It's a fool's game

[FreeFall]

this world is a wreck. Everything about it. We deny everything that is natural every little thing we do is just so. . it's all so f***ing asinine. How have we allowed ourselves to become blinded like this. Religion is a joke, it's shallow and meaningless and overall pointless. Why do we feel the need to be a part of something. something that might as well not exist anyways. We live our lives awaiting the inevitable. Donate to charity, buy your way to heaven. It's stupid you spent a dollar a day congrats your a pure soul your a f***ing lie. I just don't see a reason. Why is it that we demolish everything and hide ourselves from our fears. We are a species who is afraid of the dark and that's the bottom line. We have f***ing artificial lights at night we're essentially trying to create our own world and in the process destroying another. We're a deisease that can hardly even live with ourselves. So much in fact that rather than let nature take it's course and play by the wild we've created systems and guidelines and barriers to control ourselves. what differentiates us from any other species. big deal we have independant thought, it's not like anyone uses it. So many people just follow blindly put a bag over their heads and worship some imaginary all-powerful and all-knowing being. No sorry I can't say he's imaginary because I wouldn't know. But what the f***? give me hard evidence that there is a god that there is a purpose and that all this bull-shit, all this man made waste of a world means something. Means anything at all. The cold hard truth is. We exist for something unknown. and we may never find out. I'm sickof preachers and the bull shit they try and pull. I don't want to be apart of something that doesn't even have a clue what they're talking about. You know, they just jerk you around. you got some pedophile over here and then when that's found out they just switch everyhting around on you. Back at the beginning christians made it a practice to burn ###### people. No it's not like that any more but it just goes to show how f***ed up it all is. We've realised past mistakes only to make more than enough to replace those. There have always been fights over religion and now even governments have stupid pointless arguments. Some dumb ass doesn't like the way things turn out so ya drop a couple bombs and say. live like this or i'll drop more. but no one questions it. no one thinks anything of it because they're all too afraid of what they might realise. Human's have found safety in blindfolds. PIX's sig that he once had ....A church is not so much a building as it is a "body" of people. and god is it's "head"...sorry pix i'm not trying to take a stab at you, it was just a phrase that bugged me. . .the head does all the thinking on the human body. and that quote that pix posted is the perfect metaphor for it all. Human's can't think for themselves. they need something to guide them even if it is something that they made themselves.

anywho this is a ramble i'm not entirely sure what's been said I'll read over it later. assuming it's not deleted. I don't think i said anything too offensive to cause that.

[Annatar]

Release your anger young padawan. The church works for ppl who want it to work for them, you can still be a christian and disagree with almost everything they say. Case in point, opus dei, anybody heard of them. They seem to model themseves on medieval christians, and i dislike them intensely. Yet i still call myself a christian. Why? I dont go to church regularly, i cant quote the bible, i didnt go see that new mel gibson film about christ and i believe that judas was most likely a good man. Would also like to point out that those two theives christ was crucified next to only stole stuff, and died horribly for it. I still call myself a christian, tho, cos i think it actually happened.

Well, lets look at what science has to offer. Bear in mind im a fairly gd student with nice grades and a nice university place to study chemistry waiting for me. ive read a tiny bit into chaos thoery, quantam theory etc etc and decided that theyre just religion with geiger counters. It all boils down to a theory. There is no frickin proof for anything.

Third, the who cares approach, live your life as you live it. This way works, and i think thats what ur ramble is all about. As long as you dont go on a psycho killing spree, i have no problem about that. I do however, have a problem with people telling me how to think, and so do you. Just dont listen, its easy enuff. Some people, however, are just too stupid to take this approach, cant understand why people would not do things the way their father did it, and his father before him. Feel free to ignore them too.

Take ur pick dude, its all about choice, and they do keep telling us that were free. except we cant opt out of paying taxes. Cant play our music too loud. Cant stand up and say that your MP truly does not represent you personally. Cant do drugs, except of course, alcohol and coffee. And donuts. Cant smoke or generically do things that are bad for you. Cant do happy hours cos it encourages ppl to get drunk. cant go to work wearing nothing but your underpants.

Should we all just save up and buy ourselves an island somewhere out of everyone elses way??

yay i seem to have written a minor rant as well. And i didnt mention the words ****ing STEAM once.

