|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 6/12/2001 11:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 18516
Interesting, but I don't believe in the devil.  |
| Date: 6/13/2001 12:39:00 AM From Authorid: 22457 Modern Science has virtually dispelled the myth of the Garden Of Eden, Adam & Eve, the Deluge etc. Without a literal Adam & Eve, there is no real reason to take the Myth of hell seriously. |
| Date: 6/13/2001 12:47:00 AM From Authorid: 22457 Do you really think that anybody besides a few crackpot Nazi/New Age hybrid people would take this seriously? What Hitler believed, is not what is believed by New Agers, is what I'm trying to say. |
| Date: 6/13/2001 12:51:00 AM From Authorid: 22457 New Agers killing Christians similar to the way Hitler killed Jews?! This is paranoid and hateful nonsense. I wouldn't be part of such a bizarre and evil scheme. I may not believe or appreciate your fundamentalist belief system, but I certainly believe we all should live and let live to practice and believe as we wish. |
| Date: 6/13/2001 12:52:00 AM From Authorid: 22457 ...***TRIAD |
Date: 6/13/2001 12:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 177
The author obviously has no use for modern science and all that it has to show us. The Genesis story is dead except in the minds of those who can't understand other concepts. Without Adam & Eve there is no Original Sin, therefor there is no hell to be saved from.  |
Date: 6/13/2001 2:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 15033
Speaking purely from experience, in relation to the truths I learned in the bible and the ones of the New Age concept...I can agree with this whole heartedly. There is a way to understand what they teach though, and it does parallel the bible teachings quite closely. You just have to be in the spirit to get the full truth of it. That is the key to any faith or religion. MHO. Thanks for sharing this thought. Love,  |
Date: 6/13/2001 6:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 34361
"OH Boy!" Sounds Very familiar! Kinda like being attacked for telling the truth of God...We Christians are in for a long, hard ride arn't we...  |
Date: 6/13/2001 7:33:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Modern science has proven evolution to be immpossible with the discovery of DNA, science has proven evolution to be a myth. New agers will be more cleaver than Hitler, they will explain killling Christians as keeping Love and harmony, and riden society of their bad karma that all christian retain. For those who doubt the devil is alive and well, you have just fallen for his favorite lie, that he is just a myth.  |
Date: 6/13/2001 10:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 17789
That was a good reminder for all of us here. We are very confused to seek what is told to be the truth or what is told to be the false teaching. Seek into your heart if feeling lost, for it tells no lies. The Lord is the truth to everything. Amen. Thanks for sharing, it's great to be able to share ideas from everyone again! Love and Light,  |
|
Date: 6/14/2001 9:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Sally, I believe that you are confusing Modern Science for the pseudo-science of Creationism, a religious, faith based view that does not value the scientific method. I am well aware of the fundamentalist cliche that satan's greatest trick is to get people to believe that he doesn't exist. It's easy to fall back on little cliches and faith, when one lacks intelligent things to say. Yes, fall back on "The Bible says this, that, and the other". Fall back on faith....and all dialogue comes to a screeching stop. |
|
Date: 6/14/2001 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
....New Agers creating a holocaust for Christians, is ludicrous, Sally. Not my type of New Age, at anyrate. Hitler's anti-semitism has nothing to do with my belief/system. |
|
Date: 6/14/2001 9:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Seeker. Do I detect a persecution complex because christian fundamentalist beliefs are being challenged, questioned or disagreed with? I could say the same thing (if I wished) about folks who dislike and disagree with New Age. Let's be careful with charges or suggestions of being attacked. I don't expect to convert you and I don't expect to be converted by you. We are just here to exchange concepts. Well, then again, some of the christians here are here to proseletize and preach. That's OK. I'm not here to preach, just to share my belief system. One thing about my belief system is that you will not go to eternal dam#ation if you disagree with me. |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 7:58:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Tc, your absolutly wrong, the evolution theory is dead and gone, not proved by "creationism" but by "secular" scientist. Come on , get with the times. Charles Darwin's theory on evolution was discovered before we had the technology ( its 100 years old) we have today. Scientist Crick along with Dr. James Watson discovered DNA. With this discovery Crick, a non Christian, said that it is immpossible that life came from evolution. Dr. Brown points out "the genetc info. contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 volumes". In other words, evolution, "no way ". However, notice how we still have not updated the science books. Who do you think wants to keep that info. away from the world? Oh yea, I forgot you think "fundamentalist" are paranoid and obsessive compulsive. The "new world religion" the new ager's are being programed and brainwashed, as we speak, via through ouija board possesion, meditation, vizualization,yoga,. Well, you know the rest. Not to mention the obsured lies that the "liar" has floating around about, Jesus Christ and the Bible. The word is out and many will not seek or find the truth, due to ignorance or a down right closed mind and heart. I don't care about my pride , as to being the "right" one, but I do investigate what is true and what is fiction. Truth or fiction, I live in truth and it feels pretty darn good! Ms. Morality |
