at... Russ has given you example after example after example... either you are completely blind or completely illiterate if you have mssed them... the thing is really, you never ever give a rational real life example of anything... just the little thoughts that pop up in your head.... and by which I refuse to be carried along. You seem to have a desire to simply waste every one's time by requiring examples but never giving any yourself. Do your own research if you need examples, because whenever someone else gives you one, you ignore it and pretend like it never happened.

Glad to hear you are feeling better.

OK, I'm asking for evidence of creationism here. The answer seems to be "no." Well that was a pretty easy debate wasn't it. Funny how I was hearing specific claims on the mercury forum when I had no idea what people were talking about. Now when I actually ask people to give me these specifics, they won't. Might you be afraid that science would say that they are wrong? Come on, at least the creationists on CvE have the guts to go there and debate vapor canopies and geological columns and the nature of "kinds" with actual scientists. If these are the sorts of things you believe, why not say so?

Right. You win your own little battle in your own head.

Sounds terribly redundant already. Just go back there and read them again. Why do you need everything repeated ten times?

I didn't think it would be fair to cut and paste them here and refute them weeks or months after the comments were made, when the people who made them have forgotten about them, or left the forum, or may just not be interested in talking about them again. Most of them were in the "Is There a God?" thread.

I'm beginning to suspect that this area of the forum was created for the purpose of converting people to creationism, and for creationists to chat with each other. There seems to be no logical engagement whatsoever with evolutionists here.

Though there's nothing to say it won't happen again, but I think most would say that that prophecy has already been fulfilled many times over Russ.

The Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem in 70 ad or so, the gentile 'Christians' of the crusades trampled jerusalem later again, burning the jews in their synagogues... and we all know about the Nazi holocaust. That prophecy, is very much directed at the Jewish people, Christians, for the most part, no longer worship in synagogues.

The God I know is rather defensive so whether or not something of this nature will happen enmasse to real believing Christians is questionable to me. Though it may happen to sit-on the-fence christians or people like Linda who are Catholic by birth and do not actually have a God or Savior to defend them, just like many secular jews were rounded up during the holocaust simply by reason of ethnicity, not belief.

Muslims hold this belief today and would like to see Israel destroyed. Yet, by some miracle, the Israeli's did win the 7 day war and more is come in that arena I'm sure..

I'm beginning to suspect that you need to do some very deep soul searching and have a good chat with your id to discover the root of your never ending redundant questions and illogical requirements for the same never ending redundancy.

That's a real gem SS, thanks.

I'll leave it to Russ to provide some evidence for creationism then.

It is a gem indeed.

Kind of ties your id up in a knot doesn't it? That's what happens when you let your id play super ego.

Linda,

I've posted links to evidence. Why don't you respond to this evidence? Honestly, you never do. You just keep saying that I never respond. This is called avoidance and does not make for meaningful conversation.

So...

Let's keep this simple.

Since you're making the assertion that a theory is true, please provide the evidence to support this problem with the theory.

How does evolution explain symmetry?

Russ, I've said that it isn't my job to refute entire websites and videos, and other people have already done this. It is rather disingenuous to tell me to "see this," post a link in a second or two, and then expect me to spend hours refuting it. That is why I have asked if we can discuss specific examples here. And also because I'd like to hear your personal questions, as I don't know what you do and don't understand about the issues in question.

If you are referring to bilateral symmetry, here is your answer. Eyes, legs etc. are not evolved anew in each animal. Bilateral symmetry evolved more than 500 million years ago. Animals since then have inherited that symmetry.

Here's how it works. Bilateral symmetry is implemented by signalling molecules that give identical domains on left and right. A person's left eye (normally) is exposed to the same development signals as their right eye, so the two eyes grow alike. A single mutation that varies how an eye develops would still affect both eyes equally. For asymmetrical eyes, an additional mechanism must evolve to supercede the symmetry and give different development signals to each side.

Let me know if you would like more detail or clarification.

Ummm... Linda, that's exactly what you did previously, but I'll leave that alone and point it out only for your own benefit.

I'm attempting to clarify this conversation and enforce some accountability by specifying a specific question, so I'm not sure why you find it necessary to rebuke me on this account.



Ummm... Again, that's exactly what I did in my previous post, so again, I'm not sure about the reason for the duplicity here.



What I know is that evolution is a myth promoted to support the spread of communistic socialism on a global basis to accomplish a specific agenda that is not good for you or your family; Not good at all. Again, the Bible predicted this one-world agenda clearly.

So, I do know what this is all about. The bottom line is that you're being duped and you're gladly buying into it.

I sincerely hope that you will gain the humility to check out some of these "fundamentalists" websites and see what startling evidence they have found for the integrity of the Bible.



That's you're decision, but please know that it is an act of love to have given you the opportunity to find the astounding evidence of the integrity of the Bible, and all of the benefits and blessings that come with it.

People who care about football, know about football. People who care about money, know about money.

If you don't care to so-much-as take a look at the evidence that I openly state exists in the Bible establishing the integrity of the Book and the value of the knowledge it contains, then you are certainly not letting the data lead you, and this is a terribly unintellectual and biased way to discern truth.

I sincerely hope the lookers on do not adopt this method.

Please know that I am not lying to you when I say that I have found incredible evidences far beyond anything that I've found before. I only wish you would believe me.

The evidence is there for those who care:

http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/prophetic/

Please don't cheat yourself of this astounding information.



With all due respect...
Do you even understand what you're saying here?

This is an astounding explanation that is more ridiculous than evolution itself, not to be disrespectful, but it's true. I'll explain why.

This explanation has only one thing going for it:

It sounds complex and intellectual enough to appeal to the pride of the hearer and to be blindly accepted by those who simply wish it to be true.

The mechanism that implements signaling molecules is more complex than some of the incredible subsystems in the body that you claim it is responsible for "creating".

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Let me explain.

Signaling molecules have to have a source that creates the molecule (a very complex thing), and it is has to have a destination that decodes a message (another complex thing), that is, a receptor that accepts the molecule and conveys it's information, and there has to be a language that is agreed upon between the source and destination. This does not even consider the complexity of the carrier or medium which must be suited to convey the message without getting dissolved, destroyed, or otherwise changed before reaching destination.

Simply spoken...

This mechanism of intelligent communication through molecular signaling is far more complex than many of the subsystem that evolutionists claim it created.

So...

This theory does not solve any problems for evolutionary theory at all. In fact, it create a whole new and more difficult can-of-worms by asking people to believe that something vastly more complex is an acceptable explanation for the formation of something that is vastly complex. They are asking you to believe that matched transmitting and receiving subsystems along with medium and distribution can "evolve" along with an agreed-upon language without any intelligent input.

Again, if you understand what the evolutionary myth is asking you to believe, you'd truly be embarrassed to admit you believe it. With all due respect, I can only guess that you really don't understand the depth and complexity of these subsystems and the issues involved and are therefore simply parroting something you heard on a website or book somewhere.

I believe that I have a distinct advantage over you in understanding the complexity of these types of systems because I used to design embedded systems. These are small computer systems that operate things like microwave ovens, cable boxes, and digital cameras.

I know how much complexity is involved in communication between chips and/or discrete embedded boards and I know that no one in their right mind who understands these systems would ever believe that they could make themselves, no matter how much time you attempt to add into the equation, especially considering the roulette wheel problem (a huge problem) I clearly explained in another thread (which has never been rebutted).

Signaling molecules and their system of interpretation are vastly more complex than embedded systems and are on level with the immune system of the body, which has many disconnected parts working together through a mind-bogglingly complex array of "languages", whether chemical or electrical or physical.

To boil this issue down, we have the question of the chicken or the egg.

Did symmetrical eyes (and feet and arms and shoulders and tendons and lungs and ...) evolve because of a vastly more complex signaling system? If so, how did the vastly complex signaling system evolve?

Now, in your argument, you bump your head against the issue of infinite regress, in other words, you're answering a complex question by providing a more complex answer.

This is bad science and even poorer reasoning. This is good for confusing amateurs but really bad "science" (Again, it's not science at all, it's politics.).

Finally, do you realize the amount of intelligible information that must be encoded, transmitted and then decoded in this process. Do you realize the complexity in the implementation of the data after it has been transmitted. This process is akin to DNA and reproduction (another of the countless huge problems for evolution). Do you see the vast issues here in trying to believe this system developed through a series of mutations, especially considering the "roulette" problem? You're making a 10^27 to 1 bet here Linda. The math doesn't lie.

I wish for the people who are reading this discussion to explore the impossibility of symmetry in evolution. Don't just blindly believe what you are told. Question it! Always question! And always use common sense. Also, don't break fundamental and well-established scientific laws in developing your theories unless you have a basis for explaining the error.

Earlier, I explained that the promoters of the evolution myth are counting on you be baffled by the complexity and seduced by the "feeling-of-intellect" so that you will blindly accept that which you don't understand.

It's time to return to reason and to get politics out of science and to see that there are no transitional forms. There would have to be countless examples of them everywhere if evolution existed, but they only stack lie up lie to exhaust you into giving up and accepting the more seductive of the two competing theories, but there is cyanide in those M&M's.

Nevertheless, those who do their research will find that the Bible not only has accurately predicted the future and has predicted archeological findings, but it contains math in the form of gematria that strongly authenticates the intelligence that created It.

I say here and now that finding the God of the Bible and asking Him to reveal Himself to you will be the most rewarding and enlightening things you ever do, if you are willing and He is willing, but you have to try.

I do hope that a new generation of intellects will arise that do not give themselves over to the seduction of "academic" acceptance but stay the course in real, pure, data-lead science and common sense and reject the politics that will attempt to bribe them.

The amount of deception in the world today is astounding and beguiles the mind of the typical evolutionist, but Bible scholars know and understand the state of world affairs and know that this was predicted centuries ago.

