The best discussion on evolution is at talkorigins.com ,especially the "posts of the month"

Bottom line is this:

If you have a proposed chain of events that are being considered as having actually happened, if even one of those events in the chain is impossible, the chain is "broken", i.e., the events could not have completed from start to finish. Evolution is full of these broken links.

Symmetry does not "happen". Mutations are harmful. Matched reproduction system don't just form. High design requires a designer.

Evolution goes against very basic logic and continues to search for something that feels more intellectual than God (you might as well claim that the world is flat). Fortunately, there is nothing more intellectual than God, and only those with the humility to explore this idea will discover it's depth and truth.

For an in-depth look at some of the evidence for a designer (for the intellect), check out the following works:

Number In Scripture, Bullinger

The Witness of the Stars, Bullinger


A tragedy of evolution is that it is based on lie after lie. These lies draw in the proud and intellectually blinded and keep them hooked through a very real kind of emotional seduction. When you explore how many lies are told to attempt to prop the dead corpse of evolution, you begin to see what the conspiratorialist has seen all along: global deception for power and profit.

The final tragedy is that those who are lured and caught in this web of lies can lose their soul for their lack of humility; their lack of willingness to admit that they may have just been duped. Of course, this life is a filter, and (one of) the purpose(s) of the lie is to separate those who are leaders and are strong enough to be humble from those who follow and get stuck in the lust for "intellectual" title. Know yourself.


My true desire for those who currently believe in evolution is that they will begin to explore the "opposing" literature, humble themselves, admit they were wrong, and find the wonderful, peaceful life that exists when you have a true relationship with a Creator that knows you, loves you, and helps you through this life. I made the change and will never regret it.


"Humility is the hinge on the gate of knowledge."

Evolution cannot explain this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...6/05/05/1146335926326.html?page=fullpage

Jill is welcome to try.

This is actually true btw, I used to live less than a mile from the new bridge, I was there when they were building it. The ghost sightings have been going on since the day VA DOT broke that ground. I never drove over the parkway.

I have seen ghosts several times in my lifetime, also I have heard them. think what you'd like that's fine. My daughter and I both heard one scream in a relatiove's house a few years ago, that was weird... and I actually had a dog that used to chase ghost animals. I am not joking, if it weren't for him I never would have noticed those, had never seen ghost animals before.

There's much more to this life than science will ever explain. I will bide my time with Yeshua, thanks, because some of those ghosts are as nasty as can be. Jill will find that out one day irregardless of all her studies.

Hell is right here on earth if you haven't noticed by now.

Amen, and Amen

Another interesting phenomenon is that many people see dead friends and relatives just before passing on. This is commonly experienced among preachers who happen to be around passing persons more often than others are.

This is exactly what happened to my father who passed away a few years ago. According to the person who was in the room when he passed, he started having reunion-like conversation with 2 dead friends as if they were in the room with the person who physically was.

Interesting.

Nevertheless, even if none of these interesting happenings occurred, I would not—could not—believe in evolution. It's completely illogical and insane. It is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not saying that to be exclaimative. I truly feel that way.

Questions that people raise like, "Who created God" are enabled when people don't understand that time is a created thing. The universe—all 11 or more dimensions of it (that science current recognizes)—are an object of creation. Time-space is simply a buffer.

We are very conditioned to think in terms of time and space, but they are only the bars on the cage that currently protect us from ourselves. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of some people understanding the nature of God.

As (real) science (which I love) continues to uncover deeps truths about nature and physics, the Bible continue in it's ability to stand under scrutiny. The only thing that ("globalists elite") haters of God can do to create more haters of God is to create a continuous stream of lies and hedge people from the truth, which is exactly what they utilize mainstream media to do.

Know Thyself.

Hi Russ, SoSick, Jill, and folks--


We can't even use dinasours as an excuse to believe in Evolution. I remember a young boy in my church ask the pastor at a Christian Retreat years ago-- "If God exists, then why were there dinasours".



Well, I was REALLLLLY impressed with the pastors response.

He felt that though we will not know everything this side of Heaven, that if you read in the book of Genesis, you will see how the Earth fell in ruins and God was roaming all over the planet grieved over--and surveying the mess.

So that implies that the Earth was not in ruins before this time-- and something cataclysmic caused the mess. He has a personal theory that before Lucifer parted from God, he had been given special priviledges in helping God in creation. Dinasours could have been that very creation.

Then when Lucifer fell from Heaven-- rebelling against God, it caused a physical reaction in the cosmos which caused a meteor to strike earth and everything that was on Earth was destroyed (dinasours, plant life, etc.)

He also feels that at that time before the Earthly ruins, plant life was fed by underground springs-- which perhaps the dinasours were able to drink from- but there was no rain.

Then in the book of Genesis, we see how God is the Restorer of Ruins-- how He seperates the resulting chaos of the elements--- and sets things in order-- then after this stage of restoration, He creates new life, then Adam and Eve.

Perhaps out of bitterness , Satan couldn't wait to bait Eve and cause Adam and Eve to also backslide and reject God like he did-- he was probably not very thrilled to see God's restoration of Earth-- remembering the dinasours and all the priviledges he had before his rejection of God.


It Sounds like a science fiction novel- but I think it is a very valid theory-- especially when you read Genesis, and notice the parts mentioning how the Earth BECAME ruins-- and God restored it.


I believe in the future there will be another Restoration of this planet after the mess unredeemed mankind has made of it--- and that Restoration will be done after God ends this dispensation, and Christ's Kingdom is set up on Earth. Many will take part in this restoration and healing of Earth in Christ's name-- it will be Beautiful!

I have to agree with your old pastor. There is a long time passing between the first and second sentences of Genesis. Unfortunately, many people miss this entirely. We also now know that dinosaurs and mankind existed at the same time, although this is still wrong in many of the textbooks. Of course, this is completely consistent with Biblical history.

There are massive preconceived ideas about what the Bible says, thanks to textbook publishers and mainstream media, and some churches. The best way to know is to get into it and check it out for ourselves. When I did, I was amazed to find that it is the most amazing book I have ever read. In fact, I read it almost daily, have read it about 8 times now, and will continue to read it over and over for the rest of my life. It's just that good.

For those interested, read:

Number In Scripture (Bullinger)
The Witness of the Stars (Bullinger)

Very good study material, documented and referenced, just the way I like it.

I'm not taking sides in this argument, currently, because that isn't the purpose of my post.

I fail to see how the concept of dinosaurs either a) interfere with that of creation or b) have anything to do with the discussion. One might as well ask about any number of extinct animals (such as the dodo bird or Tazmanian tiger). Honestly, what the heck does that have to do with anything connected with creation or evolution? No pastor or debator need conjure fantastical hypotheses about a cataclysmic time to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs. So what if they died off? So what if they existed before the advent of man? Lots of species existed prior to the emergence of mankind. What of it?

...but then, I say this as someone who sees both ideas of creation and evolution as incompatible without the other.

Some more fruitful questions the creationists might consider asking of the evolutionists are: scientifically speaking, what is the purpose of sentience and why are we the only animals possessed with it - what is its purpose in nature? Or, why do humans, as a species, clearly feel (as a majority) the need for religion - why would this be programmed in our psychology and what purpose does it serve in nature (especially if, again, other animals do not possess this feature)? What is the purpose, scientifically speaking, of lucid dreaming if we are but a speck of cosmic dust, a mere consequence of gases colliding in outer space? How can you explain the proven and documented near inhuman physical achievements of Buddhist monks, Suffi mystics and others which non-initiates cannot even hope to attempt? (Examples include enduring extreme cold and warming the body, the ability to switch off all pain receptors in the body, and walking on fire without receiving any burns.)

Conversely, some more fruitful questions the evolutions can ask of creationists are: why are Christians so seemingly disinterested in the universe and space exploration? What reaction will it invoke (and it will happen) when life is discovered elsewhere in the universe? "Missing link" or not, how does one account for the varied forms of intelligent, sentient, tool-using pre-humans, and are you interested or conveniently disinterested in discovering more about these things through fossil studies and excavation? And lastly, are you afraid to interact with other primates and marvel at the multitude of similarities we have in common with them? Go spend a half hour interacting with a chimp, put aside all your personal beliefs temporarily and I think you'll step back a moment and marvel at just how weird it is that another animal could be so like us - that they can even learn (simplified) sign language.

As for this notion of ghosts. What makes you think evolutionists oppose the idea of ghosts? Ghosts, by their very definition, need not require a religion or god to support their existence.

hmmm..sentience... my cat has a very strong personality, she can be quite moody depending upon how she is treated... but she gets to lay around the house while I work all day. My daughter at age 12 is more similar in personality to the cat than to me. Chimps... yes I have even heard birds speak. It is amazing how similar we are in many respects to the animal kingdom. We are part of the animal kingdom, have no doubt. It is obvious to even a 5 year old.

Yet, we are also made in the image of God. If evolution does not deny things such as ghosts then it should attempt to explain the existence of the soul, no? But no mention is made, for it presents a problematic argument for the evolutionist which returns us, as usual, always to God.

A very mundane world they must live in. Caught up daily in the drudgery of life and having no reason for existence except to eat.



I am not sure it is 'programmed', the fact that athiests and evolutionists exist tell me otherwise. However, so many of us do experience either God's presence or the presence of other spirits (whichever our 'god' may be) that it is impossible for us, as a majority, to deny our souls. Religion is only a formal man-approved approach to this experience, it is not actually neccessary. I haven't asked the cat lately but if she could talk and hold a pen with her paw we might be surprised at her response to the question also.

Animals are not sentient. A lion may have cognitive skills, they can plot a few moments ahead and in so doing ensnare their prey. But they do not philosophize nor ask themselves, “Hmm, what am I going to do next Wednesday?” You can argue this any number of ways. Yes animals may possess profound measures of intellect, sometimes more than any human may realize, but they do not possess sentience by text book definition.

When I talk about chimps I refer to primates in particular, not fowl. Yes, there exists a multitude of animals which possess advanced forms of communication but I speak specifically about our cousins, the other primates. And yes cousins, whether you’re an evolutionist or an anti-evolutionist, they are our cousins, genetically speaking. With that said, it should be interesting to note that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is more similar to one another than a chimpanzee’s and an orangutan’s, their neighbors.

