• SeanRenaud said on Aug 27, 2007....

  1.  It's not like religion is much more positive on females, and that's if we were to take Darwin's claims as 100% fact on every subject.  No wait, even if we did that was a 100+ years ago and evolution/adaptation doesn't necessarily have to be slow under certain conditions.  But that's neither here nor there it's simply old.
   
  2.  With the tools he had available to him it was a reasonable conclusion to come to.  Just like looking around today it would be a reasonably conclusion to say that men make superior leaders to women.  It's highly unlikely to be true but very few places in the world have female leaders.
   
  Really this comment is just silly.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 27, 2007....

  To call Charles Darwin the father of modern Atheism is just plain ignorant. No point in reading any farther.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 27, 2007....

  ROFL!

• thenack said on Aug 28, 2007....

  Hi Sean, yeah its old. Yeah we shouldn't believe everything Darwin says. But modern-evolution is generally based on Darwin, who has been shown to jump to conclusions from personal obsevation. So the "science" (gag) of evolution is based on this type of reasoning. No wonder its such a load of pond-scum. Darwin saw a market niche and he was a good marketer, not a scientist. He gave people an excuse to be the slave trading victorian racists that they wanted to be.

   

  exhibit_c, well yes that was meant to provoke ignorant people. The high priest of modern atheism, Richard Dawkins himself have proclaimed that evolution is a religion that makes it possible for atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled" I have a post on it. Go read it and get in line with other athiests. Oh wait, you don't have to cause its all relative.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 28, 2007....

  My point is that Darwin never supported an atheist point of view. He just reported what his study of the Creation taught him, and various "Christian" took offence.

• thenack said on Aug 28, 2007....

  mr C, thats not my opinion. He took very limited observations and extrapolated it to  a theory that fitted with his already strong feeling that british males should rule the world (to put it bluntly)

  What does the facts about Galapagos finches teach you about the developement of aboriginals? Nothing. This was not science but conjecture disregarding many other obvious invluences.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 29, 2007....

  thenack, your response puts you squarely in the group that chooses to take offence for things that Darwin never actually said.
  
  Certainly, you have "very strong feelings" on which you base your own theories.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 29, 2007....

  Honestly C, the last response was so stupid I didn't bother to respond.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 29, 2007....

  Maybe I put it badly, but don't you think that thenack's anti-evolution bias is at least as strong as Darwin's British-is-best bias?

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 29, 2007....

  I think Darwin should be respected as what he is.  The father of the evolutionary theory.  He has however been dead for sometime and evolution has evolved quite a bit since then.  You might as well start quoting the Founding Fathers and saying that since George Washington didn't free the slaves and let women vote that obviously democracy is a bad idea.
   
  Though to be honest facts about the Galapagos finches are very pronounced and show how an enviroment can effect a life form even over a relatively small geographic area.  So it would still be useful in forming the thought patterns and hypothesises for the developemnt of aboriginals.  They are like all other lifeforms the product of their enviroment.
   
  Also you put your response quite well.  Just certain people under certain situations don't warrent responses so much as LOL, ROFL, OMG, OMFG, WTF styled jeering.  I haven't read enough of the thenack to know if she is inteligent over all and just ignorant in this particular situation, if she's like Shiningstar and has a major hangup that keeps her from being coherent on all subjects, if she's a complete idiot like phoenix14 or just somebody who I will disagree with on certain cases like bloc.

• thenack said on Aug 30, 2007....

  exit_c, yes I'm biassed, as is all people. Well spotted. I personally, after looking at loads of evidence from both sides, think there is actually very little to substanciate belief in evolution. (goo-to-you-via-the-zoo)
   
  Sean, (I'm a guy dude) I've read enough of your stuff to know you are sharp. But I disagree with you on this. I find your views on racism very refreshing and interesting though. My point on the finches were that it will merely serve, in context, to the "forming the thought patterns and hypothesises". Nothing more. Besides what happened to the finches, environmental invluence, is called "natural sellection or micro evolution. Darwin, like many others, made the mental leap to go from this to evolution (macro evolution). This leap is farther than I think any evidence over the last 200 years warant. Macro evolution requires a blob to grow an eye from a light sensitive patch of skin. The evidence show that this type of uphill genetic evolution has never been observed and is just not possible (from real science on molecular biology and chemistry, as observable today). The answer evolutionists give is that it's possible, even if unobservable, for this to happen, given gazilions of years. So they throw time at any reasonable scientific evidence so they can stick to their belief, which it is by definition. The cruchail part of the theory is unobservable.
   