Linda, you can believe and parrot the myth of signaling molecules forming symmetry if you want to, but one day, if you ever really understand what you're being asked to believe, you will find that the amount of real faith required to accept it is not attainable by human beings. It is only by ignorance and intellectual seduction that people accept such outrageous theories—and that—by blind "faith" indeed.

No offense intended. I only hope that you—one day—truly come to understand the absurdity of evolutionary theory and the explanations thereof.

Here are some resources for those you wish to study more:

New Age Bible Versions

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

The Conspiracy Thread

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

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

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

...but outside are sorcerers...

...they did not repent of their medication...

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

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Bush Nazi Family Ties

Loose Change

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Chemtrail Centrail Report

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

(Linda, please know that I'm not asking you to visit any of these links. I only claim that they are related to our subject because having a clear understanding of real-life modern-life conspiracies is a springboard to authenticating the integrity of the Bible—these things were foretold.)

See Agenda 21 on population reduction.

"By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths."

—Revelation 9:18

Decode the symbolism carefully. Understand in the reading of the adjacent verses that the original meanings of the works don't translate well in some cases and in actuality, the adjacent verses depict a modern technological event. This is more clearly evident in this translation of the following verse:

"...Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth."

—Zechariah 14:12

Note that the word "consume away" could better be translated "dissolved" (as it is in some translations). This is a notable depiction of a nuclear detonation.

There is a lot more here, but I'll leave it here for now.

The flowers of the field are crying to be heard.

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

Don't forget about love they say, and my symmetry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To understand this, we must first grasp some fundamentals.

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

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

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

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

One design pattern that we find involves "layering".

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

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

Ionic air filtration improves health.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The roulette wheel issue clearly comes into play here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The show must go on.

I'm going to reply to both of your posts here Russ.

You seem to be expecting me to refute websites and videos because I spent a lot of time refuting the Williams chapters elsewhere here. I did that for several reasons. One, no one here seemed to want to enage in a discussion with me. Two, this post had been unchallenged by anyone and I wanted to point out that it contained factual errors. Three, I didn't have much else to do at the time and it kept me occupied. I do have a lot more to do now, and frankly it's a depressing experience to have to wade through so much pseudoscience. It makes me mad as hell that people think this is appropriate to teach to children. Many of them who could potentially grow up to make large contributions to science are instead raised in ignorance and taught not to question.

Anyway, as I said, there's no need for me to refute Hovind's claims. The 300 Creationist Lies site covers them pretty comprehensively.


Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles over time. Reading any kind of philosophy or ideology into it is erroneous. It's like claiming that Newton described gravity in order to promote his nefarious political conspiracies.


I've read the Bible several times. I used to be religious. It's a religious book that is important to many people. But it is not a scientific work. If you choose to believe in it literally then you are by default declaring hundreds of years of scientific evidence and knnowledge to be invalid. You would need to present equally valid empirical evidence in order to support such a claim. That is what I've been asking for here. I haven't seen any yet that convinces me that evolution ought to be in doubt.

About bilateral symmetry. Yes, the information I gave you is scientific. Yes, I understand it. I said I was happy to clarify if you wanted. I can simplify too.

It's controlled by genes. That's essentially what the signalling molecules are. Two particular genes have been discovered that control bilateral symmetry, though they work in synergy with others. Scientists studied humans and mice with left-right developmental anomalies and discovered that these genes, which were largely responsible for those anomolies when they were mutated, were located on a small region of the X chromosome.

As for how it developed? We can see the stages in the fossil record. Before you declare any system to be mind-bogglingly complex you have to remember that it gained that complexity over a vast evolutionary timescale, bit by bit. The first unicellular organisms were evolving for billions of years, in itself a mind-bogglingly vast amount of time, plenty of time for innumerable mutations and natural selections to be occurring.

Most researchers agree that the first multicellular organisms had circular shapes that were radially symmetrical. Radial symmetry seems to be useful for organisms that are attached to something like the ocean floor and branch out in all directions above.

Through fossil and genetic evidence, scientists have discovered that bilateral symmetry seems to have appeared more than 500 million years ago, before the Cambrian explosion. There's good evidence from a recent gene study that flatworms may have been the first organisms with bilateral symmetry. You can see it evolving all through the fossil record, and you can examine relationships of organisms based on their genes. Bilateral symmetry is useful for animals that move around.

So: we can see how bilateral symmetry evolved, and we can see how it works down to a genetic level. Do you accept this, or is the whole science of genetics now in question as well?

Behe is simply wrong: irreducible complexity is not a valid argument for anything. Many things we know about now were once too irreducibly complex for people to understand. The circulatory system was irreducibly complex. Orbital mechanics was once irreducibly complex. The atom was once irreducibly complex.

But you see, we do make progress. We do try to figure out the complex part of whatever mechanism we are examining and after we are done it is no longer irreducibly complex. By saying something is irreducibly complex and therefore is an indication of design is like saying "God did it," and there is no further need to examine or question. We'd never learn anything that way.

You've mentioned DNA, reproduction, and roulette again. I've explained about the roulette elsewhere here. Evolution is not pure chance, and probability statistics cannot be applied to it in the way you attempt to do. Mutations are chance, yes, but then natural selection acts on them. If you have billions upon billions of organisms going through this process over billions of years, why is it surprising that evolution occurs?

Take a pack of cards. Draw five. What are the astronomical odds that you would have drawn that particular hand? Do it again. Draw your cards from five packs this time, or ten. The odds are even more astronomical that you would have drawn those five exact cards. Yet, you have. And you will draw an equally improbable combination every time.

Now give those packs of cards to every person in China. There are over a billion. See how long it takes one of those people to draw a particular hand of five cards. Now give them a few billion years in which to do it.

Probability is a double-edged sword. You have to be careful how you use it.

As for the unlikelihood of DNA evolving, self-replicators can be very simple -- as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry (which works with compounds like amino acids). Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."


Remember, also, that evolution describes what happened when the first life on earth appeared. It does not account for how that life began.

In your next post you talk about the eye. I've been over that, as well, elsewhere in this topic. You can find thorough explanations of how organs and systems evolved if you choose to look.

The following excerpt from TalkOrigins addresses the statement, oft presented by creationists, that the eye is too complex to have evolved.


You asked about rods as well, and how light is converted into electrical signals. Any argument from incredulity, or belief in irreducible complexity, is remedied with education. All you have to do is go find out what people know. Here is a link to an article about how color vision evolved, and how it operates down to the molecular level, which involves something called opsin genes: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html It taught me a lot that I hadn't previously known. I wasn't aware of how any eye really works, in detail. I know now. So could you, if you were willing to read this. It explains what the simplest form of an eye is, which is a structure still used by some animals today.


The only people who decide that "mystical complexity" is going to stop them questioning further and declare "goddidit" are the ones who haven't learned their science. You can find out about how the liver works just as easily as you can find out about the eye if you want.

I'm having difficulty extracting any points from your writing about rules and transistors and cell phones. What rules about evolution do you not understand? Mutation. Natural selection. That's it, at its most basic. Complexity arises from initial simplicity. Remember, also, that evolution does not have a "goal." Those first unicellular organisms were not aiming to eventually turn into human beings. That is the direction evolution took on this planet. You can choose to believe that it was God's plan if you want.

I think you could have set out your ideas in a few paragraphs here to be honest. Brevity is the soul of wit as they say.

Linda: Have you read my previous posts?

I'm only asking you to respond to a single question so we can stay focused. I even bolded the question for you.

I'll repeat the question or you here:

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


I'm engaged and have been. Let's have this discussion.


Have you read my post where I encourage people to question? Did you miss this?

I honestly get the impression (and have for quite a while) that you don't read the bulk of my responses.


OK, so me get this straight. You want me to refute entire websites and videos when you just told me that I was being disingenuous for asking the same of you.

Linda, it's important to know yourself before engaging a quest for the truth, otherwise, your personal desire will cloud your judgment. The evidence of clouded judgment is whey you hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously.


I've been engaged in plenty of evolutionary debates and it's amazing how often evolutionists take a sharp backturn by parroting this (probably from Wikipedia).

I have posted a well focused question in my previous post (and in this one) that keeps this discussion clean and sharp, but now that you've made this statement about alleles, let me ask you for clarification:

Do you believe that single-celled organisms developed into humans?

Do you believe that primordial soup evolved into single-celled organisms?

Based on all of your previous posts, it's logical to derive that you believe in both above.


Did you read it cover to cover several times?

What translation did you read?

The reason I ask is revealed in this video:

New Age Bible Versions

You statement also contradicts things you've said earlier, but I'll leave that alone for now.


Religion is a man-made system of tradition and has no relevance to truth.

I have sought truth all my life and it let me to the Bible, which is an amazing book that has foretold the future and authenticated it's Author thoroughly through gematria and other methods.

I have no interest in religion, although I use the word occasionally to help those who confuse truth and religion.

Number In Scripture by E.W. Bullinger


People use it as a religious book but it's actually an authenticated historical document.


As I said before, the Bible makes references to modern technology numerous times, and this was written in a time when they could not even imagine such things.

If you read the Bible several times, you would know this.

It also provides concepts that can only be explained with modern science. One of the many examples is possession. This can only be explained in a multi-dimensional universe which science clearly accepts now (at least 11 dimensions and as many as 30).

There are so many examples of this that I honestly wonder how you can claim to have read the Bible.


What's ironic in this statement is that you're contradicting yourself completely.

You have previously stated in another thread that the Bible and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. The statement you are making now is in direct contradiction with that previous statement.

Additionally, if you've read the Bible and actually understood it, you would know that the prophecies that have been foretold about numerous things, including the "mark of the beast" involve modern-day technology. You would also know that the Bible has no opposition or contradiction to modern science at all. None. It is a brilliant book of knowledge containing answers to make of life's questions.

Of course, there are Bible haters out there who falsely claim that the Bible opposes modern science. Believe them if you want to but I prefer to do my own research and not to put blind faith in anybody.