[PIX]

Man has ALWAYS had a choice since the beginning. He gave man paradise and said you can do ANYTHING but don't eat or touch one tree lest you will die. Man, always striving to live for himself and do what he wants, failed that day and doomed everyone to an inherited sin. Man still has freedom of choice today with God. God gave us the answers as to what He wants us to follow, yet man still follows his own path in indifference to Him. Man thinks he knows all the answers through his science and thoughts. Man even created his own origins through the unproven science of evolution. Did you know that Darwin finally succumbed to the truth and said that God was real? He couldn't put his Bible down in his last days. In fact, the majority of the great scientists of mankind believed in a Creator (Faraday, Newton, Pastuer, Lister, Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Joule, Dalton, Maxwell, Ramsey, Einstein). The sad thing is that most of the evolutionary theorists believe that evolution, with no transitional fossil record, is a farce; they factually admit that they refuse to believe in a God and willfully believe in the only other option. Man, standing in his own reason, refuses to bow down to a higher power. They create their own gods like money and politics and sinfully idolize them daily. They hold to the belief that 'seeing is believing'. Jesus said the opposite, "believing is seeing".

People think that going to church makes you a Christian....wrong. People think that good works will get you to heaven...wrong. People think that a loving God will surely not punish generally good people....wrong. Nothing has hurt the true belivers and church of today than what the Bible calls 'false prophets'. These so called 'men of God' who kill millions of people for not believing in Catholicism, who re-write the true manuscripts from God into versions that confuse the meaning, that change what was originally said. You know, people think because they believe in God that they will be saved. This is wrong. Jesus said that Satan and his minions believe in God AND Him. How does this save them? Those that are true to God's Word and live by it know the answers to salvation. God is foremost a loving being...but He is also a vengeful spirit. He will judge every single living person who was ever alive. Those who have not 1) acknowledged that Jesus is the Son of God 2)sincerely repented of their sins through the death of the Son 3)live a righteous life according to the rules after this acknowledgement 4) shared the knowledge to others will NOT go to heaven. You can NOT change the Word of God; you can NOT change it to make yourself more comfortable or pollitically correct.

Christians have been dealing with persecution for 2000 years and will continue to deal with it. Americans take for granted the freedom they have to practice Christianity. We are not persecuted here physically to the point it means death as in China, Muslum countries and even in places like Mexico.

Do not get frustrated with life. People who try to live their life on their own WILL have frustrations. Christians have frustrations too...even more. We have the same bills, problems at work, relationship problems..etc in addition to focusing on staying away from worldly sin and leading a somewhat sinless life. If you don't believe the Bible, I ask, have you ever really read any of it? I'm not talking about the story of Moses and the splitting of the Red Sea either. People say, I just don't have time to read it or i can't understand all the thous, thees and begets. A lot of people are actually scared to read it because they know they will have to stop the worldly things they so love and crave if they hear the truth. God is fair but he will have enough one day of the outward rebellion against Him. The prophecies ARE being fullfilled. The true prophecies of true prophets ALWAYS come true. False predictors are always made foolish because their prophecies might only hit the mark some of the time just like on a roulette wheel. When Jesus finally died on the cross, over 30 prophecies were fullfilled written 400 years before it happened. Many have happened over the last hundred years regarding Israel and the end times to come. People have been watching the skies for 2000 years for the return of Christ. The Jews are still looking for him to come the first time and sadly they missed his first...which was prophesied also. Man rejected Him....from creation to his death and still now.

Finally, I just want to say that Christians are by no means perfect and stand above unbelievers. We stumble every day. People love to see a Christian stumble. It makes them feel safer in their beliefs. But we pick ourselves up and repent and say we are sorry. That is all Jesus said we can do. We forgive others so we can be forgiven. We love others so we can be loved. And we speak up proudly of God, His Son and His Spirit so that He will speak up for us to the Father when our duty is over. I pray for all of you that I know here. Why would I do that?? Pity? No, by no means. I do it out of genuine care and hope that you will not miss out one day on what the future holds. It could be in the next hour or it could be a thousand more years. But when the time comes....it's too late. Jesus said Himself, "Every knee shall bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord". Sadly, even Satan himself knows this...why doesn't God's most precious creation believe this?