  Besides, lots of repeatable modern science is showing the many possible problems with radiometric dating. This new branch of actual science is at least convincing enough to warant a second glance at the dates evolutionists use.
   
  But on a more human level, its obvious that no one knows how old anything is when you look at the massive holes and discrepancies in the "dating game"
   
  I have posted on how rock from "mount st Hellens was dated at various millions of years dates, when the actual date was known to be 10 years old.
   
  this type of evidence is common and should warant more investigation by anyone who claims to have a scientific mind, seeking for thruth.
   
  So the matter of Darwin is merely a way to get to talk about all this and it never fails to get people worked up, insulting their religious leader.
   
  Millions of years dogma is necessary for the entire theory of evolution, whithout it, its pathetic science has nowhere to hide.
   
  So up to now I am utterly unconvinced that evolution warants me to change my belief system, which has more than enough of its own proof, not requiring millions of years to cover up bad logic.
   
  The Creator of the universe created logic, I stick to that thank you.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2007....

  Ok since you are sticking to the rhetoric of the imaginary macro vs micro evolution I'll ask you a very simple question.

  What is the difference between the following.  Ebonics, American, English, Spanish and Latin?

   

  As for radiometric dating go ahead and disbelieve it.  Whatever if you are convinced by the mountains and mountains of data then there is really no point in discussing it further.

  I was wondering this morning if we couldn't observe evolution, it should be possible or at the least I can't understand why it isn't observable under labratory conditions.  You'd have to tell PETA to shut the fuck up but I think it could be done.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 30, 2007....

  I brought up the question of observing evolution on the other thread, but no one replied. We see evolution all the time at the 1-cell level. We see species change for "survival of the fittest" reasons all the time at the small animal (e.g. insect) level, and to some small extent in mammals.
  
  Do we thing that thenack's "more than enough proof of its own" would be more or  less convincing to the impartial observer (if you could find one!) than the rock dating data?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2007....

  But so far we've yet to see what they want to see.  Micro-evolution.  Which is an imaginary term to begin with that has no clear definition.  I would assume though that they would be satisfied if we were able to show a group of animals that had clearly evolved to sufficient extent that they would become incompatible with the original species.  Though to be fair that might take forever because wolves are still compatible with poodles all this time later.  Donkeys and horses.  I believe that every single large cat (though it's possible the Cheetah can't interbreed it is a different genus.)  But there are plenty of animals that have relatively short life spans.  Via inducing mutations and manually making certain that those creatures survive we should be able to prove in lab conditions that animals can infact evolve into new species.
   
  Hell genetic engineering should have proved that already but people who don't want to see facts will continue to be blind.

• thenack said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Ok Sean and C, I know this type of discussion can go in circles forever, so that is why I defined, for the sake of this conversation, the different terms, "natural sellection" and "macro evolution". For evolutionists in mosts part, these terms are interchangeable, and more correctly, the one is the mechanism by which the other happens, given enough time.
   
  I think the philosofical question here is if A, natural sellection, could cause B, Evolution, and under which surcumstances. Sean I believe your criteria is reasonably fair, although it is very modest concidering some of the amazingly intricate things ascribed to evolution. For a horse to change enough not to be sexually compatible with other horses, is a far cry from growing an eye before you even knew what an eye was, and at the same time having a brain to interpret what your new found sensor is sensing.
   
  Unfortunately I am in a great hurry at the moment, but I will come back and continue this conversation. I appreciate your decent approach and would like to continue a propper debate.

• ellamae14 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  kuh lintek. you men talk too much. Women don't take offense for insensible talks like this because we know better. and really, it's a stale topic. Who's more superior men or women?! duh. C. Darwin is limited by his time and knowledge available to him. That was his reality. and really cops is going out of his way to get all the attention. tsk. tsk. poor guy.

• mrhowto said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Dear oh dear, this old one again.
  
  Men and Women ARE different.  If they weren't we'd all have breasts and penises!
  
  Neither one is smarter than the other as we both are derived from the same psychic principle.  The original idea which split 'beings' into male and female caused a want between both parties to return to their singular godly being, hence the strong attraction between men and women.
  