Also, If you've really read the Bible, you would know this. I don't mean to be offensive in any way, I simply don't understand how you can contradict yourself so directly unless my supposition about you holding multiple contradictory beliefs at the same time is true.

Remember, know yourself before venturing on a quest for truth.


No, evolution is a theory—a proposed truth—a claim, and according to what you've previously posted, the burden lies with the claim-maker. Again, you are diametrically contradicting yourself.

I am attempting to have a clear discussion focusing on only one question at a time.


As I stated previously, this is simply impossible because all parts of this signaling mechanism must be at the same time present for the system to work.

If only a small part of it is present, then it serves no purpose and is only a harmful mutation serving only as an energy drain to the organism and will be eliminated through natural selection.

So, it is simply impossible that this incredibly complex system involving the encoding of information, the transmission of information, and the decoding and implementation of that information through a suitable medium could have evolved bit-by-bit.

It's downright silly to believe this. There is no other logical way to think of it.


You have not explained how bilateral symmetry evolved. You are again simply piecing together quotes from another website that sound scientific but provide no explanation.

You are simply saying that it did happen...

You said...

"We can see the stages in the fossil record."

I say where? Show me. I'm not interested in living in blind faith.

Please show me where the encoder exists in the signaling mechanism but perhaps the language is missing.

Show me where, perhaps, the decoder exists but the medium is missing.

How about where the language exists but the encoder is missing.

You see, the problem with these assertions that you are parroting is that all parts of this system have to have knowledge of the other parts, otherwise, the system does not work and is a harmful mutation and will be eliminated.

To make this simple, I'll explain.

You cannot encode a message if you don't have a language to encode it to. The encoder has to know the language before it can encode a message in the language.

The same is true of the decoder. The decoder has to be built understanding the same language as both the encoder and the decoder, plus the physics of the language has to have a transport mechanism—a medium—suitable for the message to travel through so that the message can be delivered from the encoder to the decoder.

So, without knowledge of the language, both the encoder and the decoder are useless. Without a medium, the encoder, decoder, and language are all useless.

The point here is that if your designing a communication system, you have to develop all parts of the communication system with knowledge of the other parts and they must exist at the same time. If only a tiny part of a decoder is engineered incorrectly, then the message will not be properly decoded and it will get scrambled.

It is complete nonsense to believe that these incredibly complex communication systems could be mutated into existence bit-by-bit. I t not only contradicts fundamental evolutionary theory (elimination of harmful mutation via natural selection) but you fail to explain how such complex individual components could evolve if evolution is only made bit-by-bit.

Think about it carefully.

You simply must not fully understand what these websites you copy from are asking you to believe.

Furthermore, to imply that I am questioning the entire field of genetics is another debate tactic using misassociation to imply that I am saying something that I am not.

I love science. I always have.

The search for, understanding of, and utilization of knowledge is a wonderful and beneficial thing that I thoroughly enjoy and always will.

The problem is that evolution is not science. It's a grand magic show that is clearly ridiculous to those who are intellectually honest and don't have an agenda and don't have a pattern of self deception evidenced by internal simultaneous conflicting beliefs.

My only "agenda" (if you want to call it that) is to find truth, and if evolution were the best explanation for life, I would gladly accept it.

I have no bias against evolution and I have no bias for the Bible. I only share my observations with others.

My observation is that the Bible is prophetic, authenticating, and otherwise astounding and evolution is internally self-conflicting and deceptive through over-simplification. I have no question that those who invented evolutionary claims and continue to incessantly promote them are laughing their heads off at their own power to convince people that rocks turn into humans given enough time.

Genetics is an awesome area of science and I'm glad we're studying it. My rejection of evolutionary myth does nothing to discredit genetic sciences.

Evolution is a fable—a myth used to condition you for the coming global socialism. Nothing more.

Those who promote it know you better than you know yourself.


Where? Please show me.


Simple.

Because mutations are almost always harmful, and when they are beneficial (which honest evolutionists admit is astronomically rare), they are not always passed on plus the next 10 million harmful mutations often destroy the organism that received the benefit.

Additionally, you simply do not understand the roulette game.

Adding time to the equation does not add probability.

Let's be clear. We're talking not about time, we're talking about the total number of mutations that occur versus the number of beneficial mutations.

Any honest evolutionist that understands this should take serious pause at this point, not to mention the evolutionary population enigma, the lack of transitional forms, and numerous other anomalies that render evolution nothing more than fantasy.


You are clearly confusing the issue.

Here is a statement that I hope will help you find your error.

The player who gets the one good hand will not become rich playing against the other players.

Do you see the difference?

This is the statistic that applies to rock-to-human evolutionary claims.

We're not talking about the fact that probability states that a good hand will occur. Of course it will.

We're talking about the culmination of highly-complex mutations that require multiple complex disconnected parts requiring the same knowledge for its design—and the impossibility thereof.

The other fundamental problem is this:

For a signaling molecule system to be developed, it takes a lot more than a 52-card deck, or 52 bits of information, if you please. It takes millions of pieces of information to spontaneously arrange themselves at the same time with the precision of a modern microcontroller system.

Then, the spontaneously arranged system must contain an encoder, decoder, a language (or protocol) and a medium of transfer, and all this must exist at the same time.

If only part of this system exists, it would be useless and would only be worthless weight and energy expenditure putting the organism at a disadvantage (harmful mutation). The organism would then be eliminated because of its increased inefficiency through natural selection.

I hope you see how grossly over-simplified examples relating to card games do not apply to probability in this context. This oversimplification is only a device used to confuse you into believing something that would otherwise be considered rubbish.


What those you parrot are not telling you is that the experiments that supposedly support this conclusion are grossly mistaken, and they are also not telling you that the same processes that provide some suggestion of order also destroy the very order they claim to create.

Throw coins on the ground. You will find that some cluster of heads-up coins may exist. Throw again. You may or may not find another cluster this time, but in a difference location. Throw enough times and you will find that no pattern exists, hence no order.

The information necessary for replication is not simple and if people knew the complexity involved, plus the requirement that these exists simultaneously, they would laugh at these magical claims.

To attempt to make your example previously more suitable, let's take a deck with 10 trillion unique cards and attempt to have the same person get a full house 40 million times in a row. This is a far more realistic example of evolutionary claims.

You see Linda, new studies have come out that support the assertion that mercury in vaccines is safe. Of course, the studies that "prove" this are blatantly flawed but they are the only ones that get media attention. The studies that show the connections are conveniently ignored over and over again.

The same corrupt processes that occur in these blatantly flawed evolution studies are the same processes they want you to believe in so you accept the magic of evolution, and they will provide you with all the "evidence" you need to be (emotionally) convinced.

You see, common sense tells you never to play cards with such a huge deck and never to employ rules that require such low odds if you have any hope of winning.

These people are not being honest with you.

Now, I'm not saying that the parrots (other self-styled evolutionists) aren't being honest with you. No, they will defend their desire for evolution to the death. It is the originators of the false studies that commit crimes against the truth.


Sometimes you seem to be defending rock-to-cell evolution and sometimes you seem to be defending cell-to-man evolution. Which one do you believe in?

Also remember that a string of carbon atoms is a long, long, long way from the complex machinery of a single cell. The really have nothing to do with each other for several reasons.

These statements you read about these "naturally" occurring molecules are only meant to confuse you further, and they are doing a remarkable job.

Nevertheless, real science knows the vast difference between complex machines and strings of carbon based on known laws involving chemical binding and ions.


That's an interesting article because it relates to science in some respects (and I find science interesting), however, the relationship between genes and cells in this way does not lend any credibility to the claim that rocks became cells and cells became man. Again, these articles are written with assumptions embedded that attempt to lead the naive into accepting vast evolutionary assumptions.

Even Darwin believed that cells were pretty simple things. Now we know better.

Again, don't be taken in by the gross oversimplification, unless you want to be.

By the way, I didn't ask about how light is converted into electrical signals. I stated that it is converted in my explanation to you about the complexity of these devices.


You're not dealing with a naive person here Linda. I don't view complexity and blindly say God did it. I view the evidence without prejudice.

Actually, I look at natural processes and what we know about them and realize what I believe any reasonable person would, and that is that they don't make themselves. Rocks do not turn into men, no matter what amount of time they are given.

You can believe this if you want, but it is not science.


The concept here is that technology (like the human body) is built in layers that isolate and reduce complexity with each containing layer and that the interfaces are interdependent (but interfaces get simpler at higher levels, as an interesting aside). (This is the same model for complexity management that mankind uses).

Evolutionists look at the interfaces and say, "Ah, look how simple it is." An honest scientist looks at life and realizes that you don't define complexity by the interface between complex subunits.

The problem with explaining symmetry using signaling molecules in this regard (there are other types of problems with it) is that you're moving to containing layers but you're increasing complexity.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to simplify this explanation to make it easier to understand then I did previously.


I understand this about evolutionary myth, and this is why I used the word "beneficial" when explaining the laws of reduced complexity earlier in relation to beneficial mutations.

The examples stand firm and are unrebutted and show that believing in evolution (rocks turning into men given time) is like shooting yourself into space blindly and believing you're going to run into Alpha Centauri.

Linda, strings of carbon molecules do not draw true logic any closer to evolutionary myth. The law of physics that enable carbon strings and the laws claimed to exist by evolutionary myth are completely different. Your confusing the process (based on rules) with the substance. Big difference.

It's clear to me that natural processes to not turn rocks into humans. The problem with many humans is, however, that they allow their personal biases to cloud their thinking, this happens much more than you realize.

The art of logical thinking is something that I realized (as a child) was very important in order to find truth. I realized that the physical universe does not care how I feel about it. The laws employed there remain the same regardless of my emotions.

Clever deceptive people did, however, discover that emotions change people's perception of the physical universe, and they use this as much in advertising as in the incessant promotion of evolutionary myth.