Why would God, a presumably incorporeal entity, possess opposable thumbs with which to write or otherwise manipulate tools with? Why have limbs at all if He is merely swimming in some cosmic, netherwordly realm, overseeing all of His creation? I can accept the idea of a creator god (though I dare say the Christian mythology is one which I find altogether unappealing, purely from a storytelling perspective) but it stands to reason in this day and age that mankind created God in our image, not the other way around -- unless you care to expostulate as to what reason your god would possess a body type which has clearly been designed for navigating an earthly, physical realm (unless he has multiple incarnations, as in the Hindu pantheon, which would be a different story entirely). Moreover, how do you know this and can you verify it without the use of any written text? In the modern era, science students are told to prove a thing for themselves rather than simply trust a book (scripture). Thus, without the written word we are able to prove – to ourselves – the existence of gravity, inertia, and so on. And, if you cannot prove it using this method, it is still just a theory not a proven fact. So I ask, using the proscribed method above, please kindly prove that your god appears in the likeness of a (wo)man, equipped, unnecessarily, with limbs, opposable thumbs, facial hair, eyelashes and all the rest.
Not necessarily. Some scientists have rationalized the existence of ghosts as potentially being some sort of after image, an imprint of sorts which technically is neither the individual nor their “soul”, rather, something akin to a photograph, remnants of their former presence, footprints of a sort. Now, I’m not saying that I necessarily buy into that philosophy but for all of the reasons stated above, I’d categorize phenomenon such as ghosts and other supernatural occurrences (UFO’s being another perfect example here) as wholly separate from religion. They’re apples and oranges.


Look, we all have our beliefs and that’s fair enough. I make painstaking efforts not to trash anyone else’s or suggest they are possessed of ridiculousness. That being said, you really should demonstrate greater care when drawing such huge assumptions about the beliefs of an atheist or evolutionist (of which I happen to be neither but I will stand in their defence here). There is nothing dull or unimaginative about any form of antitheism. Indeed, some of the most profound works of art have come from the minds of the non-religious, claiming their muse came from their inner self rather than their alleged god. I think the problem most Christians in particular face when even so much as thinking about what it must be like to be non-religious is that, as you describe, it seems to dull and boring, a life where one focuses only on eating and surviving - and why even have morals in such a realm if “nothing matters”? But religion does not (should not) dictate morals. Morals are a human invention.
As for imagination, the world is what you make of it, regardless of how you believe we all got here. Your imagination and your religious beliefs are unrelated affairs, though I have a sneaking suspicion most people who are religious have chosen that path in life because it appeals to the fantasist within them. I can see the vast cosmos, and indeed our very existence, as utterly fascinating and compelling with or without so much as even considering a god or pantheon of gods or what happens after we die.


Which is precisely why I said a large majority of people, not every single person (and thus excluding atheists). From a hunter gatherer standpoint, the only non-religious civilizations which have ever existened is that of Neanderthals – but then, they weren’t humans, rather, another form a sentient (primate) life which your bible, peculiarly, does not explain.

I dunno Egan... sentient... I had to look it up because I wasn't sure of the context or meaning with which you used it, I am not sure philosophizing is within that definition but it's probably safe to assume 'somewhat' within. The problem is though, a lion does indeed plan ahead, and we may not recognize the philosophy of a lion but other lions surely do. He may wait days for prey he spotted 3 weeks or 3 months ago, he does not act on the spur of the moment always. In which regard look at the complusive behavior of humans. We portray a great deal of it ourselves, we are not immune to complusiveness. However, we are in our behaviors different from animals, that is obvious. Yet, we are very similar also.

The ability to philosophize, well I know some people who are capable but they are a minority. Most people live day to day existences, complaining as they go more often than not unfortunately. The really rich people around you Egan... a lot of them got their money from real estate acquired through migrating and warring ancestors, like a lion siezes his own territory. How is this? Your IRA helps you plan for the longterm yes, while the lion the elephant the bear and the tiger follow the more natural rythyms of the earth just like our ancestors did. They hunt in certain areas certain times of year, they migrate to other areas at certain times of year, some plan ahead for hibernation and mating season... etc etc much led by what we call instinct (which in humans also exists in form) but also much led by the elder animals of their 'tribes'. They establish their prides and pecking orders. All of this takes planning of some sort, and even acknowledges the recognition of an heirarchy among themselves. They do not recognize human society a good part of the time, that is a human thing. to a black bear in need, you are food just like he might be to you if you are hungry enough. Many, but not all, animals are teachable. Your dog for instance will remember in 3 months perhaps 3 years what you taught him last week, will your child? Maybe, about equal to the rate of your dog. More than anything Egan I think what truly has enabled us to raise ourselves above the animal kingdom is the fact the we walk upright and have thumbs. we are a very different species from all animals in that respect and also our tongues and vocal cords which enable us to enunciate. We do not have tails to swat the flies from our behinds.

Human beings have developed an elaborate society, we like to call ourselves civilized. But civilization, if anything, has taken thousands of years to evolve to the rules of behavior we recognize as appropriate today. Humans have not changed much physically, certainly not past what one could easily determine to be natural selection. You'll notice here and there, odd things make the news, that people often step outside of the bounds of 'appropriate' behavior. If your mother and/or your education did not teach you proper, even you would not be well mannered Egan. You would not be welcome in nice restaurants if you smelled and were atrociously dirty. People might call you an animal and with good reason. It happens everyday somewhere to someone. It is with the same understanding of 'appropiateness' we teach our dogs to heel and they willingly submit to remain happily well fed under our roofs as pets and friends. They are civilized domesticated animals who hate being left out hungry in the cold. Just like you but they have no thumbs nor have they bothered to dress. They do not read books. Humans were a lot like that once, but civilization has evolved.

Something within us enables us in a way that other animals cannot replicate. As for our basic needs and desires... we are very much like animals. More than anything, man can easily be considered the most dangerous animal that walks this earth.



Right. But chimps remain chimps still irregardless.


I cannot prove that beyond the life of Jesus, Egan. No one ever will. God is spirit. My experiences never enabled me to see him, in human form or any other. Yet I heard his voice, I know his spirit, and I am grateful for the way he has led me through some very difficult times. Over a course of many years I have learned to trust him implicitely, yet, I have never seen him with my eyes. If there were a way to truly communicate the power of his presence surely I would. Made in his image by the way.... is only his image... like a photo is to the real flower. We as humans do not come close to the enormous presence that he is, we are like a grain of sand on a beach next to him just like the bible says. Seek and ye shall find is the best advice I can give here.



I have seen them look like that, like movies being played out repeatedly, very strange, also quite uncommon from my experience. There is a branch of physics which relies on the fact that energy (in this case, human energy, soul/spirit) is never completely lost, it simply changes form. It's also interesting that many physicists move to side of believers after many years of study. However, this does not explain the phenonema of a good baptist lady who lives a half mile from me up the road here, who was literally lifted up and tossed out of her bed by an unseen force over the winter. Neither does it explain the other numerous odd events in that locally reknowned haunted house.



I would agree with you here Egan. Religion is often the opiate of the believing masses.


Such as? We run the risk of personal opinion here, always remembering that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[quote} I think the problem most Christians in particular face when even so much as thinking about what it must be like to be non-religious is that, as you describe, it seems to dull and boring, a life where one focuses only on eating and surviving - and why even have morals in such a realm if “nothing matters”? But religion does not (should not) dictate morals. Morals are a human invention. ['quote]

Patterned after the 10 commandments I would remind you. prior to which morals as we know them were quite different. Which is even true today depending on where you go so I will skip that altogether.



It's interesting that so many well known athiests have spent their last days in insane asylums isn't it?


Personal opinion really, neither of us have any way of actually knowing the spiritual beliefs of neanderthals or who they were to God... and I do not know enough about them to comment either. For me however, a few old skeletons are more than just a little bit random. It would impress me more if archeolgists were constantly running into them but they don't. Perhaps it's just an odd inbred misaligned lineage of someone somewhere. Did you see that news story last year about the family in eastern europe or was it Turkey, anyway they walk on their hands, pretty much the whole family.

Sorry me there forgot to log in, cleaned it up for 'ya below.



I dunno Egan... sentient... I had to look it up because I wasn't sure of the context or meaning with which you used it, I am not sure philosophizing is within that definition but it's probably safe to assume 'somewhat' within. The problem is though, a lion does indeed plan ahead, and we may not recognize the philosophy of a lion but other lions surely do. He may wait days for prey he spotted 3 weeks or 3 months ago, he does not act on the spur of the moment always. In which regard look at the complusive behavior of humans. We portray a great deal of it ourselves, we are not immune to complusiveness. However, we are in our behaviors different from animals, that is obvious. Yet, we are very similar also.

The ability to philosophize, well I know some people who are capable but they are a minority. Most people live day to day existences, complaining as they go more often than not unfortunately. The really rich people around you Egan... a lot of them got their money from real estate acquired through migrating and warring ancestors, like a lion siezes his own territory. How is this? Your IRA helps you plan for the longterm yes, while the lion the elephant the bear and the tiger follow the more natural rythyms of the earth just like our ancestors did. They hunt in certain areas certain times of year, they migrate to other areas at certain times of year, some plan ahead for hibernation and mating season... etc etc much led by what we call instinct (which in humans also exists in form) but also much led by the elder animals of their 'tribes'. They establish their prides and pecking orders. All of this takes planning of some sort, and even acknowledges the recognition of an heirarchy among themselves. They do not recognize human society a good part of the time, that is a human thing. to a black bear in need, you are food just like he might be to you if you are hungry enough. Many, but not all, animals are teachable. Your dog for instance will remember in 3 months perhaps 3 years what you taught him last week, will your child? Maybe, about equal to the rate of your dog. More than anything Egan I think what truly has enabled us to raise ourselves above the animal kingdom is the fact the we walk upright and have thumbs. we are a very different species from all animals in that respect and also our tongues and vocal cords which enable us to enunciate. We do not have tails to swat the flies from our behinds.

Human beings have developed an elaborate society, we like to call ourselves civilized. But civilization, if anything, has taken thousands of years to evolve to the rules of behavior we recognize as appropriate today. Humans have not changed much physically, certainly not past what one could easily determine to be natural selection. You'll notice here and there, odd things make the news, that people often step outside of the bounds of 'appropriate' behavior. If your mother and/or your education did not teach you proper, even you would not be well mannered Egan. You would not be welcome in nice restaurants if you smelled and were atrociously dirty. People might call you an animal and with good reason. It happens everyday somewhere to someone. It is with the same understanding of 'appropiateness' we teach our dogs to heel and they willingly submit to remain happily well fed under our roofs as pets and friends. They are civilized domesticated animals who hate being left out hungry in the cold. Just like you but they have no thumbs nor have they bothered to dress. They do not read books. Humans were a lot like that once, but civilization has evolved.

Something within us enables us in a way that other animals cannot replicate. As for our basic needs and desires... we are very much like animals. More than anything, man can easily be considered the most dangerous animal that walks this earth.




Right. But chimps remain chimps still irregardless.



I don't know Egan, why do you have thumbs? But perhaps we reach here a stumbling block in your perception. The idea that God made man in his image refers to more than physical attributes. It refers also to thought processes and the spiritual dimension of our souls.