Date: 6/15/2001 8:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 35572
Let's see, process of genetics (evolution) or rolled out like playdough (creationism). Let me get back to you on that one.  |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 1:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Evolution was a theory of Charles Darwin. This theory of Darwins was "invented" over 100 years ago. Today we live in a new world that Darwin did not have have the advantage to live in, therefore we have technology. That technology has discovered DNA, the cells that make us a dog, cat or Human. Now that technology has "proved" Darwins theory to be a bunch of "non sense", its "old fashioned" and out of date. We now have advantages to understand science, therefore lets not stay "old fashioned" and believe in something that was "invented" 100 years ago. Ms Morality |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 1:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 35572
Good thing you didn't put "Ms. Rocket Science" because then you'd be "Ms. Informed" as well. DNA isn't a cell. It's in the cell. And DNA doesn't disprove evolution as much as you'd like it to. And, in defense of my good buddy Chuck: He never claimed that he "discovered" evolution. In fact, he had no intention of publishing his Origin's of Species. All that Charles did was say, "I observed some stuff on this island; here's what I saw. I think this explanation fits the bill." And, it does. It's not perfect, and there are some questions that still need to be answered. But when you get down to it, both creationism and evolution aren't pristine theories. And in many ways, Evolutionism is just creationism without the praying. And what it's saying, really, is that nature finds way of surviving. That's all. |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Well I'll be a ring-tailed lemur!! Darn! And here I've been reading National Geographic Magazine since I was old enough to read, (six- I'm fifty, now), and The Smithsonian mag, Life, various other mags and books....and they've got it all wrong!? Conspiracy you cry!? Modern Science is a big Fraud?! The world is about 6000 years old, legends and myths are actually history!? I'll be gosh-darned. Hey, I've got an open mind about any and all posibilities...but it's gonna take a whole lot of convincing to change my mind. I have exposed my feeble brain to scientific literature of the *ahem* Modern Scientific kind & I have also read a smattering of Creationist books and articles. I am not a science whiz, and I don't get any impression that you are either...so it might be hard for us to go toe-to-toe in a deep intellectual debate on the merits of Creationis Vs. Modern Science. I beleive what I believe...you believe what you believe. I understand that a person might be dissapointed to have their treasured beliefs trampled on, or even disproved. Oh, well....may the truth win out in the end. Even you & me can agree on that point. |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 5:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
....how is it Ms. Morality,(or anybody) that it is said that the creature that most closely resembles us (the chimpanzee) has the closest DNA to us than any other non-human creature? It seems suspiciously to me, to suggest that we ARE indeed related through common ancestory to the other primates, and in descending order to all life on earth. |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 5:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Date: 6/15/2001 5:04:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 30742 Youhave missed the point, DNA has proved Darwins evolution theory to be impossible. This was discoveredbynoble prize winner Crick, who will tell you, since he is a scientist, I am not claiming to be one, that there is a o.o. percent chance that we came from the evolution "theory". through advance technology. Microbiology support creation, physics support creation and cosmology supports creation. You can place your faith in Darwins observatons or you can look at todays technology that supports creation. I support todays methods and not a "theory" from a very intelligent man born over 100 years ago. Ms Morality |
Date: 6/15/2001 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 5484
AMEN  |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 10:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