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Its deffinatley a fad to not belive in god now adays. People think that we've come so far with science and technology and with our scientific technology that proves there is no god. Yet it just gives science an edge in the science vs religion war. With all we know about science and the world around us, god cant exist. I've heard that too many times. My experiance with science is that every theory just seems to bring up more questions, and for some reason this proves there is no god? I still dont think humans can accuratley descibe what god is. Thats why we came up with jesus being the son of god. We can descibe that and mold our minds around that concept.

I belive in a christian type after life. What I dont belive in is repenting of sins with the church. You can say your truely sorry and get forgiven by someone who doesnt even know you. I think its more lax on the repentng of sins. Repenting them with someone has got to be worth something. Feeling sincerly guilty has got to be worth something. Getting forgiveness from the victim has got to be worth more then getting it from the church. God knows if you truly deserve to go to heaven or not. I dont think confiding in an organization is the deciding factor in it when there is so much more to be taken into account. Espically with a god who knows everything.

A side note, darwin was under serious pressure from just about everyone including himself about his theories. I know they threatened his life and that is why he revoked his theory. Legally thats called duress which makes his revocation void.

[PIX]

Anon...you are stating the basis of Catholicism...

What I dont belive in is repenting of sins with the church. You can say your truely sorry and get forgiven by someone who doesnt even know you.

The scripture says flat out and many times that if you ask the Lord to forgive you of your sins and sincerely mean it...it is done. You do NOT need to do this through a priest or be standing under the altar of a church. This is the debate between Protestants (myself) and Catholics. They put so much focus on the physical church...the physical leaders and symbols that are not even mentioned in the Bible.

Being a Christian is a personal relationship. You can talk to God anytime you want. In fact you are suppose to 'walk daily' with Him. I pray every day and night....giving thanks for everything I have, for guidance through tough times and for acceptance of my sins.

We as humans cannot view God...our minds can't comprehend his overwhelming awesomeness. Jesus IS God, in the flesh of man. Don't get the 'Father Father, why hast thou forsaken me." comments. Jesus IS God. We didn't come up with this notion for our understanding. Jesus was always there.

Anon...feeling guilty is a great part of the process. It's your inner spirit telling you something is not quite right. You are NOT asking the Church for forgiveness....no should you EVER...you are asking either God/Jesus for forgiveness of your sins or you are asking others to forgive you of any transgressions committed against them. PERIOD.

The church is important to Christians. We are suppose to, as followers, be with other Christians during church to worship together and have fellowship.

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.

We as Protestant Christians do not favor the Church as a political body. THAT is where they make the slip ups and have people shunning and cursing the Church Universal. God DOES know everything...but He still leaves the choice to us in his marvelous patience. It's not a matter of if we 'deserve' to go to heaven, if you follow the rulebook and simply do steps 1, 2, 3 and 4...then there is no doubt if you are going.

1.  Admit you are a sinner.  Romans 3:10
2.  Be willing to turn from sin (repent)  Acts 17:30
3.  Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried and rose from the dead.   Romans 10:9-10
4.  Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal savior.  Romans 10:13

What do I pray? You could say something like this:
Dear God,  I am a sinner and need forgiveness.  I believe that Jesus shed His blood and died for my sins.  I am willing to turn from sin.  I now invite Christ to come into my heart and life a my personal Savior.  Thank you for this gift.   Amen.

Thats it! THAT'S ALL IT TAKES. No priest...no pope....no pews. If you sincerely believe this is the roadmap to salvation, then you are on your way to the toughest life a man could live. You will have to take up your 'own cross' to reach the finish line here. Don't rely on MAN'S foolishness and his science to get you to Hell. Investigate this yourself. Compared to eternity...or infinite as you propeller math heads like to use...our life is pretty short here. Live out your gift of a life happy and thankful. Help others and don't be judgemental.

Rom 12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Peace.

PS. I'm still looking for the passage about ricochet being in heaven for you Anon.:)

[FreeFall]

in short:
-had debate with parents. .long debate, both parties ended up mad
-went on computet to revel in anger
-later went out with a couple friends, at which point alcohol became a factor
-came home a bit later, now angry and also drunk

let this be a lesson to you all! an angry drunk person will spew out weird and crazy rants that he later looks at and thinks. . .eh??

with that being said...