In the modern era, Jesus gave sight to the blind, walked on water, rose from the dead. Choosing whether or not to believe that is roughly equivalent to asking someone to believe we are decended from chimpanzees I suppose. However, there were many witnesses to Jesus whereas there are no witnesses or valid proofs of evolution. So evolution is a bit handicapped here, we have to use reason, however unreasonable, to enable the idea.

Faith on the other hand, often requires us to relenquish our reason and the understanding we have of ourselves and this life. God is truly outside the bounds of our reason. We have merely what is called a worms-eye view of the universe, Egan. Sad but true. We really know so little and yet we attempt to reason everything.

Evolution is not an wholly inreasonable idea. But humans are capable of rationalizing the most irrational things because of their oft misued ability to reason. Reason is what enables someone to murder 50 children in a schoolyard even though it may not be the very best rationale from your or mine own standpoint.

The testimonies of Christians who have experienced the presence of God and many wonderful things therein are plentiful on the internet. You do not really need me to delve deeply into this here. One thing I do tell people is that such experiences are very difficult to describe in human terms, because there are no truly human equivalents and thus no language to properly express it. Civilization has not evolved that far. Yet I do know for sure that God exists, even Jesus and the holy spirit because of my experiences, not because of what I read in the bible. I do enjoy the fact very much that the bible confirms my experiences however. I actually read the bible as an adult after being saved not vice versa. I don't recommend that, it was pretty scary. Read the bible, please.







I cannot prove that beyond the life of Jesus, Egan. No one ever will. God is spirit. My experiences never enabled me to see him, in human form or any other. Yet I heard his voice, I know his spirit, and I am grateful for the way he has led me through some very difficult times. Over a course of many years I have learned to trust him implicitely, yet, I have never seen him with my eyes. If there were a way to truly communicate the power of his presence surely I would. Made in his image by the way.... is only his image... like a photo is to the real flower. We as humans do not come close to the enormous presence that he is, we are like a grain of sand on a beach next to him just like the bible says. Seek and ye shall find is the best advice I can give here.




I have seen them look like that, like movies being played out repeatedly, very strange, also quite uncommon from my experience. There is a branch of physics which relies on the fact that energy (in this case, human energy, soul/spirit) is never completely lost, it simply changes form. It's also interesting that many physicists move to side of believers after many years of study. However, this does not explain the phenonema of a good baptist lady who lives a half mile from me up the road here, who was literally lifted up and tossed out of her bed by an unseen force over the winter. Neither does it explain the other numerous odd events in that locally reknowned haunted house.




I would agree with you here Egan. Religion is often the opiate of the believing masses.



Such as? We run the risk of personal opinion here, always remembering that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.




Patterned after the 10 commandments I would remind you. prior to which morals as we know them were quite different. Which is even true today depending on where you go so I will skip that altogether.





It's interesting that so many well known athiests have spent their last days in insane asylums isn't it?





Personal opinion really, neither of us have any way of actually knowing the spiritual beliefs of neanderthals or who they were to God... and I do not know enough about them to comment either. For me however, a few old skeletons are more than just a little bit random. It would impress me more if archeolgists were constantly running into them but they don't. Perhaps it's just an odd inbred misaligned lineage of someone somewhere. Did you see that news story last year about the family in eastern europe or was it Turkey, anyway they walk on their hands, pretty much the whole family.

What a wonderfully busy thread.

I look at it this way. Let's start simple.

Animals are referred to as "souls" in scripture. I believe this is deliberate.

NOTE: In studying scripture for years, I have learned how important it is to understand each word. The accuracy of scripture is amazing when you understand what each word is actually saying without imposing our own colored beliefs... So...

Animals are called souls. I believe a soul can be thought of as the center of emotions. According to the Bible, animals have souls, and they obviously have a body.

In the Old Testament, you have God represented as "The Father" who is obviously an emotional Person. His representation to us is through a full range of emotions.

In the New Testament, you have the four gospels at the beginning. These tell the story of Christ "come in the flesh", that is, attaining a body to fulfill the needs of the law for the redemption of mankind.

Finally, starting with Acts, you have a collection of writings which continually adjure us to "walk in the Spirit".

If you take a careful look, you will find one of those "macro" patterns here (there are many of them in the Bible).

First, you have the Father, who is emotional and often refers to His own soul. Second, you have the gospel of Christ in the body. Finally, you have the adjuration to walk in the Spirit.

I believe God is three parts, just as we are, as we are "made in His image", or likeness.

Soul, Body, Spirit.

The soul is where we begin our existence. A created entity that is "sent" to be "born of water", that is, born through the placental water into a body.

In the soul, we only "know" what what we feel. There is no discernment. There is no planning. There is no future. There is only what we feel "now", and what we "want" now.

As we mature, we begin to (hopefully and under healthy conditions) explore the fact that we are in a body. We may lift up our arm and look at our hand and say, "That's really weird". I experienced this when I was young. I would marvel at that fact that I had control of this body that would so whatever I "told" it to do. I realized that it was a complex machine with moving parts and intricate design.

Finally, as we mature, we begin to think about the future. We begin to make plans. We begin to consider concepts, ideas. We hope and dream and use our imagination. We begin to explore outside of ourselves. We may even want to study the cosmos. This intellectual activity is a function of the spirit. This is the "missing" component in animals that prevents them from doing such things as we do.

The spirit is the home of our intellect. When we are Biblically told to walk in the spirit, most Christians get the notion that we are to walk in this detached state, listening to a voice from the sky. Although I believe it is possible to hear the voice of God for some, I believe the broad command to walk in the spirit is a reasonable command to live a reasonable, logical, and moral life (morality is logical).

The spirit is the source of faith, therefore all things that require faith are not possible for animals who lack this component. For example, the act of designing a building is an act of faith. In this act we are using knowledge that we have attained—often not through personal experience—and applying it to something that does not exist yet but will... in the future. This ability to explore and utilize this fourth dimension of space (time) is a function of faith which is a product of—or "fruit" of—the spirit.

Most evolutionists confuse the act of a bird building a nest, for example, with a truly intellectual act. It is not. This kind of activity is called instinct, which is best compared to the "BOOT-ROM" system in a computer.

The BOOT-ROM in a computer is a "pre-programmed" (designed-in) chunk of knowledge (or instructions) that tells the computer what to do when it starts up. This knowledge is designed into the computer by the computer designer.

Why is the BOOT-ROM necessary?

In order to do anything useful in a complex world, there is a certain amount of base knowledge that is necessary to get started.

For example, a computer needs to know how to communicate with a hard drive before it can attain knowledge from the hard drive. The computer also needs to know how to listen to and interpret the strokes from a keyboard and/or mouse in order to be controllable by the user during the boot process.

This is the same mechanism that is used to give birds the "knowledge" they need to build a nest, or gather food. It is the same mechanism that gives the knowledge of how to suckle to young mammals. This is vital knowledge that these souls need to survive. Again, this is called instinct.

There have been speculations about computers gaining "self-awareness". This will never happen. Computers can not gain this attribute because this is a function of the spirit, and mankind cannot create a spirit. Each person is delivered a "measure of faith" as the Bible says, to invest as they please. The way they invest this faith will determine whether the "fruit" of that investment is beneficial or harmful.

To produce a beneficial harvest of this fruit of the Spirit, we must follow the rules that God provides to us. If we do, we are saved. If we don't, we are destroyed. This is the element that we have called "free will".

So, whether or not we invest according to the rules determines our salvation. In short, this life is a filter. It separates the wheat from the chaff. God wants royalty in His kingdom that is productive, obedient, and beneficial to all. Those who choose not to be fruitful according to His rules actually take part in destroying the whole organism just as cancer does. Just as you, if you were a business owner would not want disobedient and destructive people working for you, God does not allow them to work in His organization either. In fact this ethic is modeled in this life as another of many symbols to help us understand what this life is all about.

Now, interestingly, the computer is being designed directly after existing complex life. After some thought, however, this is not so amazing when you discover that the natural laws that guide the physical universe almost dictate the most efficient and effective designs for physical, mobile beings.

The computer, who's development is pushed by the purchasing power of the public, will continue to improve in its design and ability to mimic humans and to mimic intellectual processes, but this is only a design feature that is built into the machine by those truly having intellect, and this design will take this direction because those having intellect (humans) most desire companionship (in most cases) and if that companionship can be mass-produced and sold, it will indeed sell well. It's important to distinguish that, no matter how emotionally convincing these machines are at modeling intelligent behavior, they will by no means gain true faith, which is the heart of a true intellect.

When you step back and look at the big picture, you can see the evidence of the idea that the universe was created for mankind to inhabit and explore for a very long time to come. This is, I believe, the long-term plan of God himself for mankind.

Many people think ahead into the future and try to image what God has in store. I have through about this extensively and have concluded that the times to come will be much more diverse and exciting than most imagine.

Many Christians imagine eternal choirs singing forever and doing nothing else. I don't see it this way. Although many will undoubtedly be in a choir, others will do other things. There will be eating, laughing, and enjoying each others company. It's also possible that we will be constantly exploring new technologies that will glorify God and improve the quality of life. It will be quite an existence and I would not want to miss it.

As for now, it's only a shame that there is so much greed in the world. I believe that, with the level of machinery and technology that we currently have, we could live in a world with almost no disease and we would only have to work 1 or 2 hours per day to produce enough to live a rich and luxurious life.

Unfortunately, because we have allowed the evil people of this world to have their way by ignoring the laws of God, they, working together over multiple generations have pooled their resources to protect their selfish interests and keep the middle class impoverished. It does not have to be this way, but because of apathy (sin), it is, despite the fact that the middle class could easily change this if they only worked together (we wander right next door to the promise land year after year). The "ruling elite"—the Bible calls them the "great merchants of the Earth" (great does not mean good in this context, it means powerful)—control and deceive the nations of the Earth by dividing and conquering.

I hope this helps some discern the common mistakes that evolutionists make in trying to figure out how things work.


"...For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your [color:"red"]sorcery[/color] all the nations were deceived."

Revelation 18:23

The word 'sorcery' (Strongs # 5331) in this passage is the Greek word 'pharmakeia' (far-mak-i'-ah). It is defined in Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament as follows:

medication ("pharmacy")

http://herballure.com/bibledeceived


I want to disclaim this message by letting people know that it in no way devalues animals. Animals are to be enjoyed and treated well. This article is only intended to point out why differences between humans and animals exist.

I don't know, Russ. Using your own quoted bible passage from another thread:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

—Revelation 20:4

... we can see that the term 'soul' references more than the center of emotions. In that passage, for instance, the writer sees the souls. Emotions cannot be seen, in this life and highly unlikely also in the next. Emotions are felt. What feels them is most likely, the spirit. That force of life that causes a heart to begin beating. That same force of life that causes one living being being to be a happy soul and another to be forlorn for lack thereof of the same happy, content spirit.