To this end, I studied evolution, because it was so popular. I also studied the Bible (only after my interesting experience which I shared on another thread) and found that rock-to-man claims have no evidence to support them and that the Bible foretold the future in ways that no subjective author could have. Combined with gematria, embedded authentication, and several other factors, I realized that there was something very unique about this book.

After years of study, I continue to find astounding prophecies about the present time and many other profound evidences that the Bible was actually authored by the same intelligent entity who built the astounding technology we call "nature". This is a logical conclusion from someone without an agenda except to find truth, whatever it may be.

You will find that the theories about rocks turning into men are with malice, and as you grow in the knowledge about how science and people really work, I truly hope you realize that you have been lied to and I hope you have the humility to admit that you were wrong. Both are required for this realization.

I honestly believe that you allow your emotions and your own person desires to cloud your logic, and that combined with your lack of knowledge about complex systems is a dangerous combination in today's world, especially considering the amount of seduction that is currently available on demand and always ready to make you feel "right" and to validate all of your personal wishes.

Learn to separate your desires from your observations and you may begin to realize the absurdity in believing that rocks can turn into men over time.

Logically, we have a standoff, as you believe the websites you've been perusing are telling you the truth and I believe the logic and natural methods that are well established in science are telling the truth; And isn't this how I said debates of this type end, and that is, in deciding who you believe.

GODDIDIT!!

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

Those are cute huh? From my first website, about 10 years ago. It won the best of the web awards for the Christian ecard category. Two years in a row. Life was so much simpler then.

Feel free to hum along... ... .. ... . ... . ... .. ... ...

Very rarely in the world of evolutionists do you find people's arguments clouded by desires or wishes. This is because evolution, when you get right down to it, is a pretty boring explanation as to how we all got here -- even if it is most likely the truth. Christianity, on the other hand and most other religions (including my own) are more fantastical and therefore more aesthetically appealing of an explanation - so if anyone from either side of the argument is going to be clouding their debate, it's we religious folk.

And Russ, you have a tendency to gather all the accusations which your own faction is frequently a target of and transfer them onto your opposition. Even if evolution were just plain wrong, even if it were some grandiose scheme, as you suggest; one thing is certain. The arguments in favor of evolution in this thread are expressly NOT clouded by desire. To use atheism as an unrelated example here, nobody (with the exception of you) argues that atheists believe what they do because they find these beliefs APPEALING. Even if their beliefs are mistaken, the last thing they of all people are doing is subscribing to a belief system out of desire! Even if they're wrong, they're using logic and rational thought to come to these conclusions. Religious people, on the other hand, myself among the lot, are accused of accepting our beliefs out of desire, out of a need to belief these things. You're taking the argument that's directed on you and applying it to another (unapplicable) party.


Who said rocks can turn into men?


And you believe the websites that you've been pursuing.



Russ, with respect I have to say that you're the last person in this discussion who should be talking about how to hold a debate. None of your tactics would be accepted in a debate class. For example, your frequent use of anecdotal evidence meant to prove and reinforce your statements (i.e., “I asked God for money and he gave it to me but the reason all of the 3rd world is impoverished is clearly because they don’t believe in God enough.”) If I am debating about the existence of ghosts, for example, and I hope to reach out to a mature audience, the absolute last thing I will ever do is say something like "Well my grandmother swears she saw a ghost in her house so you can't sit there and tell me they don't exist! I have proof!" Doubtless we can see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

And let's all of us stop with this whole throwing the accusation that the other person is just copying from websites here. Naturally most information we use in a debate comes from another source, not our own. This applies to both sides.

Here's a neat little evolutionary photo for your wallet.

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

Ah, LaVey. A very interesting character in his time. I remember stumbling upon his Satanic Bible in my father’s wardrobe when I was a kid and reading through the entire thing in about a day and a half, hehe. I was so impressed when I read that the two most cardinal sins according to him are stupidity and pretentiousness. What a refreshing viewpoint!

In fairness none of his ideas are original but one must appreciate a person for reviving formerly oppressed ways of thinking. I wouldn’t have come to appreciate and understand protagonists such as Prometheus and Loki (or my own family’s personal deities for that matter) had I not stumbled upon his literature – or if I did, it would’ve been much later and from a more obscure source. It would’ve taken a lot of digging around to see the connections is all, I guess.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Russ, I’m going to ask you to have the good form to keep your posts concise and to the point. You asked me if I read all of your points in every post. I try to respond to the pertinent points I find but it is difficult, and it is also time-consuming to address such a volume. I am quite a lot busier now than I was. Indeed, if sheer volume is a tactic to dissuade me from replying at all, it is not a very admirable one, and padding out a post does nothing to add to the substance therein.


I question all the time. When I do research I get my information from different sources, I don’t rely on only one. What is it you think I am not questioning – that all scientists, in every discipline, for hundreds of years, have been weaving a huge conspiracy of lies? I have to say I’m a wee bit skeptical. A skeptic does not accept the validity of an assertion until convincing empirical proof (not anecdote) is presented. Where is your proof that science is a giant conspiracy?

I would actually ask if you are questioning what you read on Hovind’s website. If you are looking for science-based evidence that creationism is fact, do you honestly expect to find good science there?


No, I was merely stating that two can play at this game. Every time you tell me to watch a Hovind video, I will tell you to have a look at what a real scientist says about Hovind’s claims at the 300 Creationist Lies website. If you choose instead to debate one or two of Hovind’s claims with me, I will do so, though it has to be said that the scientist probably does it better.

OK, the definition of evolution, and “parroting.” Let’s start with parroting. This is a claim that someone has copied information verbatim from a source without having understood it. I will ask you to take note of the “not having understood it” part. I understand the information I am giving you. Not as thoroughly as a scientist in some cases, but I don’t talk out of my back end, as they say. If I am not sure about something, I will use a variety of sources to find out. In talking to creationists I have consulted probably more than a hundred different websites, have looked in books, and spoken to actual specialists in the field. This is what most people do who want to learn. The only way to deny the validity of what I’m presenting is to return to the assertion that all scientists are liars. Or, as a novelty, you might try researching some of these things yourself.

Maybe you would like this definition of evolution better. It was written by Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986:


This is not a “sharp backturn,” it is the definition of evolution that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept. It is free of political ideology. It simply aims to describe how life has changed since it began. Anyone who imposes ideology upon it is engaging in a fallacy.


Your implication is that these leaps were made impossibly quickly, and that the aim of one was to evolve into the other. It took single-celled organisms a few billion years to develop into multicellular organisms. A very long time by anyone’s account. What’s more, the organisms went through gradual changes in small steps over long periods of time. Eventually we ended up with the biological diversity we see today. It is a strawman argument when people like Hovind claim that “it’s ridiculous that dinosaurs can turn into birds” etc etc.

I maintain that the Bible is a religious book, not a scientific one. If you call yourself Christian and are basing it on the Bible, then the Bible is your religious book. Attempting to use science to explain how a literal interpretation of creation in the Bible could be fact is impossible; such evidence does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

You’ll have trouble finding a skeptic who believes in possession at all, let alone the reasons for it that you give. If there are references in the Bible to concepts that can only be explained by modern science, then please give me quotes because I’d like to hear them. Also, quotes for any prophecies you claim to be about events in the modern world. They need to obviously be about those events, rather than general statements that can be interpreted whichever way the believer desires.


No, I said that theism and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. You make them so if you choose to believe a literal version of creation.


The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. Like it or not, it is generally accepted by the majority of people in the world. It is supported by a vast amount of evidence across many different scientific disciplines. It’s ridiculous to expect me to regurgitate a whole library of knowledge for you, though I will discuss aspects to the best of my ability if required. On the other hand, presumably you are arguing for the factual nature of creationism. There is a burden of proof on you to explain how creationism explains the observed data better than evolution. Attacking the theory of evolution provides no evidence for creationism. In fact, if evolution were hypothetically thrown out tomorrow, there still would be no more evidence for creation than there is now. Assuming that disproving “a” automatically proves “b” is a logical fallacy.

You have been talking about “irreducible complexity” without giving your definition, but I’ll assume you are taking Behe’s approach in saying that something will not function if an essential part is removed, and therefore this is evidence of design/creation. The first thing I’d say about this is perhaps rather obvious; but if you chopped a duck’s head off, you have removed an essential part and the organism has died. It’s got nothing to do with evolution however.

Someone arguing for IC presumably thinks that evolution requires new organs, body parts, etc to “poof” into existence, fully formed. After all, they can’t be partly formed can they, or “what use is half an eye” etc etc. But evolution isn’t about adding whole new fully functional parts to already existing systems. It’s about modifying already existing parts in minute steps over periods of time – though sometimes multiple coordinated changes can occur when there is a mutation in a regulatory gene. What’s more, evolution isn’t simply a process by which parts are added, but a process by which parts are taken away as well. Organisms do not simply gain new traits while retaining all the old ones unaltered.

Behe’s favourite IC analogy is the mousetrap. He claims that its function depends critically on the presence of all five of its components, and all of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

A number of people have proved, however, that this is not the case. They have shown that the parts of a mechanical machine (like the parts of a biochemical “machine”) can be used for different purposes, and that a moustrap can work if up to four of those “critical” five parts are missing. The other parts simply need some rearranging, and change of function. These processes occur in evolution; for example, many organs start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function, like tetrapod legs evolving from fins. You can read in more detail here, and see diagrams of the different mousetraps: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html

We could also use the analogy of a computer. In order to even turn it on, you need at least a motherboard, a CPU, memory, a hard drive, and a power source. Take any of these out and the whole thing is pretty much a piece of useless junk. According to this IC argument, the computer is then an IC device.

But if we look at the history of the computer, what I just described didn't just show up on the market. The computer went through many phases, from a bunch of vacuum tubes to transistors to microchips. According to IC, evolution claims that the computer started out with just a CPU, then over time a mother board appeared out of nowhere, and over more time a hard drive came out of nowhere, etc. That's not how the development of computers worked, and that's certainly not how the evolution of biological “machines” worked.