And that's not all folks~~~~~ First, some background on the theory of evolution. This theory essentially states that "...favorable characteristics somehow developed to allow one species to turn into another (e.g. a fish to a bird)." (Muncaster, Ralph, Creation vs Evolution, 2000, p.9). Since scientist know that there is no existing programming in DNA for species to change (e.g. bacteria doesn't contain DNA to be anything but bacteria), some other method by which this change occured had to be developed (ibid, p.9). The 'solution' was that "...some input of energy (for example, radiation) caused a series of favorable mutations that allowed simpler life forms to become much more complex. Supposedly, the 'favorable mutation' was passed on to offspring." (ibid, p.9). This theory can be refuted on both Objective and Subjective grounds. Objective: Point 1: Mutations are almost never 'favorable'. As we learned above, for evolution to work, a series of radical mutations had to occur. But, mutations are almost always destructive (ibid, p.24). They are rarely helpful. How many of us would benefit from a sixth finger? In order for this mutation to ever be beneficial, not just one mutation (the sixth finger) but many usually hundereds of other 'favorable' mutations would have to simultaneously occur. For example, I would need a mutation that made my hand wider to accomodate the extra finger. It's believed that birds evolved from fish (I can't make up stuff this silly!), but for this to happen, many simultaneous mutations would have had to happen such as wing formation (feathers are not much good without wings), ligthweight bone structure, and a brain that 'knew how to fly. (ibid, p.24). Even if a species did have a rare beneficial mutation, mutations are not inherited by offspring (ibid, p.24). Point 2: Microbiology. When Darwin proposed his theory, he truly believed that a simple cell was just that, a simple cell (Kennedy, D. James, Skeptics Answered, p.62, 1997). But Darwin did not have today's breakthrough knowledge that those 'simple cells' could perform complex functions such as vision, blood clotting, digestion, etc. (Muncaster, Ralph, Creation vs Evolution, 2000, p.26) However, the cell is extemely complex. Dr. Walter Brown states concering the cells complexity, "The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 volumes." (Brown, Walter, In the Beginning, 1981, p.3). "Consider the vast system of just a single living cell. It's like an entire modern factory squeezed into a space one thousandth the size of a period at the end of this sentence. Then consider billions of factories (cells) all coordinated together."  Muncaster, Ralph, Creation vs Evolution, 2000, p.26). "So vast is the information routinely managed by the human body (vision, blood clotting, digestion, etc.), that if the information in a single human body were written down in books, it would fill the Grand Canyon - not once, but 50 times over." (ibid, p.26). When you consider that there are 30 trillion cells in the human body, one gets the idea of the complexity. (Kennedy, D. James, Skeptics Answered, p.63, 1997). It's clear that Darwin's evolutionary 'steps' really represent huge leaps in molecular design - leaps that are impossible by a random process (Muncaster, Ralph, Creation vs Evolution, 2000, p.26).Point 3: Physics: Evolution is based on infinite time. In other words, the universe is infinitely old thus allowing unlimited time for those 'favorable' mutations. But Einstein's theory of general relativity has been proven to a confidence level of 99.9999999 percent (it's fact) (ibid, p.30). This means that the universe has a begining and an end. The COBE satellite has confirmed general relativity causing Stephen Hawking to proclaim the discovery, "The discovery of the century, if not all time" and George Smoot to comment, "Like looking at God" (ibid, p.31) What this means is that the universe has a definite beginning and end. This allows scientist to accurately calcuate: 1. The size of the universe 2. The amount of matter contained in the universe, and 3. The amount of time since the beginning of the universe. (ibid, p.34) With this knowledge, scientists can calcuate the probability of evolution which I'll cover later. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed (it can just be converted from one to the other) (ibid, p.32). Neither creation nor evolution violate this law but the nagging question remains for evolution to answer, "how did the sum total of matter and energy come to be in the first place?" (ibid, p.32). The second law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that the universe moves from a state of order to disorder (springs unwind, gases disperse, your yard gets longer) (ibid, p.32). Input of energy is required to return to a state of organization. For evolution to be correct, billions of abberations of the entropy law would have had to occur(ibid, p.32). In other words, evolutionists, have to refute the known physical laws of nature in order to make their theory stick. They claim that all happened within the laws of nature, yet these vary laws had to be broken billions of times to make it work! Point 4: Probability. I stated earlier that because we know the dimensions of the universe, we can now calcuate the probability of the random development of a cell. World-famous mathemetician and astro-physicist Chandra Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the number of years for just one simple cell to come into existence by chance to be 10 to the 40,000th power!