In the bible God may refer to his own soul. He also refers to his everlasting spirit. He makes reference to the pouring out of his spirit. But he never states he will pour out his soul does he? His soul is the all of himself. His spirit is probably better defined as his energy, his emotion, whether that be a spirit of love, of life, happiness, or possibly even the wrath of his angry spirit as the case may be.



That is so funny, I never went through that myself. It's interesting though... when someone loses a leg for instance, usually they say they can still feel their leg even though the fleshly physical part is missing.

Walk in the spirit... his spirit... of love, forgiveness, everlasting life, and even power for his spirit is powerful. Walk humbly.

More later, time for my pillow.

A tad more food for thought before I rest, may not make it back for a few days, busy busy... but anyway...

The holy spirit, also referred to as the holy ghost, never referred to as the holy soul. Yet very influential in regard to our emotions... Known as God's spirit...which he sends to us, which Jesus brings to us.. indwelling our vessels and souls ... giving everlasting life to us, cleansing us and making us whole, by which Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.

g'night.

If you’re not sure what something means then really oughtn’t to argue for or against it. The only person you’re discrediting when you do this is yourself.


That sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus read out of a New Age magazine, from the same people who think that Native Americans were merely innocent victims. The poor sweet Indians who knew how to treat the Earth with respect, right? The ones who would use the entire buffalo and not waste anything, right? Actually the majority of tribes would farm land until it was stripped of its fertility and then they’d just move on. Your idea of our ancestors allegedly “more in tune with nature” is part the Indian Conservationist myth created by white liberal guilt. Moreover, animals possess instincts, humans do not. So there is absolutely no comparison between a lion or elephant interacting with nature and a human interacting with the IRA.


Then say that from the beginning. Image implies appearance. But you’ve successfully evaded my question. Do you believe your god possesses the physical likeness of a male human being, including facial hair (or does he shave?), limbs, etc.? I’m less interested in thought processes and spirituality here and more in “image”, i.e., appearance.


That is the biggest copout argument I’ve seen in a long time. It also demonstrates your complete ignorance to evolution. If you want to stand against something, learn about it first. I’ll give Russ Tanner credit here despite that I disagree with him because he demonstrates a working knowledge of evolution and with it manages to argue against it. He’s using his knowledge as ammunition to support his argument. You are just talking out of the side of your neck, I’m afraid.


Spoken like a true person who believes because they want to believe, rather than someone who has rationalized why they believe in it in the first place. This whole “You just have to accept God’s teaching and not question it” is so much spin for popular consumption, it’s a means of silencing those who dare to question the all prevailing Christian orthodoxy.



The testimonies of people (conveniently usually found in the US) experiencing alien abductions is also plentiful. That does not, however, make it anything other than a bunch of malarkey.


You continually use anecdotes as evidence. If I tell you that some woman down the street from me claims she saw a tiger talking to her in fluent English, does that mean it really happened?


It’s interesting that so many Christians throughout history have a tendency towards barbarism and terror, typically when it comes to atheists, who have been the subject of their brutality since time immemorial. Given Christianity’s violent history, I’d say that whatever atheists (whom you care not to name) sent to insane asylums were put there unjustly. You are living proof that the Christian religion has long tried to suppress knowledge. You can say that those people who tried to murder Gallileo and others were not “True Christians”, but your treaties here mirrors them.


Wow, that is really something. A FEW old skeletons? You have, throughout this discussion, demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. It is clear in my mind that you deliberately do not want to know anything about it so that your own personal beliefs are not questioned. Have you ever considered that your beliefs don’t have to conflict with evolution? That your God and the concept of evolution can very well coincide with one another?

If you're not interested in something, such as evolution, then don't argue against it in the first place. It should be enough for you to say "Look, this is what I believe and that's final. I'm not interested in discussing the hows and whys of evolution because it's not something that I am well-versed in."

Spoken rather compulsively I must say, Egan. Here is a definition of sentience from Wikipedia for you:

[color:"blue"] Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
[/color]

As for this


I can't help but wonder why you are discussing God and evolution, which you have not yet proven without your textbooks (which also are not proven) if this your attitude toward others.

anyway, no time for this discussion now but I will be back in a couple days. You might want to read the dictionary and study archeology a bit in the meantime.

Heh, Wikipedia. Definitions often vary, and you're clearly going far past my original point. In fact, it seems you're more intent on quibbling over minutiae of trivia rather than making any real statement. So what if animals are "sentient" based on your definition? Can you direct that point back to why it's being discussed in the first place, or do you just want to win points? Prove me wrong and then do something with that information. You're not doing that. What it appears to me, instead, is that you're arguing in the manner of an adolescent, relying on whimsy and recalcitrance as the backbone of your approach.

The rest of the animal kingdom differs in certain ways from human beings. Their form of consciousness is vastly different from ourselves. Now you can call that sentience (as some do) or you can quibble over what specific word you care to call it until you're blue in the face. I'm not going to expound further upon that because it's irrelevant to this discussion. But the only thing I was suggesting in a previous thread was the difference between humans and animals. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree with that and believe that there is no difference whatsoever between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, you're certainly welcome to your opinions -- in which case, let's leave it at that and move onward with the topic because it's a really very small point at this stage of the discussion.



I'm sorry. Please direct me to where you have proven anything beyond conjecture. Furthermore, what alleged text books have I used in this discussion? You said I can't prove anything without my text books. Which ones were those? You're again painting a picture of yourself akin to your Christian predessors (who made painstaking attempts to suppress knowledge and learning) when you suggest that books should not be used in an argument. The fact that I did not use any textbooks yet you mention I have evinces your opinions on their very existence. Of your own omission, I see you value anecdotal "evidence" over demonstrably proven facts. Through you I am reminded of a time in world history where books were burned and literacy punishable by death.

http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html

Wow, that link is such a load of bollocks (strengthened by the fact that the poster provided it to us anonymously). Did you know there is a Flat World Organization out there? These people throw out halfway plausible arguments explaining that the world is actually flat and we've all been hoaxed into believing otherwise by some grandiose conspiracy. It just goes to show you, if you want you can argue anything into existence (which is likely why lawyers earn such exorbitant sums of money).

Look beyond the links that you've hand selected (links which tell you what you want to hear) and dig deeper. Look at links which tell you things which, maybe, you don't want to hear and you don't want to be true. Analyze those carefully until you're certain it's not the truth. Because there's a whole heck of a lot more to paleontology than just a bag of bones.

Or you can just go on proving that the universe revolves around the Earth and that thunder is a byproduct of the god Thor when he's angry, and that vampires really exist (I've seen them, my great uncle's hairdresser's dog groomer's friend's friend's friend told me he was bitten by one!) There's plenty of links out there which argue in favor of such statements, I'm sure. Knock youself out.

That's all for now, I gotta run. Sasquatch is at my door, we're going to have tea together.

I'll just address two points from posts in the past 24 hours here.

First, about the barbarism of Christianity.

Honestly egan, this is like saying a tree hugger has gone about chopping down trees.

The information you are getting (and I've responded to it from you in the past on this forum) is not Biblical. It sounds as if it is coming from the Discovery Channel or some other lying organization such as that. The television and mass media in general is horribly slanderous toward the Bible. They lie constantly—In fact in nearly every program I've ever seen. This includes the History Channel, Bibliography Channel, MTV, VH1, and others.

Christ's teaching and work were about redemption, forgiveness, removal of guilt, and most of all, love.

I will also point out, as I've done in previous posts (not in this thread, however) that the Catholic church is the "anti-Christian" church. It is an attempt to assimilate Christianity. It is not Christian in it's origin or nature. It only looks that way on the surface. I'm sorry if this offends anyone. I am not saying that Catholic members are bad. I'm simply saying that the "church" as a system is decidedly anti-Christian.

The catholic church has been used to create slander against Christianity for a long time, and this is by design. The truth is, slandering Christianity because of what the catholic church does is no different than slandering Christianity because of what the mormon church does.

This takes some study to find all of this out, but those who have the passion to do their homework will come to the same conclusions.

About the human soul...

Humans are often referred to as a souls. God refers to Himself as a Soul. The Holy Spirit is indeed a Spirit, and is the Spirit of God, just as humans have a spirit.

The essence of what I was trying to get across in my post above is that humans and God are three-part beings:

Soul, Body, and Spirit.

The soul of God is the Father. The soul of humans is the center of our emotions and passion.

The Body of God is Christ. The body of humans is self evident.

The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. The spirit of man is the center of intellect, creativity, and reasoning.

To paint a simple picture of mankind as a seagoing vessel:

(1) the soul is the engine,
(2) the body is the frame,
(3) and the spirit is the rudder.

The scripture about the war within our members makes sense when you understand this foundational information. The soul of mankind and the spirit are "at war" with one another, especially when we're young. As we train our emotions, they act more in harmony with our soul leading to a more peaceful existence.

I hope this helps those who read it.


[color:"brown"]"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."[/color]

—Romans 7:23-25

Interesting feedback, Russ. I'm aware of your previous statements in another discussion we had, yes, and I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments insofar as your last immediate two points are concerned.

For what it's worth, I recognize that the vast majority of what is deemed 'Christian', whether by some television program as the ones you've mentioned -- and, incidentally, I don't own a television -- or in a book, etc., is not necessarily true to the heart of what is meant to be Christian.

When I talk about barbarism and Christianity I talk about acts done in the Christian name (such as the burning of witches and pagans), which did indeed happen. I'm speaking strictly about historical events and the name which, Christianity, as a whole, has earned for itself over the years. I'm not suggesting these people are (or are not) truly Christian. In short, I'm not slandering the Christian belief system (though will say I’m not a believer – I’m also not an atheist, for what that’s worth). I'm slandering those who've used the religion as a tool for terror -- and those people, sadly to say, probably far outnumber any true Christians.

On a completely different note.. I rather like your analogy of the three-part soul. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on infants that die in or just after childbirth. Their “souls” must be severely underdeveloped by comparison with yours or mine. What do you imagine is their function in the hereafter? Or don't you? Do you think it possible for such an undeveloped soul that has already died to ever, under any circumstances, be damned and sent to Hell? I actually majored in Medieval studies when I was in college and I vaguely remember reading about the old Catholic church's views on infants who died before being baptized. If they hadn’t been baptized they couldn’t get a ticket into Heaven, but since they committed no sin Hell was also not suitable, nor was purgatory. They were sent to Limbo, a sort of afterlife separate from Heaven. I remember reading that most modern day Christians no longer accept this idea, but it’s an interesting concept, purely from a mythological standpoint.

I ask this entirely from a philosophical viewpoint, this isn't a challenge or part of a debate. I’m honestly just curious what you think on the matter.

Hey Egan,

I hear what you're saying about what is done in the name of Christianity, and I agree for the most part, except that I don't think that it has any reflection on Christianity itself—that is, when people use it as an excuse to do things. I would guess that you agree with this because I would (also) guess that you agree that there are people that do evil things for any reason they can use as an excuse.