Nor is the eye irreducibly complex. An eye does not need rods or a lens to function. The simplest kind would be a cluster of light-sensitive cells. In their 1994 paper in Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Nilsson and Pelger describe a sequence of small steps leading from a light-sensitive spot to a lens-bearing eye. Every proto-eye in their sequence can be found in modern organisms. They calculated that even with a consistently pessimistic approach in their estimates, the time required for the evolution of the eye becomes “amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years.” You can access their paper here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=09...5<53%3AAPEOTT>2.0.CO%3B2-1

You ask again about signaling molecules. I’m not sure why you’ve chosen this to be a particular point. They act in a basic, physical kind of way. They cause processes to stop and start. The way they stop a process is by physically blocking the mechanisms of DNA and RNA. Sort of like stopping traffic by driving a dump truck into the road. Would you call this a “signal”? And wouldn’t it be irrelevant to talk about the “medium,” or the “protocol,” or the “encoding mechanism”? It isn’t a secret code that stops the traffic, it’s a physical obstruction.

My source for this is a biochemist. When I originally asked him he gave me some interesting information, which I had to ask him to simplify. You are welcome to read it yourself, if it sheds more light on this pressing question:


I figure that a person who has devoted their life to studying this, and been highly trained, is going to give me accurate information. He has no reason not to. This is his science. If you question a source like this then we are simply back to the “all scientists are liars” assertion. Is that what you think I should tell him?


No, we’re talking about the fallacy of using pure probability estimates when evolution doesn’t work that way. Chemicals do not behave in a random, disordered way; they behave according to laws. Evolution is not random, because natural selection acts upon it, and this can involve many different variables. And when beneficial mutations do occur, the organism will have the edge over other similar organisms. It will be “fitter” to cope in its environment.

I’ll say again, because many of your statements make the assumption that scientists believe life evolved in improbably huge leaps: you need to look at evolution as a series of small steps. Large mutations that assemble complicated systems do not happen in a “poof.” Look at the examples I’ve given above to see how these steps could have occurred to produce a complex system where the removal of a key part would cause it to cease to function. In evolutionary terms this is called “scaffolding.”


You’ve been listening to Hovind haven’t you. This is a strawman. Evolutionists do not believe this. In order to simplify this epic discussion that has branched off in so many different directions, I’m going to ask that we not discuss the origins of life here, as this is not addressed by the theory of evolution. There are intriguing theories supported by evidence for how life began, but I’m already resentful about the time it is taking to address all the points here to be honest. Every discussion with you seems to turn into a tome. There’s a life to participate in as well.


We have no such thing, unless you and those who believe you are convinced that what I say based on my education in the past and present comes from lying scientists. I think you ought to provide some evidence for this before you make any more claims that I am being blinded, fooled, etc. You also make a claim that it is “science” when you compare biological systems to the electronic systems that you do understand. You have to be very careful when comparing living with nonliving systems. No one designs computers by duplicating a video card and making one of them serve as a motherboard and a central processor. But that is just how living things evolve. Your version of “science” continually ignores the fact that evolution occurs in small steps over long periods of time and that parts can be duplicated, removed, made to serve other functions, etc. Instead you say that complex systems must have magically come into existence; this is the strawman you set up and then knock down to “prove” that evolution is wrong. The logical fallacy of the strawman only works when your audience doesn’t know any better and is willing to believe your false claims about your opponent’s position.

I guess I would feel a need to qualify statements like that. For instance, the idea that 'the two most cardinal sins are stupidity and pretentiousness', seems rather odd to me when coming from someone who has willingly given his soul to death and destruction.

You should qualify statements like that. It might prevent you from displaying your lack of knowledge as in your following comment listed below.



Far from it. It always saddens me when people make assumptions rather than an attempt to know what they are talking about. Saying Laveyan Satanists worship "The Devil", for example, is like wearing a teeshirt that says "I have no idea what I'm talking about." Satan is just a word. If I wrote a song entitled 'The Color Blue', only the basest Neanderthal would assume my song is actually about the color blue without delving further to find out first if that's really what I'm talking about or if maybe, just maybe, it has deeper (even unrelated) connotation. The setting of the play The Crucible was the 1600's Salem Witch Hunt but any intellectually honest person will stop to realize it's not about witches or the 1600's at all but the McCarthy Trials, for example.

It's always easier to ridicule and chastise others when we know nothing about them, when we fall victim to generalizations and labels. I genuinely hope people think that because I am a Celtic Pagan I wear horned helmets, frolic naked in the woods and howl at the moon. Because those who do so without bothering to take two seconds to find out the truth have already paraded their own ignorance. The joke's on them in cases such as these.

oh ok. Maybe you should ask the satanists themselves if satan is real or not, oh brilliant master.

or, are you admitting that your religion is nothing but nonsense? Must be because if satan is not real then neither are all the other fairies you pray to. So why do you bother?

Time to chastise yourself, dear.

But I suppose I could simply qualify your opinion of any other belief system by reminding you that you yourself told us all just a mere couple months ago that you don't even know very much about your own religion, you simply are that because your parents raised you that way.

Would you like me to direct you to where exactly you made that statement, Pwcca?

In essence, anyone who has never bothered to explore their own roots cannot be trusted to give very much valuable insight in regard to anyone else's. Being fully cognizant of one's own beliefs is a prerequisite. All you are actually saying, despite your attempts to appear knowledgable, is that since you do not know or fully understand why you believe what you believe, then therefore the same must be true of everyone else.

You really should quit doing that.

Which would make it impossible for me not to know a great deal about my religion. Of course I know about my faith. It's something I practice regularly. It's likely my words were misinterpreted to think otherwise - I certainly never would consciously suggest that I don't know much about my own religion.

Incidentally, I don't believe in faeries, as you suggested earlier. And I'm not sure why you would think that I do.

Anyway, enough of that. We'd better leave the quibbling for another thread, another time. This has been a pretty interesting discussion otherwise and I'd hate to see it locked because we were bickering about unrelated material. No one likes to see a thread derailed, so I apologize again to everyone for going off topic.

SoSick, if you'd like I'd be happy to discuss this over private message since you seem curious enough about my faith to bring it up regularly. Even if you seem to disagree with me, I do appreciate that you take the time to recognize me for having religious beliefs.

I'll say no more (unless it's about evolution/creationism, of course). Back to the topic at hand!

No, I'm not the kind of person who would do such a thing.

I have found that the anti-Christian propaganda that continually slanders and lies about the Bible paints a poor and deceitful picture of Christians. Just as the evolution myth has been beaten into your intellect, this propaganda may have divided us and caused you to more easily believe something that would otherwise not be an issue.

These slanderers favorite tactic is divide and conquer.

I want you to know that I believe in honesty and integrity in all things, including science.

I believe that you have failed to make the connection between chemtrails, the poisons in vaccines, and the promotion of the theory of evolution, which are all being promoted by the same criminals which you are mistakenly choosing to believe.

You're making a huge mistake Linda. You truly have your facts and faiths 180 degrees backwards.



I have observed that you rely on only one "kind".

You don't read Creationists arguments because you've said they are too painful in a previous post.

This is not intellectual honesty Linda.

We need to look at all the data and let the data lead you.

I sincerely (and strongly) believe that you are extremely prone to allowing your emotions and personal desires lead you. This is why self examination should always be a prerequisite to this kind of data inquiry. Otherwise, the data inquiry process will force you into self examination, unless you flatly refuse.



Again, you have no idea how global conspiracies are used and promoted. You also ignore history if you don't think large conspiracies can exist. You have no background in this area. I have extensive background in this area.

You have conflicting beliefs. Consider Nazi Germany. You believe that a nation was deceived but your conflicting belief is that it cannot happen again today.

The internal mechanism which causes you to doubt that it can happen again is pride (and possibly lust). The Biblical explanation for this mechanism is correct:

"Pride commeth before the fall."

Pride blinds a persons understanding of truth, and when they believe a false truth, calamity eventually befalls them. This is a natural process.

There is a global calamity coming Linda, based on a global pride, and you are perfectly primed to blindly accept the explanation for this "fall" just as you've blindly accepted the magic of evolution.



This website is full of lies Linda. They are not even good ones. Anyone who takes the time to parse these things out can tear them apart.

We need to put the "intuition" away and rely on logic and reason here.

Eyes don't form by themselves. This is a fairytale myth, just as vaccine safety. Go ahead and take the next vaccine they offer you Linda. Don't bother questioning the purpose for them using formaldehyde in the mixture. This is what pride induced blindness leads to, and it's sad and tragic.

The Bible warns that this time in history would be a "perilous" time. Indeed it is.



That's not what you said Linda. You said I was being "disingenuous". So, if you do that same thing, aren't you being disingenuous too?

Logic.



I know as clearly as I'm sitting here in this chair that, although you may believe these explanations you copy, you have no idea how ridiculous they really are and therefore don't really understand them.

You truly have no idea what processes are involved. I know this because you use that idea that a string of carbon atoms forms to lend credibility to evolution without any consideration of the underlying rule sets that govern these processes.

There are rules (you called them laws) that govern matter. These rules provide no mechanism for the formation of complex disconnected parts operating together, such as would be required in biological symmetry.

None.

Biological system consist of matter. The rule sets are the same. There is not getting away from this simple truth.



No Linda. I'm simply asking you the question I'm asking you.

Please answer.

I clearly understand the "time" claims of evolutionists. I just want to know what you believe Linda.



Yet, you know nothing about it.

By your own logic (following), you will have to call this "disbelief" that you hold a religion as well.

Again, you are holding numerous conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Know yourself.



Linda, don't you know how illogical it is for you to make these kinds of statements about something you know nothing about?