1)Yes I have read the bible pix, it was not that bad of a book. It has a lot of good philosophies for life.

2)Anon, not believing in god is not a fad, it's a personal choice. People (or at least not me) don't go home sit down and think, "What's trendy and cool? being agnostic or atheist!"

[PIX]

It's alright FreeFall...
Just try and be careful with that booze. When you are drunk you can make the WORST mistakes and NEVER get to take them back.
Take it from an ex-bartender. My joy was making money off of alcoholics and now I hate those 5 years of my life.

Anon...now that I read it again...FreeFall is right. It isn't a fad to believe in God. From what I see on TV these days...it isn't even very
cool in the young crowd to be a Christian. Don't confuse that Khabala junk from Britney Spears and Madonna or Scientology from Tom
Cruise and John Travolta with ANYTHING from God. Let me reiterate: even demons believe in God and they tremble at his name. They
even knew Jesus 2000 years ago and He cast many of them out of people and told them to speak NOT his name.

FF....i challenge you to read more of the Bible in your time if ONLY just the book of John.

Peace.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

From what I see on TV these days...it isn't even very cool in the young crowd to be a Christian.

I think thats what I said.

PS. I'm still looking for the passage about ricochet being in heaven for you Anon.

I'd run a server and let everyone have admin.

I think the prayer aspect of it is quite important. There is a bit too much evidence on the church, so im glad you can pray outside of it. I think it should strive to be considered a community rather then a place of worship. Communitys are just sronger then buildings. I still stand by my belief that god will respect you for being a good person and espically for wanting to be a better person.

[PIX]

Careful about that 'good deeds' belief. Lotta people gonna be misled one day. It says OVER and OVER
that man will not be saved by works alone.

Galatians 2:16  "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Titus 3:5  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us."

Proverbs 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

[Sockhole]

Yea, you have to write a gospel, join the clergy or give money to the Church to get in.

[PIX]

And thus...

[Guest]

And if you believe in everything the bible says, you'll suddenly realise how much it contridicts itself as much as a con man does.:)

[Sockhole]

Haha, that last picture is something else.

[PIX]

Keep reading your Bible, you will find the answers there. Just read it without looking at it through any doctrine, but let it form your doctrine for you. The seeming contradictions are easily reconciled if we are willing to take God's word as a whole and not isolate portions of it

Sock...where do you get :

you have to write a gospel, join the clergy or give money to the Church to get in.

?
Christians happily give money to not only the Church but to missionaries, the poor, outreach programs, rehab programs, homeless..etc.
We are instructed to give (tithe) so that we can learn to give and be happy about it. But it's not about just giving money. We give time and personal resources too. But giving doesn't get you in...you give after you are saved. Clergy have NOTHING to do with being saved. In fact, most of the people led astray from truth are BECAUSE of improperly trained clergy. If a person sits down and reads the Bible from front to back...they have all the answers to life right there. Then you get a minister who was misled by some PHD in seminary school who was misled before him and it propagates. There are many legitimate, honest, faithful ministers in the world working their tail off to do the will of God. They will get into heaven but not because they were ministers. Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter and Paul were faithful to the Lord and are probably in heaven. But sarcasm such as having to write a gospel is not even worth a defense.

Name ONE bad thing today that Christians do to others? They burden women for killing their unborn children? They try to keep marriage as it always has been? They think they are just so perfect? It is a fact that Christians are now the number one persecuted group in the world. Why is this? Could it be that they make unbelievers uncomfortable confronting them with morals? truth? that would make their conscious hurt because they would have to give up the pleasures of the world...the sin they love so much? Or is it that Man needs no yoke...no supreme boss to tell him/her what to do...that man has grown so proud and boastful that he is his own god? Pride cometh before the fall they say. I thank God every day we have a choice and you should too. This choice NO ONE can take away...not a goverment, a parent, peer pressure, not even God Himself. He gave us a will to understand the consequences. Don't be so blind that you don't even lift a finger to do a personal investigation yourself. Surely the all powerful man can check out the facts to see if he will have a future.
If you are comfortable knowing that if you accidentally got killed this afternoon in a car wreck and know the answers...so be it. Enjoy your choice.

Peace.

edit...  Remember that laughable picture...plueeeze!  I want everyone to remember that PIX showed how funny Hell was whether it's tomorrow or a 1000 years from now....please remember it.