There are also people who do evil because they misunderstand the intention of good. They take information out of context. This does make the original information bad, however. It just demonstrates that some people are hasty, or deluded, or any number of other things.

Of course, Biblical laws are meant to protect us, and they do when they are rightly applied. One of the most relevant modern examples of this is the practice of pharmacology, which is one of the leading causes of death today:

http://herballure.com/drugs

If more people knew about the real causes of disease and the real cures, disease would be all but 95% gone today. It's the deliberate misinformation and lies that these pharmaceutical companies promote that is at the root of much human suffering.

http://herballure.com/bibledeceived


About my view about infants who die just after childbirth...

There is no crystal-clear explanation about this in the Bible, only information that can be derived through symbolic prophecies that need to be studied to be understood (the Bible is self-interpreting), and I haven't put study time in on this particular subject yet.

The Bible also says that some "end-time" prophecies won't understood until just before these things occur, and indeed this makes sense as some of them can now be understood in the light of technology and other modern things that could not have been comprehended by the people of that time.

When you put the pieces together hastily, the best interpretation that I can find so far is that these souls will live during the thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth. This will be their opportunity to make their decision for or against God. Also, those who did not have the opportunity to learn about Christ during this life will also have an opportunity during this time. This is why Satan is again released for 7 years at the end of this thousand-year period. This is the final time of testing for these people.

Again, I have no hard opinion about this because I haven't done enough study yet.

I certainly don't believe that these people who die just after birth are less important or anything like that, nor do I believe that they have any less opportunity for eternal life than I do, and I don't buy into the catholic ideas because they are just ideas of men, not scriptural, and therefore not having the extra-natural evidence of their accuracy, namely, prophecy and gematria.

We live in a world where horrible things happen at times and we all suffer for it at one time or another. And because it is clear that God's knows how everything ends (time is a created thing), this time of testing is not for His benefit, it is the mirror that allows us to realize that He is just and reasonable and that some men and women are the cause of this evil that we endure. It is for us to know ourselves.

Those who do this willfully and humble themselves and accept Christ for who He said He was—i.e., recognize and accept truth—will be saved. Those who refuse to know themselves never get to see the selfishness that resides in us all and are very unlikely to ever accept Christ. This is a shallow explanation about why I always tell people who are wanting to know more about Christ to make sure they get to know themselves—because Christ came to save us from ourselves.

Amazingly (but not really), the prophecy says that a majority of those souls that live during the thousand-year reign of Christ will still refuse to accept Him for who He is.


[color:"brown"]"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God".[/color]

—Romans 8:16-19

I personally believe that everything that exists exists in 3 dimensions, because everything that exists is made from God's own self - which is three. This is something that I really don't understand yet in the way that I want to (have not seen God yet, etc.), but I believe it because I feel it inside. (My faith is more from intuition and feeling/sensing things than from studying, and I believe that God made me this way on purpose.) I also believe that humans were made in the complete "image" of God - but I'm talking about humans in their spiritual state, in perfect glory - this has absolutely nothing to do with the body of "dust." The body of dust (much like a "toadstool" or mushroom) does not live for eternity as the spiritual body does. The body of dust (and everything that was created out of dust) was made by God for a temporary purpose only and is bound to the spiritual body from the time of conception until God separates it from the spiritual body (at the time of "death"). We are all living with our permanent spiritual bodies now, here on this earth, but we can't see them yet because God has placed a veil over our eyes (for a specific purpose). Sometimes God "opens" people's eyes and temporarily allows them to see things that already exist all around us but that we usually cannot see, while we are living with our bodies of dust. This is when people see "ghosts," etc. I have never seen one nor do I want to, but I certainly believe that it is real. The reason that God normally does not allow us to see these things (including our own spiritual bodies) is because he wants us to live by faith.

About being made in the image of God - I believe that the soul is the "seed" of each human - the part of us that was made in the image of Abba God (father God), and is in many ways like the trunk of a tree - the wood part which is used for paper. This part of us which is our true selves exists in heaven before we are conceived on this earth. At the time of conception the body is "born"- kind of like when a seed of a plant begins to grow. As the body grows, the mind grows with it. The subconscious mind is wrapped around the soul and the conscious mind is wrapped around the subconscious mind, and the body extends from the conscious mind. (conscious mind controls action.) Prayer for the most part comes from the subconscious mind - this is called, "praying in spirit." The third part of the human is the spirit, which is a completely separate being from the soul. He is the little child within each of us and is what makes little children so adorable. The human spirit is also joined together with the soul (seed) at the time of conception and he is also our "conscience." He was made in the image of the "Word" of God, which is Jesus, and he carries the law of the spirit inside of his being. When we walk in the spirit, we are following our conscience and the Holy Spirit (power of God) works together with us and our prayers become very powerful and actions are always in step with God's will. The angels (which we cannot see) were made in the image of the Holy Spirit, which is the power of God. They are like stars, fire, bolts of lightening. That's the way they work. And they work through our prayers, through the commands that we give them, usually without knowing what we are doing - that we are praying from our subconscious minds. The angels of God work through prayers that are in unity with our conscience and the fallen/dark angels work with the prayers that are purely from pride and against that person's conscience. Continuing to pray this way and never repenting ends up landing those persons in hell - by their own words. In the end their own prayers against others are turned back (back-fired) onto their own selves, something that they do not see coming while they are living on the earth.

As for whether or not souls that didn't have a chance to grow up go to heaven, hell, or whatever, I personally believe that there is someplace (in heaven??) where God takes them where they go through the same testing and growing up that we went through on this earth. There is no way that they could go to hell without actually living in sin by their own will. And it doesn't make any sense to think that they would actually just cease to exist when their biology is separated from their spiritual bodies (small as they may be) and souls.

So, being a Christian means to follow your own conscience because the human spirit has anointing from God like Jesus/Christ (being a Christian means to follow Christ), and really doesn't have anything to do with following the written code. Definitely many people who think they are Christians and pretend to be Christians are liars - lying from deep inside of their hearts. God does not hear their prayers. God purposely allows them to continue in their presumption that they are saved for the duration of their lifetime on the earth. It is not until after they leave the body of dust behind that God opens their eyes and they find out that they were rejected from heaven.

Hi Chiristen1 and thanks for your thoughts.

I respect your opinion but I have to point out a few things. Namely, that following your own feelings is a quick way to get in trouble when trying to decipher and understand God's truth.

When you read scripture, you will read story after story where people followed their own feelings rather than following the commands of God and ended up greatly regretting it. Our feelings quickly mislead us. This is why scripture continually tells us to walk in the Spirit, of course we have to know what this means.

There are two types of feelings and I believe most people are not able to tell the difference. One type is from our own soul (a.k.a. "heart"). The other is the nudging of the Spirit. We have to learn to discern the difference in this life so we can make good decisions.

One way we can test whether we are truly listening to the Spirit is to ensure that what we are "hearing" does not conflict with scripture. If it does, then we are not listening to God because He will never contradict His word. Of course, in order to do this, we have to know scripture. This is vital.

Some of the old "prophets" were reported to have spoken from their own hearts rather than following the leading of God. This is rampant today. Todays media tells us to follow our own heart. Can you think of a Disney cartoon that does not promote this idea? This is not Godly.

On the other hand, as be become more mature we should actively work on telling apart the prompting of the Spirit from our own heart. This way we can truly walk in the guidance of the Spirit.

Books have been written on this subject as it is an important enough subject to deserve that kind of attention.


"My sheep [color:"brown"]hear[/color] my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

—John 10:27-28


Some translations use the word "know" rather than "hear", which is probably a better translation.

Power can be felt physically, though it is a spiritual "thing." This is something that all humans should recognize and not try to deny. We cannot see it, but we can feel it spiritually. The spirit, however, is something that we "sense." All angels have power and use it to put the prayers of humans into action in the physical world. When we follow the spirit of God (our conscience) we are working in unity with the power of God, which is much like the wind (very powerful), and good things always happen. But, if we try to deny that this power exists (deny what we are feeling), we are believing a lie and end up following this lie which is filled with power also, but not from God. Rather, we need to respect the power of God (the angels) and learn to work together with them. This has nothing to do with emotions. (I'm sensing that you're missing something important and I'm trying to help you because I'm sensing also that this is what God wants me to do. Otherwise I would not waste my time and would find something else to do.) Also, people often are led astray by what they think is the Word of God, because they focus on the surface stuff - what the bible says. But God's word is not the letter - his Word is Spirit, and therefore can only be spiritually discerned (sensed spiritually). This is why so many people interpret the Bible differently and why we have so many different types of Christian churches, as well as many false Christians and churches. There is much more to knowing God's Word than studying, not that I'm saying that there isn't a place for studying, but it isn't everything. People who do not read the Bible know this. (no offense to you in any way and I'm sorry if I'm sounding offensive, and I also do not take any offense from you because I know that both of us are doing this in a spirit of Love and by God's leading. I also think that there is a place for your type of teaching, even though I don't agree with every word of it and I believe that God has led you in this way on purpose - and the same for myself.)

Last one was me - sorry, forgot to log in first.

I agree with Russ here, and vital is a very good word. 'Feelings' can be very deceptive. If the word of God were not important Jesus would not have needed to defend it against the sadducees and pharisees who 'felt' differently also.

Hello Christen and thanks for your reply.

I do appreciate your post and you taking the time to pass this information along. I know you're doing it with the best of intentions.

I don't mean to devalue human emotions in my statements. I think they are very important and they have an important purpose. However, I do believe that we will be judged by the word, and if we reject it...

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

—Acts 13:46

This event took place in New Testament times. The word they were preaching, I believe, was the Old Testament.

This is important because so much of the church rejects or ignores the old testament. Furthermore, so many today read very corrupted translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, or NASB.

Few realize that there has been a deliberate, concerted effort to corrupt the Bible through the new translations. In fact, the new translations lend themselves to exactly the kind of theology you are teaching here.

I would highly recommend that you watch this video all the way through. This is the best work that I've seen done on the subject:

New Age Bible Versions

I'm curious what Bible translation you have read from.

The Bible states that these end times will be perilous times, and indeed they are, on many different levels. I believe it's important to know that the seduction of Satan (or his angels, or his doctrines) are always going to appeal to the emotions because this—in a manner of speaking—is our weak point, and he knows this.

This is also why modern advertising appeals to our emotions. You can watch a car commercial and not know a single fact about the quality or performance of the car, yet they appeal to your emotions through visual suggestions.

Our emotions are the first part of us drawn into a situation that we "know" we should avoid. I believe this "knowing" is our intellect; our spirit. It may also be the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Either way, I don't consider it an emotion at all.

Again, I thank you for taking the time to respond and I hope you will consider my request to check out the differences in Bible translations. It's a truly amazing lecture.

All the best and hope to hear from you.