I know the answer, because it's the same thing you do with your belief in evolution; You pick and choose what you want to believe based on "intuition". Actually, I believe it is emotion in you. Intuition is something different, but you honestly have not yet learned the difference.



You're really out of the loop here Linda. Again, you're only hanging with one crowd and you're believing your crowd is the entire world.

I've hung with both crowds for extended periods and I know better. Honestly.



I gave you links to Misslers website audio called Strategic Trends and you said ~~ "I'm not going browse a fundamentalist website".

Is this what you call intellectually honesty?

It's what I call "pick and choose". It's not logic and it's not science and it's not intellectually honest.

Also, you refuse to look at the evidence in one post and then you make it look as if I never provided the evidence in another post.

Why won't you just listen to the audio Linda? It would be an act of intellectual honesty.

Again, you're censoring your own exposure to information and then posing as an intellectually honest person.

I've been in both camps Linda, you have not. I have seen the evidence for evolution and if you research carefully, you will find that all boils down to the same type of information you find on the quackwatch website...

Scientific-sounding illogical myth.

When you really understand what evolution is asking you to believe and you understand enough about physics to see the illogic in it all, and when you are able to "catch" internal conflicts in your own logic, only then—when all three of these attributes are present—can you discern how absolutely absurd evolution is, on all levels.

With all due respect, you are missing some of the above attributes.

This is why I said that the search for truth starts with a thorough self examination.

Unfortunately, PWCCA didn't like that and accused me of being self righteous, but again, that's simply a self defense mechanism to protect their personal desires and has nothing to do with logic and reason. It's emotion, and the sooner you realize how profoundly this attribute clouds your thinking, the sooner you will see through the smoke and mirror show they call evolution.

Know yourself... Truly.



No, you wouldn't.

You are so disconnected from your own logic here that when I gave them to you previously, you said you would not listen to them. Now, a couple posts later, you say you want to hear them.

Do you see the fundamental problem here?

With all due respect Linda, there are some fundamental conflicting beliefs inside you. You honestly need to work at eliminating them, but this will only come with humility.

Do you see how you are believing that you are someone that you are not?

I don't mean that to hurt your feelings in any way, but it will heal you if you will see them and admit they exist. This admission is the first step to resolving internal conflicts, and this process will eventually lead you to having the ability to discern things logically, which cannot be done at this level in this current state.

I say this with all due respect and with consideration for your best interest.

I know this may hurt the pride to have to admit that these conflicts exists, but having the courage and humility to see and then admit they exist is liberating, especially when it comes to improving your skill in being able to discern logic.

Scientists are also subject to this same mechanism, which is why it does not matter how many letters you have after your name. Those letters do not assist you in discerning truth. What allows you to discern truth is the same mechanism that allows you to build a puzzle without forcing the pieces together.

Unfortunately, what you have done over and over in these conversations is to force the puzzle pieces together simply because you so desperately want them to fit together.

All of this is why I say it's so very important to thoroughly know yourself before embarking on a quest for truth.

Well, about showing you evidence of the Bible predicting the future, I already have but I will do it again for you. There are countless examples and they are very impressive indeed.

Let's stick to a simple one so we can stay focused.

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

—Revelation 13:16-18

Now, please tell me how this prophecy could have been predicted centuries ago when no such technology existed. And tell me how this could have been predicted in the context of the current time (which is established in context but that involves other prophecies so we'll get to that later for simplicity's sake).



If you use this as a basis for determining the truth, then your inability to discern logic is clear indeed. I don't mean to offend you, but any honest friend would have to tell you this.

There is no evidence for truth in numbers of believers. This should not even be a factor, yet you should ask yourself why you bring this up.

Is this the kind of "emotional" evidence that makes you feel more comfortable believing in the faith of evolution?

For example, you would be the first to say most people believed the Bible at some location at some time in history. Logic asks, does this make it true? By your assertion, the answer would be yes, but this is clearly a poor way to arrive at conclusions in life.

I'm sure you see the illogic here.

As another example, most dentists believe that amalgam is safe. Well, it turns out that the ADA is only protecting it's financial (and legal) position. This claim had nothing to do with science.

This is the same affirmation I make to you today Linda.

The current position of evolution is the protect (and embellish) the financial position of those who promote it, at the highest level.

You clearly have the inability to believe in large-scale white collar crime (yet you accuse Christians of it, in essence), and this inability to believe this along with your personal desire to believe evolution makes you fertile ground for becoming the enslaved subject that you already are without realizing it.

You are the best kind of subject—you are a proselytizing (parroting) one.

Now, with your faith in evolution secure, the powers-that-be have all of the justification they need to remove your personal rights in the name of security.

In a Christian country, rights are inalienable and cannot be removed unless the populace becomes too apathetic to defend the truth that establishes these freedoms, which is—in America's case—the Bible.



I gave clear, extensive examples (without trying to overwhelm you with volume, as you fear). Also IC is a well-established principle that you can find definitions for anywhere online.

If you had ever studied fundamental evolutionary faults (which there are many), you would already know what “irreducible complexity” is. Unfortunately, you have clearly avoided data that refutes (actually make impossible) evolutionary myth.



This is fantastically naive.

Linda, this is just not the way the world works today. I had this world view when I was 20. Now I know better.

This kind of blind faith in the good intentions of people you don't know if not only not prudent, but it is the same kind of faith that believes that scientists don't corrupt data about NutraSweet.

It is the same naive faith that turns a blind eye to the glaring corruptibility of human nature when they have no accountability and a bribe (as in the NutraSweet study).

I honestly could write volumes about known lies and vast deceptions in "science", education, government, business, law, medicine, and so many other areas that I've studied. You need to realize that given the guarantee that they will not be caught, and given a reasonable reward (bribe), a shocking number of people will do bad things (things that harm others for their own gain). Most also do not realize that a significant number of those types of people enroll in politics and executive corporate management.

The bottom line is (as I've said before) you have failed to realize how people deceive themselves. People can talk themselves into just about anything if they have the desire to, and as they deceive themselves over and over, their consciences become weakened which enables them to do more hideous things.

It does not matter how much training you have. Self deception is rampant today in all fields and cultures.

Have you heard about Nazi Germany. Tell me, do you believe a large number of people were deceived or not. Be honest.

Think about it carefully, Linda.

Credentials don't make you a logical thinker. In fact, people with credentials tend to be followers more often (not always) than those without. You really need to come to this realization in your life so you will be less inclined to take blind faith in the people who teach you things.

You said you always question. Again, this is in contradiction to believing that people would amend their views if new information became available. If people had this kind of integrity, then why is there a need to question Linda. If these people where all honest, they would have no need of accountability (which is effectively what "questioning" is).

Humility and accountability make people logical thinkers, not credentials, not education, not training. We must move beyond this vast, blind and naive faith in the integrity of people, otherwise you are again primed and condition for deception. You are a subject.

Know yourself. Advice we should all take.



No, actually I came up with this "rock-to-man" analogy on my own long before I ever knew Hovind. You think you know me but you have no idea what I know and how long I've studied these things.

Interestingly, I came to this analogy for the same reason Hovind did; Because we both looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion. We also are not swayed by the naive belief that credentials give a person the ability to think logically.

Let the data lead you.



My analogies are correct because I am demonstrating rules. The subject is not electronics. I am using electronics as an example. I can only surmise that you completely missed that.

Furthermore, you have to realize that the same physical rules govern both electronics and biological systems.

So remember... The demonstration is not about the type of system, it's about the rules involved (you call them laws, even in your very last post).



No Linda.

Let me attempt to boil it down for you.

There are certain rules (you call them laws) that exist that science knows about. These rules don't change over time.

We know that these rules cannot act upon matter to form complex systems. This is well known.

Evolution simply says that these rules can act upon matter to form complex systems given a large enough number of events (remember the addition of time isn't about time, it's about increasing the total number of events; a factor used to confuse people).

The fundamental problem here is that the rules don't change over time no matter how many events transpire.

This fundamental truth is ignored and attempted to be evaded by evolutionists.

Now, I may explain this further in a future post, but for now, I truly hope people can see that a belief in evolution is truly a belief in magic, because it opposes the knows laws of physics (rules) and demands a faith in a physical rule set that does not exist.

You can add time, events, salt, and pepper if you want, but the rules of physics remain.


[color:"brown"]If you wish to attempt to continue this discussion, you'll have to explain how and why these physical rules change over time.[/color]

This is the pending issue.


For those who wish to learn...

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Bush Nazi Family Ties

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

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

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Conspiracy Thread

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

New Age Bible Versions

Right, I had to look it up, you said previously that you were born into it etc, it wasn't a choice etc but didn't say you didn't know that much about it. Sorry, my mistake. I guess since you've never actually extrapolated your beliefs fairies and whathaveyous are easy to fit in there. I have actually tried to look it up before you know, there isn't much info out there about 'reconstructionist religion' so whatever it is it's pretty much your own little secret that isn't shared by very many others. But your icon is obviously wiccan so I can only guess it's near there, mother goddess et al.

I recognize very much that you have religious belifs, even if I think they are dangerous to your soul, and detrimental to you in this life also, but nonetheless... in reality it's probably easier for a wiccan to make a switch to belief in Jesus than an atheist, simply due to the awareness of spiritual experiences. But I am not quite sure you are at that point yet since you seem to think satanists do not think satan is real.

I can assure you, they do believe he is quite real. If anyone ever told you otherwise they were simply trying to brush you off.

but another day, quite busy here, have to go.