[g-boy]

Just wanna point out something about beliefs and science and religion. There is no science vs. religion war, except for the people who want there to be one. There is NO relationship between them, as God and religion are untestable. Science tends to describe things that can be falsified... that is, things that are possible to prove wrong. That is he goal of science, to test hypotheses to see if they are wrong, not if they are right.

In fact, for most scientists, the idea is that nothing can be proven right. Though we repeatedly see that gravity works and most certainly exists, someday we may find something to prove it wrong, even if it most likely will not happen. Any theory or "law" or "fact" of science works like this. So if you're saying something doesn't exist because no evidence exists for it... that does not work in science. You have to attempt to falsify it, but there is no way you can do that for God. You cannot ask for evidence when there is none to look for in the first place.

Realize that God is a belief, and beliefs are the only things that can be true or false. Science, there are NO truths, they can be reversed at any time (Earth used to be flat, supersonic flight used to be impossible, etc etc.). A belief is personal and is up to the individual. If someone believes in God, you CANNOT prove whether they are right or wrong. A favorite color or favorite anything are also pretty much untestable because they are beliefs, and are not the same for everyone. If you've seen the movie "Contact" recall a scene where Jodie Foster's character is trying to explain to Matthew McConnaghey (sp?) that it's more likely that God doesn't exist and people just created Him than His actual existence, and that there is simply no evidence, no proof. He replies to her:

"Did you love your father?" "Of course I did" "Prove it."

That being said, it is not cool to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong, because no one's beliefs are wrong. They are up to them, because they are a BELIEF, not science. Let people believe what they want. This, by the way, is the main reason I am not too fond of religion, because many make it a point to tell me that my belief of balance and personal philosophies are wrong and that the Bible is right. I will go to Hell if I don't think Jesus is God... I've said it many times before, what about people that simply cannot know? Other religions are WRONG? What if there is some tribesman in Africa that has no opportunity to have even heard of Christ? He's going to Hell too?

I also find it interesting of this simple fact... I'd say a very large portion of those who are atheist or agnostic are scientists (don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying all or even a majority) simply because scientific minds work with math and logic, and that makes them prone to not trusting the Bible or having faith or they just need some kind of evidence. It's how their mind works, not their fault. So God created these people with these minds and is going to punish them for having mathematical/logical minds, even though they are some the greatest and most beneficial minds?

By the way, evolution doesn't make it a point to debunk religion, it's just an observation that has been tested over and over, has been revised many times over the past century, and seems to be the best explanation. Sure it can change, but is best right now. Darwin just pointed things out, he didn't create the entire theory of evolution as we know it now, just opened the door. Much like Freud in psychology, we know much of what he thought was inaccurate, but at least it started things. Dinosaurs existed. They evolved into birds. Prehistoric mammals evolved into the mammals we know of today. All vertebrates potentially came from a very small almost worm-like creature. It's just how things appear through repeated experiments, and humans have been around a hell of a lot longer than the Bible says (and did not always look the same, and did not start from two). I'm not sure why scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, are so offensive to certain religious people. They're supposed to ignore everything because religion says otherwise? It doesn't, and shouldn't, work like that. Same thing goes for SETI and astrobiologists seeking to find life elsewhere... just because some religions and some interpretations of religion say that there is no way life is off the planet Earth does not mean that people shouldn't look for it, and it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let them do their work, and if they are right, it is the most profoundly significant thing in recent human history... don't call it a waste because you fear what they may find.

[PIX]

So science is Man's answer to his existence? Evolution is as every bit a farce to me as you see the Bible. If birds came from reptiles, surely there must be ONE existing transitional fossil of the intermediate lifeform. Surely there MUST be intermediate lifeforms from birds to mammals SOMEWHERE? NO...there are NONE at all. There is no fossil proof of ANY transitional species that had to existed during this 'natural' metamorphesis of random life. And why do you think humans have been around longer than the Bible says so? Ah...I forgot ...science must have the answers. First off...the Bible puts the age of the earth at 6000 years if all the lineages are counted back to Adam (yes you can count their ages). Written history for mankind ONLY goes back 5000 years. But ALAS....we have science and the infalible Carbon-Dating to tell us the true age of things.