This is from the last book of the OT:

Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

Jesus also repeatedly admonishes his peers to keep the laws of Moses, going as far as to say, to not do as the pharisees do, but to do as Moses says. It's obviously important to him.

God is definitely not our conscience. He is a separate entity God may use angels to do His work but He is capable of using anyone also, even non-believers, being an angel is not required to be used by God.

A strict translation of the Tanakh will show that the King James Version of bible is quite literal, at least in the OT, which lends further credibilty to that version of the NT I think. The dead sea scrolls also is quite literal to the KJV though they do provide a few interesting realignments.

No, Egan, I cannot. Because you said... "Some more fruitful questions the creationists might consider asking of the evolutionists are: scientifically speaking, what is the purpose of sentience and why are we the only animals possessed with it - what is its purpose in nature?"...

Because the fact is, human beings are not the only 'animals' possessed with it. You can argue with the definition if you'd like, argue even with the EU also then, whose own laws require that animals headed to slaughter be treated humanely because they are sentient. It's impossible for me to direct that point back to why it's being discussed because I have no idea why you are making such an erroneous claim. I also have no idea why you are trying to defend it since it's so obviously erroneous.



I never said any such thing except to assert that animals are sentient beings. I was responding to you, who said this "And lastly, are you afraid to interact with other primates and marvel at the multitude of similarities we have in common with them?"



Oh, well it was you made the suggestion when you said "Moreover, how do you know this and can you verify it without the use of any written text? In the modern era, science students are told to prove a thing for themselves rather than simply trust a book (scripture)."

Mostly, Egan, the problem I have with your arguments is that they are rather self-gratifying. You argue with a double standard approach, requiring something from others that you have not yet been able to provide for yourself.

Migration is hardly new age btw. And humans are most definitely born with certain instincts. As Russ pointed out, if it were not so, babies would never suckle. To take it even further, boys would not suddenly like girls at 15, and vice versa. Children would not feel an urge to leave home as young adults without the natural instinct to do so, neither would they ever rebel against their parents. Our natural instincts are mostly related to mating and establishing the next generation, just like the animal kingdom (not forgetting the basic 'survival' instincts that all creatures share). We build houses of wood and stone rather than nests of straw but in essence it is the same thing.

Raise a child Egan and you will see human instinct in action daily.

Acussing Christians of slaughtering athiests is akin to accusing Serbians of slaughtering muslims. Though there may be some truth in it, it is a warped truth and applies more to governments than individuals and their actual beliefs. The Roman Catholic church likewise burned believing Christians at the stake and destroyed their villages for refusing to concede to it's power and roman based belief and heirarchy system. It did quite a bit of wrangling with basic first century Christian theology in order to make room for people whose beliefs differed. The interests of the RCC was/is that of being a central authority figure/power/ruler and it has used many means to try to accomplish that. The kings of Europe were crowned by the RCC and subject to it, not vice versa.

Study Luther and the protestant reformation.

Suckling is a learned behavior, not an instinct.

The urge to have intercourse is known in the scientific world as a motivational force. So too is the desire to eat and drink water.

The vast majority of what a layman, such as yourself, refers to as 'instinct' in humans is either one of the aforementioned factors or it's a reflex (such as the flight or fight syndrome, which is also a reflex and not an instinct).

Use knowledge as your ammunition, not assumptions and hastily pondered musings.

I know egan and I have gone around on this for a while in the past. egan knows that I am a global-conspiratorialist.

It might be helpful here to point out some of the work of Dr. Hovind. He has effectively pointed out many of the lies in the text books. Of course, this is no surprise to me because I understand the force and reasoning behind these lies. They promote these lies for the same reason they continue to promote amalgam fillings.

I have found his work to be thorough and flawless except for one big thing. He believes the world is 6,000 years old. I know why he believes this as it is a not-uncommon mistake in understanding the time difference between the first to sentences of the Bible (in my opinion).

Nevertheless, the information he provides is remarkable to anyone who has not been exposed to global-conspiracy theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A5J5evEru4

And I don't want to hear any attempt at character assassination against Hovind being a tax protester. First, show me the law that states that Americans are required by law to pay income tax and you will be the first. I have studied the UCC and Title 26 IRS code for years and have yet to find it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

Wake up America.

Okay, now in fairness I only watched 15 minutes of it.

It's very easy to win an argument by using singular pieces of evidence and tearing it to shreads. He couldn't possibly have chosen a worse document on evolution to dissect. There's a lot of evolutionary rubbish out there. Just as (any non-deluded person must agree) there's a lot of Christian rubbish out there. If the man wishes to really win an argument he needs to find solid, strong pieces of literature with which to go up against. Not weak ones. Simply by virtue of the fact that he hand picked the cheapest, most amateur text on evolution he's already discredited himself. I say this because many evolutionists would likely also disagree with the statements he was quoting from the school text book on evolution.


That's what he says at one point. Well isn't that great. Except that he does the exact same thing towards evolution.

Another way the man loses points in his own argument is that he's a Christian who's invited a bunch of Christians and he's preaching about the falsehoods of evolution to these people. It's a pretty cheap tactic, really. If he were going up against his adversaries and allowing them to reply, rather than asking the crowd absurd questions (questions that can only result in the yes that he wants to hear or the no that he wants to hear) I'd happily give him a round of applause.

Most of these debates are just so much rubbish from both ends. Here's a bunch of bigwig hotshot scientists stating what they think may be true as more or less fact. All the while opposing them are a bunch of bigwig hotshot Christians stating what they think may be true as, also, a fact. Here's a fact for you all. Nobody knows!

But text books lie all the time. 50 years ago history books described the ancient Mayans as a peaceful civilization. It said this as a fact, not a "We're pretty sure about this". Lo and behold evidence was uncovered indicating that they were a ritually sacrificial and bloody nation.

It happens. What can you do? Maybe both parties should just slow down in their quest to be "right" and reduce their alleged facts to very plausible theories.

Gravity is a fact. Inertia is a fact. Micro-evolution is a fact (this is even agreed upon by Creationists). Macro-evolution is stated as a fact and while, in my opinion it makes pretty decent sense, it's not proven and thus is not (yet) a fact. At the end of the day, all I really see is a bunch of opponents blowing smoke.

What I'd like to see is both parties discussing the matter on neutral territory. A discussion that is not hosted by one side or the other (and thus not biased). This was a Christian man hosted by a Christian venue. I would say the same thing were it an Evolutionist hosted by an Evolutionist venue. Of course I'm going to look strong in my debate if everyone around me agrees with me. And that holds true whether you're debating evolution, creation, or the price of tea in China.

OK, here's an idea...

Gather information from both sides and see which one makes the most sense. There are plenty of links on that page to get you started doing just that.

Unfortunately, what I've found egan is that most people only listen to what they want to hear and this is a poor way to gather the information you need to discern truth.

Is this why you only listened to 15 minutes of this?

Know thyself.

I suggest you give it a fair shake and hear it out, otherwise you are guilty of the very thing you accuse "religious" people of.

Also, this link was not about a debate over evolution. It was a peek at the iceberg that is a global conspiracy.

So, now I challenge you to be an honest evolutionist and watch the whole thing and then feel free to watch any of the numerous Hovind debates with evolutionists that exist on YouTube.

By the way, the purposefully deceptive term "micro-evolution" is actually a divergence within a "kind" resulting from a loss of information, NOT a creative process. The video deals with this.

Again egan, my beef with evolution has nothing to do with preconceived ideas or desires about Christianity. If I were an atheist or agnostic, I would be ashamed to accept this indescribably silly idea. Whether soup-to-cell or cell-to-man, evolution is magic: "Look at this 'evidence' so we can keep you from seeing the strings".

Allele frequencies? Show me a beneficial mutation. Show me a common mutation or "micro-evolution" that does not involve the loss of information.

Bottom line. We should all just grow up and admit that design requires a designer. I know it's not easy, but then good things seldom are. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You must be kidding. My daughter was born at 10:05 pm one evening and the very first thing she did when I held her in my arms at about 10:20 the same evening was suckle.

Tell me where she learned it so quickly, puhleease.

Sex is a motivational force huh? Only to someone who denies the obvious. But of course, I must try to remember where you live and that prostitution, even forced prostitution, is rampant in that part of the world. Maybe money is motivational force? I dunno, help me here, I am trying to figure this out. Hey did you ever see that Movie, named simply 'Montenegro', made in about 1982 or so? glamorous.


It must be difficult to reason differently having been raised in an atheistic communist country though. If Yugoslavia was anything like communist Russia believing in God could end you up in a labor camp I know... I know a few people, Jews especially, who emigrated from communist Russia and Yugoslavia many years ago because the living conditions were dreadful. I have a friend from romania, they barely had working toilets. It's true, the Russians and other communists didn't generally outright kill Christians and Jews, they worked them to death instead. Perhaps still do... though given the children that saw the evil apparitions pretending to be Mary the mother of Jesus in your part of the world it's probably evident they held onto the Catholic church near to you.

I posted a photo of an angel for you to enjoy, ponder, and yes, of course, even mock to your heart's desire for a while.

Useless your mocking though.

Tocqueville never met Stalin.

But rather than pick out one line that suits your (surely communist educated) distaste for America, Egan, try adding this in just to be fair:

[color:"blue"]"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it."


"Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself."


freedom is "something one must feel and logic has no part in it. It is a privilege of noble minds which God has fitted to receive it, and it inspires them with a generous fervor. But to meaner souls, untouched by the sacred flame, it may well seem incomprehensible."


Alexis de Tocqueville [/color]

Alexis de Tocqueville, who was fired from his position by the French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte, and pretty much had a nervous breakdown as a result.

I was exposed to evolution at times throughout school, not often enough to where it destroyed my faith, but enough to confuse me.
Later in life I began to question evolution and many times I questioned the existance of God. In questioning both, this lead me to read more. l. I began to watch videos of evolution / creation. I was astounded at the other side, for once I go tto hear scientistis giving their view on creation. I saw debates between them.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind (in my opinion) that evolution is possibly the biggest lie ever told to mankind. To me, it is nothing more than an antigod philosophy, man-made religion. It is not science, if anything it is antiscience and in fact an insult to true science. Real science is wonderful and there should be no need whatsoever to implant bias beliefs into that area or fiction.

Evolution belongs in the religious studies class, not the science class. It relies totally on "faith", because it is only a theory. Nobody saw a big bang, nobody video taped the unfolding of life in the beginning, , yet we are told when it happened, how it happened, what happened and we are really not allowed to think for ourselves because the men in white coats have already told you and me that it is science, therefore it is not up for question or "faith". what we are according to the evolutionist scientist, is nothing more than an evolved organism, or basically an advanced ape. So hate to tell you guys but our relatives are locked up in zoos (if we are to believe this). This means that the very fact we are having this discussion is pointless. If we are just ape like creatures (or advanced), we have no point to our beginning, no point to our life and a dead end to look forward to. IT makes you wonder why the "big explosion" bothered to happen at all. Who gave it the ingredients for life and intelligence? Did all the right things just come together at just the right time and in just the right way that everything in that explosion is what we see now? Just the outcome of billions of years and chance random processes? This is absolutely fictitious, it is man's idea. That is all it is, what is it doing in a science classroom? How insulting to education. If one wishes to believe in such a theory they are welcome to, but be honest about it. So far it remains the "theory" of evolution....not yet an established fact. Hey, they've had billions of years (in their mind) to come up with a story, is this it?