Russ you speak about your alleged extensive background in varied fields and how your friends can confirm that you are this, that and the other thing. You do this to the point of compulsion. Why don’t you drop the claims and offer up some actual evidence (just once) rather than an abundance of emotional portrayal, attempts to disprove things and never an attempt to prove anything. Because otherwise you’re just suspending one great big smoke screen in front of the eyes of the readers and even yourself. You speak in second person like it’s going out of style, constantly heaping blame, fault and guilt on everyone but yourself. You must understand that even if everything you said were true, it’s the WAY in which you say these things that comes across as so holier than thou – and in so doing destroys your argument (again, whether it’s true or not.) Any outsider reading your posts for the first time is immediately going to think you a raving lunatic simply for the way you present your arguments. I’m not saying you’re wrong (mind you, I’m not saying you’re right either), I’m saying you really need to learn to argue better. You do know that in a proper debate class just about every strategy you rely on would give you a big fat ‘F’ in the class, right? And if you tell me that teachers who teach debate classes are also part of some grandiose conspiracy (thus permitting you to say anything you wish without abiding by any set of rules beyond your own) I swear I will shoot myself!

We’re talking about the validity of the theory of evolution, folks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if all the other conspiracy theories you banter about were true and indeed connected with the theory of evolution, that still has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. If you want to punch holes in an argument, punch holes in the argument – not something else (potentially related or otherwise.) And one way to convince your readers that you’re full of hot air is to conjure profligate volume after profligate volume of words words words, most of which are only vague references to the topic at best. You practice mystique to wow your audience never once realizing that the only people you’ll ever come close to convincing are those who are already on your side. Try talking to your opposition for once (no, really talking to THEM I mean), rather than your followers. Condense your thoughts, stay on target, drop the accusation fest, stop telling other people they are speaking from their hearts (i.e., emotionally) when you are so blatantly doing nothing but. Do that and you just might have a convincing argument of your own.

You would stand to benefit from learning how to properly hold a debate. Because I know you can present a much stronger case than what you’ve done so far in this thread. I know this because I’ve read some of your other posts where you provide nothing but fact. No illusions, no vague excerpts that could be interpreted to mean a hundred million different things. Just straight up fact. Here’s one, here’s two. Together they equal three. No ifs ands or buts about it. It’s when you’ve used these strategies that I’m really impressed. It’s when you veer so far off subject and banter to excessive lengths that I shake my head and ask myself what happened.

I don’t mean to seem like all I care to do in this thread is attack you, Russ. I honestly just want to see which aspects of the theory of evolution can be debunked (and which ones cannot.) And I think if anyone can do it, it’s you – not nutcases like Hovind who lie about their educational background and argue against something they haven’t even sufficiently read about. His arguments would be akin to me saying “Well if gravitation were true then how come birds don’t fall from the sky? See!? I’m right – gravity is all just a hoax!” I have to read about how gravity is even alleged to function before I try to disprove it. I can show you exact quotes of his which directly and immediately prove that he hasn’t sufficiently even read about the very thing he is trying to oppose. Do you know why I’ve gone to the lengths to even learn about these statements of his? Because of your many thoughtful and inspiring posts here. I didn’t even know who the guy was until you mentioned him to me once. And this isn’t sarcastic flattery either. I’m quite serious. I just want you to argue better.

Then why did Hovind lie about being a PhD bearer? Did you know that nobody who has a PhD actually bothers to place their name in the phone book as 'Doctor'? He did.

You just said he isn't concerned with credentials.

I can prove to you that he actually did this. Heck! He's even mentioned it in a video - so it's not like he's been "set up". It's straight from his own mouth.

Why would someone who isn't swayed by credentials do such a thing? Perhaps the bigger question is, why would someone who isn't concerned with credentials lie about their education in the first place?

I am simply amazed at how people continue to pretend they know something about something when in reality they know nothing about something and vehemently defend that which they don't understand.

This is what is happening here. It's called emotionalism, and I continue to defend my integrity of knowledge because I actually have done my homework. It's clear to me that Linda has not.

It's hard for people to begin to think using logic at this level when they've spent their lives padding logic with desire so they can pick and choose whatever they want. Yet, this is what they accuse others of doing.

If I know nothing about something or if I have not done my homework on a subject, I am not too proud to admit it.

All I can do is tell you the truth.


(1) I am not the one making claims in regard to evolution. The one making the claims is responsible for supporting them, as Linda herself has stated.

(2) How can you offer evidence for something that we have not observed, i.e. "evolution".

Evolutionists have a catch 22 here.


Pride is a waste of time. Christ teaches us to be a servant to all and this is what I am attempting to do.

My specialty is assimilating information logically, and this skill can be applied to many fields. The accumulation of knowledge is my paint. Conclusion is my painting. This forum is my canvas (as well for many others).

I am practicing my specialty here and will not pretend to know things that I don't.

I am not holier than thou.

I am an idealists and a realist and so I strive for the best while admitting my limitations. We are equal under law and I am a sinner just like everyone else (except Christ) so I have no reason to treat anyone else badly, but I do believe it is my service to them to point out their faults, for how are they to improve themselves if they don't see (their own faults).

This act of pointing out someone's faults—even if they are in a belief in evolution—is not an act of pride. It is an act of friendship.


"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."i

—Proverbs 27:17


School does little to prepare us for the real world. You may do well to read the book entitled "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".

I'm not saying this to be prideful. I'm saying this to point out that schooling had nothing to do with nearly all of the skills that I now have. My knowledge about mercury toxicity far exceeds any typical doctor's knowledge, yet it is one of the foremost toxins and I never went to medical school.

I play guitar, do sound engineering, program in many computer languages, build computers, design and build embedded systems, do print layout, graphics design, photography, write music, teach stage lighting, publish books, upgrade/modify printers, repair cars, drive a tractor, do electrical wiring, basic carpentry, basic plumbing, hang doors, teach the Bible, build speaker cabinets, I even empty the dishwasher <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but I never received formal training in any of these things.

In today's world, public schools are more involved in politics and socialistic conditioning than with education. It was one of the single largest wastes of time in my life.

A+ or F-, I have never lost a debate.


You shouldn't swear <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


We're talking about whatever we want to talk about.

Nevertheless, if someone cannot see the complete absurdity in evolution and someone cannot make the connection between evolution and global conspiracies, then there is nothing I can say to change their minds.

Why?

Because they have no interest in truth. Usually, they only want to pick and choose their "reality", and because of this prevalent attitude today, debate has turned from a process of debating logic to attempting to convince someone to just look at some evidence. Most often, "they don't want to."

Real research helps make things clear.

For example, Laura and I studied Mycoplasma this weekend, and in the space of just a few hours, we had gained a real understanding for what it is and how to combat it using alternative (natural) methods (olive oil, artemesia, among other things). Believe it or not, I actually enjoy this kind of thing (study).

You see, all my life, when everyone else was watching Three's Company or watching the Bills lose to Oakland, I was reading, thinking, and working on myself.

All of this work has paid off in allowing me to understand the world and the processes involved. I'm glad I did but this work does not make me better than anyone else, although it may make me more skilled at somethings.


Actually, to understand the nature of anything, it's extremely useful and often necessary to understand its origin.

If you are able to know that the origin of the theory of evolution was in the minds of men who had no scientific training, who had ulterior motives, and who had grave misconceptions about the nature of even a single cell (oversimplifying it by orders of magnitude), then you can understand more about the nature of the theory itself.

If you don't understand its origin, then you easily fall into the traps that are set by the very people who don't want to you to know the true origin.

So...

Talking about the origin of evolution is not only original, it's an evolutionary thought in these types of debates.

So, these other subjects I enter into the discussion are relevant. Just because you have not made this connection does not diminish their relevance.


In all honestly, I have, but you and Linda are both unable to see them.

For example, I explained how rules govern processes, and how there are no known rules that would enable the production of complex systems without external intelligence.

Show me the rules.

I've heard that some carbon atoms get together once in a while.

I've heard that some proteins sometimes bind.

All of these are processes based on known rules.

OK, so where's the evidence for evolution?

So, over millions of years no transitional forms were made or found (admitted to in an earlier video that I posted by an "honest" scientist), and even those silly species that they call transitional forms have symmetry even though no known rules exist that would support the processes necessary for symmetry (much less evolution itself).

If evolution exists, then nearly every fossil found would exhibit transitional characteristics. This is not what we find, however.

The bottom line is that if people cannot see through this absurd smokescreen called evolution, there is probably nothing I can do to help them, yet I will continue to try, because I have hope.


With all due respect, the one kindly giving me this advice thought that a conventional UPC symbol would never become the "mark of the beast". I demonstrated why this one was wrong. What happened to that argument?

Debates unfold differently depending on many things, including purpose.


I (again) believe you see it this way because you simply cannot see the connections between what I am saying and the subject at hand.


Well, that's very nice of you. Thanks.

The truth is, there are simple rules that govern most things in the universe. The complexity comes by stacking those rules upon other rules. This is the same method of managing complexity as used in modern-day computer programming.

When you look at these rules, you see that they govern processes; processes like the binding of atoms or the falling of matter towards a gravitational force. That's why these "rules"—as I call them—are called "laws" in their respective fields.

So, in arguing with Linda about this, I have resorted to showing this bottom line rule set because she has two fundamental issues when discerning these types of things:

(1) She is willing to accept things as truth that she does not understand, and

(2) She simply so much wants to believe evolution is true (probably because of some bad or series of bad experiences in the catholic church—not uncommon by the way).

So, I told her that the catholic church is not Christian to see if this would disarm her "hatred" at all. It didn't.

I clearly saw that she would hold on to this hatred with all that she had, even if it meant believing in things (processes) that she does not understand.

What this comes down to is values.

From all that I have witnessed, she must value (or decide to favor) emotions so much, that she is willing—both consciously and subconsciously—to believe whatever she can find that "supports" her emotional position, even if it is not logical.

My value is simple and Biblical, and that is that truth is more important than my emotions. I must bring myself into alignment with truth, not the other way around.

Now, this "value" of overriding truth by emotion is very common today and is part of the conditioning that we have in schools and movies the world over. "Trust your heart" we hear over and over again.

Unfortunately, this is a bad method for discerning truth and it is nearly impossible to get people in this state-of-mind to change. The only way people in this state can change is by experiencing one of the fundamental human forces:

(1) love, or
(2) fear.