1. The Carbon 14 dating procedure is only good on objects that are dead...that were once living. Carbon 14 is absorbed and ingested by all living plants, animals and humans and only begins to diminish after death. The Carbon-14 dating method measures the decay and converts that decay into years.

2. Rocks, minerals and fully mineralized fossils cannot be dated by the "radiocarbon" method.

3. Even ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made.

4. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years.

The ridiculous long ages of into the billions are not a product of radiocarbon dating. The two most commonly used methods to date rocks and minerals are the Potassium-Argon and the Uranium-Lead methods. As in all the radiometric systems of dating two familiar false assumptions are in their equation. Remember, if your computer says 2 + 2 = 5, no matter how scholarly, the math computation will always be incorrect. The following are the two false assumptions and the excerpt cited is from the book titled, The World That Perished, by John C. Whitcomb:

Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada:

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.

No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected.

In a publication titled, Contributions to Geology, this paragraph was found:

In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

The dating discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was buried in lava flow that formed basalt in Australia was dated by Carbon-14 at about 45,000 years old. The basalt it was found in was measured by the Potassium-Argon method at 45 million years old. Potassium-Argon said it was a thousand times older than Carbon-14.

The following paragraphs are found in a book authored by Morris and Morris titled Many Infallible Proofs:

As in the case of uranium dating, potassium dating also commonly yields great ages on rocks known to be very young.

The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent...it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old.

And again we ask how it is possible to be sure that potassium ages are correct when determined for rocks of unknown age, when the same method gives ages 100,000 times too great for rocks whose age we know!

Evolutionist F.B. Jueneman in Industrial Research and Development stated:

The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.

The following statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State:

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock."

Shall we go into the hard scientific evidence on the so called Ape Men and the monkeys we supposidly came from? I spent 5 years studying 'science' in college. I spent another 6 years working in labs and doing research, biological and physics. Don't let PHD's and
men blind you. Get ALL the facts first.

[PIX]

One other thing. There are millions of Christians in Africa through the work of missions over the decades. We are suppose to go tell the 'good news' to those who haven't heard it. As to how God will judge the nomadic isolated tribesman of his destiny...only God knows that.

Believing is seeing is the statement I read.

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[g-boy]

Didn't say science was the answer to existence, I see that more as a pondering of philosophy combined with findings from science. So... you're saying you don't agree with findings that the homo genus has been around for more than 6000 years? In fact, WAY more than 6000. I guess dinosaurs were gone around 10,000 years instead of about 65 million? The Earth is less than 4 billion years old? Again, numbers and such change, we may find different numbers from different methods, and in no way is science infallible... if you read at all what I wrote, I said that science always will have problems and there are no absolute truths, it's up to use to interpret and come up with best explanations, and this is what we come up with, these ages and these theories.

I didn't say anything about mammals coming from birds, they didn't, at least not according to the current models of evolutionary pathways. Dinosaurs have very little relationship to reptiles that we know of, so I'm not talking about a robin coming from a python. We're talking about looking at a certain type of dinosaur (like raptors and tyrannosaurs... not sauropods) that moved very much like birds do. No intermediates? Ever heard of an archeopteryx? Essentially the first bird and very real evidence for the transition from raptor-like dinosaurs to a nice juicy chicken. Birds are essentially feathered dinosaurs. I'd break out my geology notes to get all of the scientific terms, but I'm too lazy. You also have to look at traits, not just intermediate species... not every fossil survives, you need certain conditions, so many animals have existed without our knowledge. Fur, livebirth, bipedal, these are different traits that you observe from animal to animal, and patterns emerge that are explained by evolution. Evolution is not perfect. It doesn't have all the answers. But it gives us a pretty damn good idea about how things have existed on this planet and how they progress. Even plants... first fossils show they needed to be immersed in water. Then they developed flowering and seeds to be able to multiply without being in aqueous conditions. Obvious pattern of very primitive to very complex. So God is up there working on different models that keep getting more complex so every few million years he plants a new one? They aren't adapting to survive their surroundings? To have success and not be eliminated?

[PIX]

I was waiting on the archeoptryx debate.

There is another problem with the so-called transitional fossils. They do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The often cited Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species. Our experience of living species indicates that there is a vast variety of species on the planet filling just about every possible ecological niche. Kathleen Hunt says that "the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups (diapsid reptiles to birds) were in fact related" italics mine. It does nothing of the sort, unless you assume that evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaption.

THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS out of the millions of fossils found...NONE. Why not. Were they just unlucky enough to never be fossilized? Why couldn't dinosaurs have walked with man? Isn't there a fossilized piece of ground somewhere with human footprints beside dinosaur prints?? YUP..

[PIX]

Most, due to lack of real interest, are unaware there is a mountain of information to support a 6,000 year old earth. There are 107 scientific measurements alone that prove the earth to be young; scientific research concerning things such as population statistics and the fossil record to Helium in the atmosphere to erosion of the continents.

Perplexing news concerning recent dinosaur bones unearthed in Alaska should have sent a lot of the old-earth proponents back to their bunkers to attempt to sure up their theories. According to the anti-Bible folks there was a huge catastrophe that killed off all the dinosaurs around 70 million years ago. M. Helder in a 1992 article titled, "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," published in Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14, the following information:

She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said. Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found...How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived...Why then did these bones not decay long ago?...The obvious conclusion is that these bones were deposited in relatively recent times.

Scientists at the University of Montana were shocked when they found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Not only were the bones not fossilized but they appeared to have blood cells which would be impossible if they were millions of years old. The following is part of the report issued by the scientists:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center...red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur.

The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilzed...So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme as hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues."

In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of T. rex. Originally, like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic investigation. But under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Author, popular lecturer and broadcaster Ken Ham weighed in with the following comment on this subject:

These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that these fossils are not millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.

Ancient historic accounts, the Bible and thousands of local sightings testify of dinosaurs and fiery flying serpents in recorded history. Even in this present day reports of dinosaur-like creatures exist. For example, in the publication Science Digest, 1981, and in Science Frontiers, number 3367, they recorded that explorers and native Africans reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures. In the February 6, 1980, issue of the Australian Melbourne Sun it was reported that over recent years 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs off the Victorian coast of Australia.

The earth's magnetic field also points to a very, very young earth. Scientists believe that the earth is a large electromagnet and the source of the magnetic field is probably a large electric current. In 1971, Dr. T. Barnes theorized that nothing keeps the earth going except its own inertia. Because it is not being refueled with energy the Barnes theory says that the current is running down slowly like a flywheel without a motor. Consequently the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Since the first measurement of the earth's magnetic field in 1835, it has lost 7% of its strength. According to the Barnes model the strength of the magnetic field should decrease by a constant rate each year and the data is consistent with just such a decrease. Present data points to a magnetic field which has lost one-half of its force over the past 1,400 years. Following this line backwards it is clear to see that Earth's age should be measured in thousands, such as in 6,000, and not billions of years. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and as of 1993, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. He had this to say:

As measured by clocks on earth, the age of the universe today could be as small as the face-value biblical age of about 6,000 years.

[PIX]

One of the leading proponents of evolution is Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology. Here is what he says over and over about creationism and evolution in Scientific American, Sept 1958.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)

[Guest]

lol i didnt read nothing im just going to say yea your right...

[Guest]

lmao i just saw the munkey I aint from no damn munkey lol.
If we come from munkeys they say or evolved why arent theyre no munkeys evolving into humans right now?

lol i didnt read...

[FreeFall]

lmao i just saw the munkey I aint from no damn munkey lol.
If we come from munkeys they say or evolved why arent theyre no munkeys evolving into humans right now?

lol i didnt read...

because it's already happened. . the next stage is whatever humans evolve to. animals don't just morph overnight into some other creature. Their evolution is based on a bunch of things in the world around them. it happens more along the lines of --

Monkey - monkey's baby (with a slight evolutionary difference) - monkey's baby's baby (again with a slight evolutionary difference)


and so on and so forth.

[Wha?]

Actually most religions have accepted evolution, though usually not for humans.

::PostScript::
Technically Homo sapiens sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.

[FreeFall]

::PostScript::
Technically Homo sapiens sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.