Why should someone's theory be accepted as scientific fact simply because it suits an antigod agenda? Surely science should be taught as science and the bias beliefs left out of it. Let the evidence speak for itself. where the evidence takes you is anybody's guess, but should not be orchestrated by scientist who has an agenda.

But instead, we have textbooks with animated drawings to tell us how we used to look (with no evidence whatsoever). To tell us how horses used to look "with no evidence whatsoever". The horse theory was proven fake many years ago, yet STILL turns up in scientific textbooks. They are gradually removing it from some, but not all. IT's an embarrassment even to some of the top evolutionists. Egan would know about these kinds of frauds I am sure. But the fact remains that they SHOULD be exposed because they are STILL turning up in scientific textbooks. And that goes also for the Evolution of the human embryo. done deliberately to make them look like unevolved fish with gill slits. Come to find out, the guy responsible had faked the lot.

There is STILL no clear evidence of any missing links. Yes there have been many so-called missing links over the years so far all fakes. Variation within a kind is not evolution. certainly a dog will never be a cat or any other animal. Animals are just what they are, regardless of the differences within the kind (e.g. german shepherd compared to a poodle). A giraff and an elephant, totally unique. As is everything and every human being down to their finger prints and intricit genetic code which is more complicated and vast than any computer or library on earth. Yet all that apparently came from "chance random processes all from an...explosion" (according to the evolutionist). I dont know about you, but I have never seen order come from an explosion. Only chaos. How does life come from non life? HOw does life start, much-less be sustained unless everything is there in balance? The planets are all in alignment in the right way, if not nothing could exist. The temperature/atmosphere has already got to be in exactly the right way in order to be friendly to life and again, sustain life. How is it that the sun lights us by day and the moon gives us a light by night and we attribute all that to "chance". This includes plants, foods, everything. all nothing more than the result of billions of years? I guess for me as a believer, I find it astounding how anybody can really ignore the idea of intelligence and design and "care" behind all this.

Now if the earth was billions of years old as we are told, we would be absolutely inundated with fossil evidence coming out of our ears of evolution. There wouldn't be ANY search for missing links, you'd have them everywhere. Museums would probably be rather boring. There would not be any arguments because the results would speak for themselves over and over. any creation scientist would be extinct himself! He wouldn't exist and if he did, he'd tidal waved by evidence....how is it that evolutionists try to avoid debates now with creationists because it does "not do the cause any good"?

Instead, they are desperate to find the missing link. When they discover fossils, they attempt to fit the evidence into their preconceived beliefs, rather than take the fossils as they are. So if they find a human bone and miles away find an ape bone, this means they come from the same body (yes this has been done). Therefore over two bones, they decide to draw us a picture of how we looked. These types of fraudery were not uncommon.

One example is they built an entire ape like/human creature around "one tooth". The tooth turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Yes they had fooled people for quite sometime.

Also we have the billions and billions of years ago time line thrown onto it all. This time frame also appears to grow by another billion or so years as time goes on. If you throw enough time on history, you can come up with anything and and even a ludicrous suggestion can suddenly become believeable.

Certainly the idea of a big bang, an awesome explosion that produced all of this (over billions of years of evolution) is something they think is logic and scientific, yet they laugh at our belief in a divine intelligent creator....

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an agenda behind this because it is simply not science, it is deliberate and there have been evolutionists who have walked away from evolution after they discovered the undeniable imprint of a designer under their microscopes e.g. Gary Parker, Roger Oakland. They and those like them are the most lethal enemy to the evolutionists because they have already been there.

There is a book that is growing in popularity amongst students. More and more students are beginning to stand up in science and question their science teachers and evolution which is becoming quite alarming for these teachers. As kids get to hear the other side, they begin to ask some tough questions. The book is called "refuting evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati.

I was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan (the U.S.) my entire life, having never moved abroad until I was 23. Then I returned to the States for several years, lived in Florida, and went back abroad again. Just because my profile says where I live does not mean I am from there (let alone speak the language). Furthermore, as I have stated numerous times throughout this discussion, I am not an atheist. So just a quick reminder about the word assume. It makes an [censored] out of u and me. [censored]-u-me. Assume. Get it?

Having said that, if you read anything about history before rudely slandering me just to win an argument you would know that the former Yugoslavia (and there is no country called Yugoslavia anymore) was never at any point Communist.

On that note, here's an old East Bloc joke I learned during my journeys abroad: Communism is man exploiting man. Capitalism is just the opposite. I rather like that one. It kind of paints a realistic picture of both sides.

And anyway you speak of Communism as though it were a bad thing. Communism has never yet existed as a form of government. Stalin? Stalin was a monarch, not a communist. The very idea of Communism dictates that no one person shall be in power. It is, in actuality, a very democratic ideal. None of which insinuates (in other words, don't "[censored] u me") that I am or am not a Communist.

As for Tocqueville... what in God's name does my signature quote have to do with this discussion? Or have you no better way to attack someone's arguments than through juvenile tactics and routinely flagrant assumptions?

Oh jeez, this is really ignorant. I've been to Romania countless times and have never found a toilet that didn't work. It's really quite a beautiful country, albiet a bit poor in many places (but then, hey, so is Detroit and Flint, Michigan). Russia is not a Communist country any longer and the nation's religion is Orthodox Christianity. Believe it or not, the world has changed since the last century.

By the way, here's an image of the CHRISTIAN church just up the road from where I live.

Must be a recent improvement. Just a mere 15 years ago they were dumping their children on the streets too.



ya don't say?



right, Yugoslavia kept the catholic church.

Stalin was a monarch huh? Yugoslavia was never communist? OOO K... What is orthodox christianity?

Let me know if you use a common well known definition as accepted and related to by whichever russians visit that church or if you decide to write your own defintion and history ok? not that it matters to you, but it might matter to the rest of the general population.

Bad things happen the world over. The so-called "Land of the Free", a country with soaring murder and rape rates, is by no means an exception. Case in point, I would long ago have been murdered and "dumped in the streets" had I not left Detroit in my younger years. And let's not forget the mercury conspiracy fueled and funded by various aspects of the U.S. government. Rest assured, if any country has blood on its hands it's my own country, the U.S.A.


There is no such country called Yugoslavia. Serbia's national religion is Eastern Orthodox Christianity, not Roman Catholic. The church you see in the picture there, clearly possessed of very Byzantine architectural features, is part of the Orthodox faith. Visually, we can see it is not a Catholic church.



Royal monarch? No. But he was the sole power and thus, by definition, not a true Communist. The Former Yugoslavia (did I mention there is no such country called Yugoslavia today?) was Socialist, not Communist. The differences between Socialism and Communism are such that the two governmenal powers have, historically, been known to clash against one another.



It comprises the entire Eastern half of the Christian faith. Greeks, Russians, Serbians and other nations fall, predominantly, into this denomination. They separated long ago from the Roman Catholic church and even have their own papal figure.

I think I should clarify some things here - apparently there were some misunderstandings. I never said (or thought) that the Word of God is not important, nor did I say (or think) that we should follow our emotions. I personally NEVER follow my emotions and would never encourage others to do it. We are to listen to God's Word in spirit and in my faith, this means to listen to what our conscience tells us (the still small voice inside of us, not our emotions or feelings), as I believe that our conscience was given the Word of God in spirit and was given to us as a guide.

About BIble translations, I don't have much to say on that issue and I don't have much ability to study either because of a weak conscious mind, but I do believe that God can and does use various different translations to speak to people and guide them. I do not know which one(s) are the closest to the original text, but I am comfortable with the one that I am using (NIV). Maybe I will check it out at some point when I think I'm able to take in the information mentally, which probably is not right now. Yes, sometimes I wonder what the original text really says and I also agree that this is important. I am not diminishing this in any way.

Additionally, I think that it is kind of stupid the way some people on this thread are fighting over seemingly nothing - just my opinion.

No, not just your opinion. There is a stupid battle of rhetoric going on. Dumb isn't it?

There is no such country as Yugoslavia. Right, for the past ten minutes. And Joseph Stalin was a king just like George Bush and George Washington. His sons inherited his throne because of their royal red blood.

Try nearly two decades. Longer than some people have been alive and, thus, by no means "10 minutes ago" -- nor even "recently" for that matter.



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mon·arch /&#712;m&#594;n&#601;rk, -&#593;rk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mon-erk, -ahrk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor.
2. a sole and absolute ruler of a state or nation.

In the case of Joseph Stalin, see definition number 2. True communism does not permit a lone, individual leader (otherwise known as a monarch, autocrat, emporer, etc.)

Incidentally, royal blood has always been described as blue, not red.

Hey Russ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Honestly, it really isn’t. With my current dial-up connection it took me over 30 minutes to see the first 15 minutes of what appeared to be a 2+ hour long clip (155 minutes if I’m not mistaken?) This coupled with the fact that it was 3 AM and I really couldn’t continue any longer. So, in fairness, my comments are based on what I did see.

I tell you what. I’ll watch the whole thing some time this week when I get a chance (but just remember the next time I ask you to watch something .) That being said, I still maintain that the speaker relied on cheap tactics, not to mention his heavy use of quote mining. Now that’s not to say he’s not right (heck, maybe he is!) But it would behoove any debater – especially if they are indeed correct – not to fall back on tactics such as these. With quote mining alone I could put forward a nigh irrefutable document explaining .. well .. anything. I could create a pretty sound argument which says we are all really bananas and that the fruit which we call bananas are really aliens from some invisible planet who are all controlling us. I’m totally serious here.



Fair enough. Like I said, I’ll give it a full watch. Bear in mind though, I’m not a non-religious person. I’m no atheist by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone keeps misinterpreting evolution with atheism, and while the two often coincide they are not the same. There are Christians who believe in evolution, for example.



I don’t disagree with you, Russ. But I also don’t disagree with much of what (note I did not say all) evolution puts forward. Evolution does not say there is no designer whatsoever, in my opinion. It simply says how said designer has been and still is doing their designing. With that in mind, I'd say evolution (whether you accept it or not) isn't even concerned with a designer; that part of the argument is neither here nor there.

And if nothing else, despite my disagreements with that bloke on youtube, he’s my hero for not paying taxes to the American government <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the reply egan and everyone else for participating.