(Kennedy, D. James, Skeptics Answered, p.63, 1997). Lecomte duNouy stats that any number in which the probabilities were greater than 10 to the 50th power would simply never happen (ibid, p.63). Why was 10 the 50th power chosen as the high-water mark? Because if we counted all the electrons in the universe, we get 10 to the 52nd power. This is counting every electron in every planet, in every sun, in every galaxy. So, duNouy rightly stated that anything over 10 to the 50th power in probability, was not going to happen. (ibid, p.64). Wickramasinghe went on to state, "Living systems could not have been generated by random processes, within a finite time-scale, in a finite universe." (Sunderland, Luther, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 1984. p.130.) Subjective: If there was no God, and the process of evolution is what created man, and Man evolved from Apes, why did Mr. Evolution create man to be weaker, slower, and with absolutely no ability to survive the elements. Apes are at least three times as strong as a man. They are faster and are covered with hair making them adaptable to their environment. The man born in the ape family would have perished and his traits would never have been passed on to a future generation. Now, I know what you're going to say, "But it's man's brain that makes him superior." And you're right, but this brain will only help man when he's reached the age of at least 12 years old (I'm being kind). The darn guy has to survive the first 11 years of his life in order for his brain to kick in and help him survive. How many newborn babies can hunt and gather? How many can make their own clothes? More importantly, how many newborns can defend themselves against predators? Ms morality |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 10:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Hey guess what? For what ever it's worth(not) on 20/20 the TV show tonight there was a segment on the endangered manatees of Florida. It was flatly declared by reporter Dianne Sawyer, that scientists have discovered that the manatee's closest relative are the ELEPHANT!!! It's enough to give a creationist a seizure. LOL! |
|
Date: 6/15/2001 11:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
....of course, sally...you understand that the manatee and the elephant had alleged common ancestors, millions & millions of years ago. |
Date: 6/16/2001 7:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 35572
On one hand, you say that Darwin's theory is too old to be valid ("it's over 100 years old" , and yet you then go on to suggest that the older idea of the Divine Word of God is somehow a more "plausible" theory. Honey: stop quoting other people and do some of your own thinking. First off, evolution has never been about "one species ... turn[ing] into another." Creationists get this wrong every time, just like scientists often misrepresent creation science. It's like to bullies on a playground not wanting to actually fight, really, but more than okay with calling each other names. ALL evolution is saying is that nature (or God -- insert your own noun here) selects for successful traits. Not complex traits. Not "good" traits. Just successful. Animals that have genetic defects tend not to be able to reproduce. And since they cannot reproduce, those traits don't get passed. Successful species survive through a combination of successful genetics and skillful use of environment. Ultimately, oh my precious Ms Morality, you and the evolutionists are just having a semantical argument. What you call "God" they call Natural Selection. And unless God called you up personally and said, "Here's how my universe works" I don't think you have any leg to stand on when you say, "Evolution ain't necessarily so." And really, come on, admit it: That's all. -- Shadrach |
|
Date: 6/16/2001 4:37:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Shadrach, It's clear you do not understand Darwin's theory of evolution. What you describe as 'natural selection' is something that no one (Christian or non-christian) refutes. This is known as micro-evolution and is not disputed by anyone. We all agree on this idea. The Peppered Moth case in England bears this out. This moth can either be dark or light in color (based on it's pre-defined gentic code). When the trees around London were dark from the soot of the factories, the light-colored moths were eaten by the birds more than the dark-colored moths. No surprise that more dark-colored moths survived to produce (you guessed it!), more dark-colored moths. Then, the air was cleaned up around London and those dirty, sooty trees became light again. Guess what? Now it was the dark-colored moths that were being eaten and the light-colored moths became more prominent. This obviously does not represent one species turning into another, it's simply a case of the strongest genetic traits winning out within a species. You are dead wrong when you state, "evolution has never been about one species ... turn[ing] into another." This is exactly what Darwin and other evolutionist are stating. This is referred to as Macro-evolution. It states that higher life forms evolved through mutations (generated by some external energy source such as radiation but again, this mutation theory is recent since Darwin didn't have the scientific knowlege of DNA, he just theorized that this was happening) and that these mutations were passed on to the offspring. As noted above, mutations are almost always destructive (six fingers ARE NOT better than 5) and when they do occur, are not passed on to their offspring (Muncaster, Ralph, Creation vs. Evolution, 2000). If you don't believe that macro-evolution is possible (and you would be a smart man indeed if you didn't), then you should not say you believe in evolution. You should state you belive in 'micro-evolution' because when you just say, 'evolution', it implies macro evolution. So, creationists aren't getting this wrong 'every time', they are simply refuting an incorrect, outdated theory. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/16/2001 5:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 35572