This principle is exactly why we punish children when they try to put their fingers in the electrical socket even though you've told them not to. You have to make them fear doing it (before they kill themselves) so you may punish them so save their lives.

So, I consider this "emotionalism" that is being conditioned into us today a form of "dumbing down", and it's being performed in additional to all of the other forms of dumbing down that are taking place.

So, the bottom line is this: You cannot argue logically with a child, or a child-minded person (i.e., an emotionally-minded person) because, as an adult, they have the ability to say, "I don't want to", and you can't make them, and what I would wish that they do is:

(1) Know them self, and

(2) look at uncomfortable things (i.e., evidence that does not fit their current paradigm).

These things are amazingly hard to get people to do, yet, they are necessary for people to be able to think logically, which also means thinking objectively.

So, this is the real standoff: You can't debate with someone who doesn't want to. (they've already made up their mind regardless of the evidence—they are believing what they want to).

All you can do in this situation is to try to provoke them (emotionally) to begin to do the things required for logical thinking.

Unfortunately, emotionally-based adults are usually far more stubborn than children and I normally don't waste my energy trying to change them. I only continue debating here for the benefit of those looking on because I believe there may very well be someone there who will benefit.

Now, with all this said, I don't mean to be derogatory towards Linda at all, but to be honest with you, I have to tell you the truth about how I see the situation.

If it helps, I will also add that we all have some degree of emotionalism and stubbornness in us, me included. In fact, I believe that I am able to see these things clearly today because of the intense pain (ultimately fear—remember what I said about fear previously?) that I experienced earlier in my life.

Because that pain gave me the impetus to know myself and to try to find the cause of my fear, I discovered what an amazingly self centered person I was (as typically all children are).

When I humbled myself I was then able to see that the same was true for most people, that is, they are mostly extremely self-centered (selfish).

Through this humility and much pain, I was able to change and become someone I like much more than I used to—someone who is not as selfish as he used to be.

Now, the real problem for the world today is that few people ever grow beyond being a child and therefore never see themselves for what they are and therefore never see others for what they are and therefore, they are not able to see the evil in the world (if they are blind to their own they are blind to others), such as the evil that perpetrates the conspiracies that I speak so much about.

The sad thing is this. Because they are unable to see these things, they will fall victim to them.

Of course, when they fall victim to the evil ones (committing conspiracies), they (often) eventually—through pain (fear)—humble themselves and will begin to oppose the evil they fell victim to.

This entire mechanism that I am describing is what I call "The System of Human Interaction", and it is indeed a system that is self-balancing, just as natural selection is and just as predator populations are—and it is yet another hallmark of intelligent design—one people don't often talk about, much less see.

Well, I've said a lot here but as far as the ability for people to see through the absurdity of evolution, there is a mechanism that prevents them from seeing. The bible calls this inability "blindness", and indeed, if you could see how ridiculous the myth of evolution really is, then you begin to clearly see this amazing mechanism that governs (balances) human interaction allowing us to survive together whether we understand the system or not.

So, as I have said in all honesty and sincerity throughout this discussion:

Know yourself.

It takes courage and humility, but it changes your view of everything and everyone if you allow it to. It's truly like opening your eyes for the first time and really seeing what has been in front of your face for years.

This is the same mechanism that disables people from believing chemtrails are what they really are. It is the same mechanism that prevents people from seeing vaccines for what they really are.

This is why you generally have populations dividing into two camps over time, and the powers-that-be understand these principles and they use them against us. Indeed, they know us better than we know ourselves.

There is a movie made by the same guys that made "The Matrix" called "V for Vendetta". Although the movie is somewhat over simplified and does not completely "work", whoever wrote the script knows at least some of what I've been talking about.

I would recommend that anyone interested in these things rent the movie and listen very carefully to the dissertations given by the main character.

If you don't find them profound, then you don't yet know yourself.

If you do find them profound, then you may be on your way.

Anyway, these two camps that form in people's values always boil down to a person being driven by one of two human forces:

(1) Fear

(2) Love

In fact, my favorite scripture makes reference to this process of "growing up" and deciding to do "what is right", not because we fear, as was our motivation when we are young, but the motivation is love, and this is a sign of maturity.

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us."

—1 John 4:16-19

The word "torment" would better be translated "pain".


So, this whole subject that seems to be so far removed from evolution is really at the center of the subject, because an understanding of those mechanisms that govern our ability to discern and understand are the same mechanisms that are so profoundly affected by our values, namely, fear, or love.

As an attempt to know ourselves, we could post this question (to ourself):

"Why did I do that?"

If we are honest with ourselves, we will be astounded at how often the root reason is "fear", and by this process (and others) we can begin to know ourselves, and as we do, we foster the ability to overcome what the Bible refers to as "blindness" and we begin to see things as they really are.

I have experienced this. I have helped friends experience this as well. It is amazing and life changing, yet, so simple but not usually easy except for the most humble of people.

So, as long as we live in childlike emotionalism (as the world so often encourages us to), we will continue in blindness and we will make excellent servants for the powers that be, believing all along that we are free, but if we change and humble ourselves and know ourselves and begin to see, than we demand freedom and equality and peace and we then know the true difference between fear and love, slavery and freedom, evolution and creation.


"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

—John 3:15-21


http://herballure.com/inlieswetrust

http://herballure.com/confessions

Russ, this thread is called "Backbone of Creationist Beliefs." I've seen very little evidence that seems to fit this category from you. And again there's little in your two most recent posts. There are many assertions, generalisations, and assumptions about me personally. But still nothing that says that creation explains what we see better than evolution.

You still use implications of irreducible complexity and the argument from incredulity even though I gave you several examples about how complexity has been shown to evolve from simplicity. All stages of the eye from the most basic to the most complex can be traced in evolution and can be seen in modern organisms today. You seem to have made the decision to ignore this. Arguments from incredulity don't work when what you are incredulous about can be explained, and whether you personally want to listen or not is moot.

You assert that the "300 Creationist Lies" website is full of lies. I've heard you assert this about other sites with evolutionary information. Let's have a look, shall we.



Wow, he really knows his stuff doesn't he? This PhD teacher of physics?

Tell me again who is "full of lies."



It's what I call "Make your point to me here, rather than telling me to browse a whole website." You're deluding yourself if you think I'm going to arrive at some kind of divine inspiration through reading more pseudoscience.

There is much talk about "rules" in your penultimate post but no substance as to what "rules" exactly you think I am stating wrong, or which ones evolution defies in your opinion. Details please.

In your second post you say:


Which men specifically? What proof do you have that they had ulterior motives? What were they? And what specifically did they get wrong about the nature of a cell, in your opinion?

You claim that there are no transitional forms. Actually there are quite a few. Technically, all forms are transitional forms, because evolution never stops.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html includes fish, mammals, and birds. I do not expect to hear this dismissed as "a bunch of lies" because all this says is that you do not want to address a challenge to your belief system.

And, as Pwcca said, other conspiracy theories have nothing to do with this. Mercury doesn't. Vaccines don't. Scientific information can be found to support the dangers of amalgams and vaccines. Where is the information supporting creation? You say it's in the Bible. The problem here is that the Biblical creation directly contradicts what we see in reality, and then people like Hovind are forced into messy psuedoscientific attempts at explaining how the two can be reconciled.

Just how much of "what we know" are you willing to throw out? This is what I was wondering when I started this thread. Do you believe that the earth is much younger than scientists say? How do you explain plate tectonics? How do you explain the Grand Canyon and specific features within it, such as angular unconformities? If all fossils were deposited in the flood, how do you explain the way they are fossilized in strata all over the earth? Could we now say that we just can't be sure that science has got anything right? Could the earth's core be made out of ice cream? Could there be dragons living under volcanoes? Did a vapor canopy exist in order for all that rain to come down and flood the earth? Just how ridiculous is this going to get?

My stance on evolution has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic church. As I've stated elsewhere, I hate the fact that children are being taught this pseudoscience and I believe it is a violation of their human rights. Evolution is plain to see, unless you are someone who insists that their holy book is literally word-for-word true and therefore everything in reality that does not fit this must be a lie. You could just as easily be having this debate with a deeply religious Christian who sees the Biblical creation as allegory. Saying that you know best because you have some special kind of divine knowledge isn't going to convince anyone apart from those who want to follow a messiah figure.

I do not have some burning desire to "believe in" evolution, any more than I have a burning desire for gravity to be real. It simply is. It is physical, measurable, basic scientific reality. However, science never accepts anything 100% because it is always open to the possibility that a better theory will come along. Nothing so far has come close to rivalling evolution. I still see very little evidence here that creation could be fact.

Linda, you have no idea how much I know about this.

You may just as well be telling me the Earth is a triangle because knowing what I know, that's just how logical your arguments are, honestly.

The bottom line is that this is a personal decision (which certainly affects others—but that's another connection you have not made). Whether you want to take the time to research if my statements are true or not is up to you—it's your own moral decision and has the potential to make huge differences in your life, but again, that's up to you.

If you cannot make the connection between evolution and propaganda (which happens to be completely relevant, even if you cannot see the relevance), that's fine, but I'll solemnly warn you that one day you will deeply regret it. Enough said.


In your previous post, you're going around and around again (without really answering any of my responses—but that has become the norm here) Linda, so let's focus.

[color:"brown"]Since you're asserting that evolution is true, please explain symmetry.[/color]

Please don't retire to the thought that you've already explained it, because the previous "explanation" did nothing to explain it at all.

You did nothing to explain how you can build a complex system that is completely physically disconnected, perfectly symmetrical, has irreducibly complex parts, yet works together with each other to provide functionality, such as stereoscopic vision.

Just how does all of that extremely complex machinery get built—as a mirror image no less—in another location that also happens to be proportionately symmetrical with the rest of the body as well?

Let's see a step-by-step explanation for your assertion and then I'll respond.

Thanks.