I was just saying monkey's because of the previous post. Personally I'm agnostic. But I do lean more towards the atheist side of things. I can accept people's beliefs as long as they accept mine but what I don't understand is those who don't see the concept of evolution in human's. If evolution is a plausible fact for most then why is it that they cannot accept it for humans. I know the whole Adam and Eve thing, but what we have to realize is that humans like all other creatures are still just animals. The world was not created for us, we took it over. 'God' did not create us to give us the power to rule over all of the other creatures of the sea, land and air. We are from those of the sea which became those of the land and air. It just doesn't make sense to me that everything on this planet was brought to life through evolution whereas humans were just created from the dirt of the earth. . .and the rib of another. Believe what you will and more power to you, but think about your bone structure, mannerisms, bodily features and things of that nature before disregarding the fact that we are just a step in evolution and that there is many more steps to come...assuming of course that we don't kill the earth before we can advance.

Many people believe that the next step in our evolution is spiritual or mental, and I'm on that train. Listen to and think about the song and concept of 46&2 by Tool. I'm not using this as my basis or reason of believing such, merely as a reference. Human's of present day consist of 44 and 2 chromosomes, it is believed that the next step in evolution is to reach 46 and 2.

"There are three totally different kinds of humans on the Earth, meaning that they perceive the One reality in three different ways, interpreted differently. The first kind of human has a chromosome composition of 42+2. They comprise a unity consciousness that does not see anything outside themselves as being separate from themselves. To them, there is only one energy - one life, one beingness that moves everywhere. Anything happening anywhere is within them, as well. They are like cells in the body. They are all connected to a single consciousness that moves through all of them. These are the aboriginals in Australia. There might be a few African tribes left like this. Then, there is our level, comprising 44+2 chromosomes. We are a disharmonic level of consciousness that is used as a steppingstone from the 42+2 level to the next level, 46+2...These two additional chromosomes change everything."
                     -Drunvalo Melchizadek

[Wha?]

That 46&2 thing doesn't make any sense.. unless you define evolutionary 'steps' as an increase in haploid count.

Also, there are 23 chromosomes in a human, so what's the 44, and which 2 are getting special attention? Why can't a mutation in the current ones bring the next level of consciousness? I mean, after all, there are animals with way more chromosomes than people, and they haven't been mentioned in that theory.

[PIX]

The ONLY provable form is microevolution which can be SEEN before our eyes today.

::PostScript::
Technically Homo sapiens sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.

There is ZERO proof humans evolved from apes or any other muck....NONE. You find that
missing link someday (or make one up with ape fossils like was done before) and you will
have your proof. Other than that...NO HUMAN SCIENCE can prove the hypothesis. So HOW
can scientists say they have a proven theory and populate educationary textbooks with their
answers when they have NOTHING? People say us Christian 'fanatics' are what's wrong with
the world today. I say SCIENCE with it's circular reasoning is the problem. Man fills in to many
gaps to get the answer HE desperately WANTS.

[FreeFall]

1)Also, there are 23 chromosomes in a human, so what's the 44, and which 2 are getting special attention?
2)Why can't a mutation in the current ones bring the next level of consciousness?
3)I mean, after all, there are animals with way more chromosomes than people, and they haven't been mentioned in that theory.

1)44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes. . .
2)That very well could be true, I never said that wasn't a possibility.
3)this theory is for our species wha. . if a dog evolves it doesn't mean that every other being does too.

I say SCIENCE with it's circular reasoning is the problem. Man fills in to many
gaps to get the answer HE desperately WANTS.

So I suppose blindly following some all-powerful, all-knowing being that may not exist is the better choice of the two then. . .letting him tell me the answers, letting him tell me how to go through life. Screw trying to figure things out for myself, I'll just get on my kness and ask someone else.
oops, anger got the best of me there.

[Wha?]

Actually looking for the answer that's wanted is standard religious practice. Science is observation and documentation, nothing more. Science being opposed to religion is a fallacy, it's the other way around. Science is opposed to nothing, much like lemonade, or white out.

science
noun
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

There is ZERO proof humans evolved from apes or any other muck....NONE.

Turning that around, there is even less proof for all theologies put together. Barring the fact that "proof" is an absolute term--like perfection--all there is to go on is documentation of unknown veracity. Everything is assumed, nothing is questioned, and it all comes down to the preconceptions that you get raised with.

Beligerant fanatics are what's wrong with the world today, pious fanatics being the majority of those. The problems aren't because they have beliefs, but because they force them onto others violently, or wrong others for their differing beliefs.