I believe this is a good and healthy debate, although a little course sometimes. This kind of dialog is important as it raises fundamental issues and places them squarely in the face of people—exactly where we should all choose to keep them—and has been the stuff that great changes are made of.


That's great to hear... and I will.


"Quote mining" as you call it, is fine with me from any side of a debate as long as the quotes are taken in context, and Hovind does take them in context.

Oftentimes, the best way to demonstrate the essence of a point is to boil it down to its essential component, and this is exactly what Hovind does, and he does it honestly and effectively.

In very many cases, a close cousin of this technique even helps people understand the essence of their own beliefs.

Hovind tells a story later in the video about a woman who objected to him at a debate saying that some evolutionists believe that everything ultimately comes from "rock soup". Using a boil-it-down technique, Hovind quickly enabled her to realize the silliness of her own faith in evolution.

Boiling down issues is useful for understanding the silliness of evolution because evolutionists very often confuse issues as a last-ditch effort to evict common sense and/or well-known scientific principles from an argument in order to avoid confronting an impasse. The boil-it-down technique prevents them from getting away with it, and "quote-mining" is a component of this technique.

Also, in a practical way, "quote-mining" is necessary to keep lectures from reaching impracticable lengths.


I would basically agree with you except for one important point. If the "quote-mining"—as you call it—is using quotes in their intended context, this is a valid and even useful technique. So, you cannot discount this technique just because it can be used for deception. You have to do your homework and see if it is in fact being used for deception or not.

This discussion reminds me of first time I read the book Vultures in Eagles Clothing

The first time I read this, I was so astounded by the quotes made in the book that I had a very difficult time believing that they could be accurate. These quotes were from federal and state statutes, the UCC, CFR, USC, FR, and many others. These are quotes that are not open to interpretation but being legally-based, usually were intended to have a single and well-defined meaning.

So, my friend Laura and a couple of our friends and I spend many hours and about $130 in copies at legal libraries and law school libraries studying and making copies of the quotes made in the book. Statistically, we made source copies of 80% of all of the quotes made in the book. After studying them, we found that every one was taken in context and was accurate. Nothing was done to twist the truth or bend perception at all.

I then called the publisher and told them what I had done and thanked them for taking the time to publish this information and for making sure that it was accurate.

Now for the punch line. Part of the reason that I could not believe the quotes from the book without researching them myself is because there are so many places in law and in federal court that point out what "income" really means in federal statutes; in other words, "What is taxable as income?", and these legal descriptions and definitions are in direct opposition to what is commonly believed.

Now, what is really amazing is that this "common belief"—which is a false belief (this is not legal advice, by the way) is what is used to extract thousands or tens-of-thousands from an average household each year even though the actual legal requirements for paying income tax are completely different and would result in no "income" tax being payed by the vast majority of Americans.

This astounded me, to say the least. I was even initially confused, often asking myself, "Am I missing something?" Then, I eventually spoke with many people who had already done this research. They told exactly the same thing, and added how they learned that most people do what they think is expected of them without really checking out the facts. My fundamental view of how things really work was beginning to change.

Now, if that wasn't astounding enough, I also learned that many of the people who were convinced of income tax evasion and currently sitting in prison were doing so based on an assumption by juries and dirty judges, of which there are many.

This eduction that I received by looking into these issues (because I cared) was my introduction to the conspiratorial concepts of centralization of power, infiltration, assimilation, and divide-and-conquer, and it was my first major exposure to evidence that this activity was occurring on a national scale. I later learned that it is happening on a global scale, hence the title that I use to tag my political position: "global-conspiratorialist".

So, in an effort to try to keep this short, I'll say that at the end of this excursion—which was my introduction to conspiracy theory I had in the early 90s—I learned how true this statement is:

"...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

—The Declaration of Independence

The writers of this document clearly knew and understood this principle that I was just learning in my thirties.


Well, here is the problem.

The theory of evolution is being used to undermine the integrity of the Bible, in fact, I believe it was designed for this purpose. When you undermine the Bible, you prevent the ability of people to believe in Yahweh. When you do this, you are effectively stealing souls (there is a lot to understand here, but I'll leave it there for now). It also sharply degrades the quality of our lives in terms of everything from money to health to relationships.

So, with evolution, you may be able to have some self-styled God in a belief system, but you absolutely cannot have the God of the Bible co-exist with evolution, otherwise the Bible is not reliable.

In fact, countless people lose their understanding of the God of the Bible directly because of being taught that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, when it is not even a good theory. Ironically, Darwin is a perfect example.

It's important for me to state that I would have no problem with people losing faith in the God of the Bible if the God of the Bible were a myth. I would be one of the ones dutifully promoting evolutionary ideas if I found them to be true, but I have done my homework and found that they are not true, and I have found that the God of the Bible is real and is offering a solid, and very beneficial relationship to those who wish to have it. This relationship vastly improves the quality of life of the person who experiences it. It is, in fact, the most significant continuing event that any human can experience.

Unfortunately, there are those in the world who hate God or even hate the very idea of God. They spend their lives and their fortunes funding or creating lies like evolution that attempt to undermine the credibility of the Bible in order to ease their own conscience (denial is expensive and time-consuming) and to create a social climate in which they can obtain unimaginable wealth and power that would not be possible in a Bible-believing culture. This wealth and power would belong to the people instead of a few powerful power-brokers, and the former united States is a very real demonstration of this truth in action.

In light of a few previous posts, I will also say that socialism and communism are nothing more than the promotion of systems that facilitate accumulation of wealth and power by a few and promote the centralization of power. So, guess who are funding the promotion of these ideas.

Finally, this post ends with what this thread originally began with: The truth that evolution is possibly the single most destructive idea that has ever been incessantly promoted.

===

[color:"brown"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/color]

Egan and Russ, even though you differ on your "human origin" beliefs, it's refreshing there is some respect here. Egan you are right, the evolutionary belief is ripe among christians also.

However, to me evolution does not compliment the bible, nor does it "add up". Because where in our evolution did the fall (sin)(occur? In order for original sin to exist, it would take fully developed human beings (not inbetween stage)in order to be completely aware with full intellect...

The bible tells us that before original sin occured that in the beginning things were very good, there was no death and no sin. How do you then reconcile that with 'evolution". That is like calling the God of the bible a liar and this also casts a lot of doubt on Jesus Christ.

Christ did not die on a cross for advanced ape like creatures. Or the end result of billions of years of evolution. Everything in the bible compliments every other area, it all connects. It is no good treating the bible like a smorgus board. As soon as you do that? You may as well throw away the entire book because one part connects with another.

Therefore how can we call God "good" If He created sin and death from the beginning and billiions of years of evolution with killing and dying? It was not God that created this outcome, but man in his full humanity/knowledge and disobedience, bringing upon the world and its inhabitants the curse of death. Man was actually created to live forever! Once again, this completely contradicts evolution. IN the beginning because there was no death, suffering/ sin, we also did not eat flesh. God provided all that was needed.

I find that evolutoin is an affront to the creator. But being human beings, we cannot really reconcile the fact that God is umlimited and eternal, therefore we have to limit Him to what we THINK He might be capable of. "God made man in His own image".....have we returned the compliment by "Man made God in his own image"?. This is wrong. If someone could explain to me how a God who can create at all would need to rely on evolution to produce the final product?

If anything....we have DEVOLVED(if there was such a word)...deteriorated. There is also evidence that far from advancing, there have been discoveries of ancient skeletons of collosal proportions (up to 15 feet tall and beyond). These have been found around the world. So far from the missing links of half ape, half man, these massive skeletons are fully human perfectly proportioned and unfortunately once the smithsonian institute get wind of it, they "mysteriously" disappear or are "shut away". Luckily there are some pictures of them. An example of the size is a jaw bone that could fit the size of a human head today in it. It's interesting that the bible says "There were giants in those days".....

So the thing is, we (everybody) I believe are not being told the full truth.

If anything, much of what we find in ancient cultures are a people with high intelligence...possibly even superior to us today. Given the fact we have had all this time to develop and improve our knowledge/technology. These people had already come up with ways of creating so many things even back then. THere are some ways they did things which still baffle the scientists of today.

There are places that remain (e.g. a place you kneel to pray) that are so huge that the people who must have knelt there were absolutely gigantic. Massive long graves. Cultures around the world have their own tales of 'giants" or of a great people who could run faster than us, were bigger than us. I mean these apparent legends maybe truth. Our ancestors had to pass things down to us, everything can be traced back. The bible can most definitely be relied upon for history and prophecy. 250 cultures around the world with the same "worldwide flood story". Many of which have never set their eyes on a bible, but have the same legend. The story seems to be errily similar - a family of 8, a huge boat, a world flood and the animals that were saved. You have this in asian culture, just about any culture. The name Noah only differs slightly because of the culture but interesting how it is almost identical. How on earth can this be possible unless it was passed down through our ancestors who possibly came after the flood and as we broke off into different cultures, somehow the story remained, be it differing somewhat.

as Russ said and I have stated earlier, if the world was billions of years old and evolution existed, far from there being any creation/evolution debating, the creation idea would be a joke, a myth....it wouldn't even get a look in. We'd have so many fossils of missing links that it wouldn't even be up for question.

I do not believe you can possibly reconcile christianity with Evolution. Given that neither have anything to do with the other. If you read the bible, there is evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside man. Why is that so hard to believe? There are many reports today of people who have seen some. Usually in areas that are not frequented by man and often quite impossible to remain in due extreme humidity.

Why do they find so many fossils with their necks/heads craned upwards as seen in drowning? Why do they find so much sea -life on mountain tops all over the world?

They say Dinosaurs are not mentioned in teh bible. Yes they are! The word dinosaur did not even come into existance until relatively recent times, when someone came up with the name dinosaur which means "terrible lizard". dinosaurs existed long before any modern name was applied to them. God refers to them the "Behemoth". Check out the book of Job.

You don't say? Let me rephrase that... His sons inherited their blood because of his royal red throne.

Fidel Castro is a monarch too then right? It's amazing, if the russians knew all of this they probably would have slapped themselves silly for dethroning the czar, they actually thought is was a workers revolution to free them from the monarchy! How crazy is that?



Since about 1992 actually, and the fighting that has been going on since then, well obviously it was not that long ago Egan that trials are still currently being held or just now coming to conclusions for those events. In the area, only young children and young teenagers do not know of Yugoslavia, where all their older siblings and parents were born.. which are you?

There is a pretty good brief history of it here if you're interested:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p&t/Balkans/serbia1

Neither. As I've said before, I'm an American expatriate. Or do you only read the parts of posts you want to?

There's a famous line from a Simon & Garfunkle song which rings true in situations such as this. "Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

As for the rest of your saga-long diatribe and pernickety quibbling I can only conclude (and thus end the discussion -- or at least end my line of responses therein) with the following. The problem with beating on a dead horse is that nothing comes of it.

y'don't say?