Okay, Ms. Morality: Please show me exactly where Darwin says "one species will turn into another." |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 6:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
Shadrach, I don't own any copies of 'The Origin of the Species', so I can't quote from Darwin himself, but macro evolution is what Darwin was stating. Macro evolution states that life evolved over billions of years. That we all started out as single-celled organism appearing as mere slime on a rock. Then, from these single celled organisms, came multi-celled organisms. And so on and so on, until suddenly we have apes. And from apes, came man. I'm a little suprised your not more knowledgeable about the very theory you claim is correct. You need to know that evolution claims that man essentially evolved from slime. Through a process that took billions and billions of years, species evolved into new species one after the other until we finally had Man. Also, if all Darwin was suggesting is that traits within a species (micro-evolution) simply got better, this wouldn't answer the question how we were created. In other words, micro evolution only 'kicks' in when the species has already been created. It can't generate new species. So, if Darwin was only proposing that the most beneficial traits of a species were changing, you still don't have an answer to how those species came to be. So, yes, Darwin's theory of Evolution was an attempt to explain how life was created and that being the case, he was trying to demonstrate macro-evolution. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence has shown it to be false. |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 8:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 35572
I have a fondness for Chuck Darwin. I mean, the guy went to the Galopagos and didn't buy a t-shirt. That shows a lot of restraint. And because of this fondness, I will defend him to the end. Darwin didnt "create" evolution. He wrote about natural selection. What everyone did with it after that is no concern of mine. Or Chucks. |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 5:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Sally. You are conversing with one of USMs brighter peeps. So watch your step. Hehe! |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 5:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Shadrach. You seem to have found a worthy nemesis in our mutual friend, sally. As a creationist she is one of the brighter ones. |
| Date: 6/17/2001 8:41:00 PM From Authorid: 36846 All you really need is faith. That comes from inside and once you have it ,you will find God everywhere. Miracles happening all of the time! Open your soul, where there is hurt ,there can be healing and growth. This life is too short to not know that there is an afterlife. Some people just keep living their lives worse than the one before because they are not growing in their knowlege and love in their soul. Die and live with love or hate. Chose was given to all of us,equal opportunities. |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 11:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 177
Faith is where intelligent dialogue comes to a screaching stop. |
|
Date: 6/25/2001 8:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 34814
Are u Kidding me? The Christian churches use to believe and practice Reincarnation, astrology, Karma, telepathy, and tarot ect. Then people wanted control over the churches and did away with it..New Age is very inlighting and is not Devil..If you ask alot of New Age if they believe in a Devil you will be surprized at the big fat No's you get...Hitler LOL and New Age theres a new one on me..New Age people killing Christians LOL They tend to mind their own business and I haven't heard any stories on them killing Christians. Being that I know a million New Age people. Light Workers ect.. I am happy you posted this..I learned something new about Science. Blessings Kitt~~  |
|
Date: 6/25/2001 8:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
ya, I'm aware of all the lies, Satan especially loves for you not to beleive he is real then he can entice you even more because you are not enclined to know the tatics of your enemy. |
|
Date: 6/25/2001 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 34814
I was raised Catholic, then became aetheist, then became Christian, and in my search I became Spiritual. I have learned to embrace all religions and used what is good for me on my Spiritual path. I have experienced many interactions with the Universe, for good and healing. Everyone has there own truth on beliefs and religion, but not all will think for themselves--they need to follow. God loves everyone equally--no one is any better than another, nor more spiritual, nor condemned. I wish you all peace in their spiritual journey--peace, compassion, understanding, forgiveness and love. Love & LIght--Kitt's mom, Light7 . |
|
Date: 6/25/2001 9:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 30742
"Jesus Christ is the truth and the light, no one else can come to the father but through the blood of Christ. Unless you are "born again you can not enter the kingdom of heaven". |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
