Herein lies the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

You said...

Bertrand Russell describes an agnostic like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I don't know"


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

In other words: Do your homework

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

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

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


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

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


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

The purpose for:

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

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

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

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

So, why would the ptb want to do this?

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

The Government Always Tells the Truth

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

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


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


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

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

agnostic

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


New Age Bible Versions

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

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

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Loose Change

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People

Confessions of An Ex-RX Drug Pusher