  As for smartness, both have the POTENTIAL to be as smart as one another.  However, man's domination over woman throughout history has created a genetic imbalance which unconsciously puts woman down when it comes to wanting to rule and win things when competing with man.  This lowers their resistance and often they give up and have children instead.
  
  This is no one's fault, it's just the way it has become.
  
  Split ANYTHING in two and one half will have certain traits and virtures, the other will have other traits and virtues.
  
  We both have free will and the ability to create.  Men make great hunters, women make great mothers, it's in our genes, but makes neither party a lesser individual than the other.
  

• thenack said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Thanks mrhowro in showing us how to put an end to a debate, still, the question is the character of CD, and his ability to interpret evidence, not whether he was right or not.

• thenack said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Sean, lets look at your last statement about genetic engineering. Your statement actually disproves evolution.

  In fact it shows the most important lie that is told about evolution. It cannot create. It can only work on existing information. Genetic engineering shows this. Inteligence is needed to either cause mutations and sellect for the desired effect, or to splice genes from different things together. In both cases the gene is already there, it is altered or a different combination of  genes are used. In the case of genetic engineering, a lot of design and inteligence is needed to make the process benificial. Most random mutations are severely detramental to the creature in question. So genetic engineering shows that A, the information has to be available already, and B, inteligence is needed. This is very different from evolution that has to add BRAND NEW information randomly.

   

  To continue my discussion, natural sellection can only operate within existing genetic boundaries, it has never been show to create new information. In very rare cases mutations cause a benificial effect. This is most often seen in bachteria. This type of mutations are genetic-loss mutations. The creature loses the ability to receive a certain chemical. So he/she/it loses a skill. In the case of antibiotic resistance, this is benificail as the chemical can no longer enter the cell to destroy it. these creatures remain. So the gene is lost. they did not grow some new defence mechanism that cleverly fights antibiotics.

  So lets look at you proposed experiment, I would suggest that lab rats be kept in utter darkness but for invissible ultraviolet light. If they lose the ability to see color and only see ultraviolet, it would merely show adaptation of an existing, well designed mechanism. But even this type of minor genetic change would give me second thoughts on believing evolution. But I can promise you this, not a billion years would get rats to see ultraviolet.

  Next time how about defining your own choise of words before critisizing mine. I suspect that if you don't define what you mean, you can dance around between meanings to suit your mood.

   

  Anyway

   

  Have a great weekend.

   

  TN

• anonymous said on Aug 31, 2007....

  I'm a christian ... and I agree with evolution AS A WHOLE. While I disagree that *nothing* just happened to explode before a magic lightening bolt hit a magic puddle of *something* and poof we have life .... I do believe that God created dinosaurs (and people) and allowed them to *evolve* into what we have today. While I can't prove God did allow it to happen ... I equally can't prove He didn't. Just my 2 cents.

• exhibit_c said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Please believe when I say that I don't wish to engage in the evolution/creationism arguement beyond the point of noting arguements that seem silly or pointless. However, mention of the eye caused me to google a bit, and I found this interesting entry in Wikipedia.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
  
  Especially interesting it the notes on how various non-human eyes are better than human eyes and the reference to the optical system fo the  mantis shrmp
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp
  
  as being the best, including the ability to see in the infrared and ultriviolet spectra.
  
  I wouldn't bet against those ultraviolet-seeing rats myself. It takes a lot of generations to get through a billion years.
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Hmm...I see no reason to believe that evolution explains adaptation of complex organisms AND how they evolved. It explains adaptation rather well, but "goo to you via the zoo" doesn't make sense. Darwin was right to run into the issue of the complexity of the eye - evidence for the eye's evolution has only cited adaptations, not true, permanent, positive genetic and structural change. I agree with anon above in a way, that God created everything, but also gave living beings the ability to adapt to their surroundings as needed - that adaptation is part of a sure "truth" of evolution, but as a whole evolution does have too many holes for some to believe it's actually how we came to be.
  
  Perhaps the most dangerous thing about evolution is that it gives knowledge and a mask of inellectualism to those hostile or skeptical toward religion, and that "knowledge", which may not be true at all, tends to make Christianity, in general, look less sturdy. I would wager to say that evolution has become an instrument for many people to rule out the God that created them.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2007....

  There is plenty of other evidence to rule out the God that doesn't exist.  You just don't want to see it because it damages your world view.
   
  That said I'm not sure I follow how genetic engineering disproves evolution any more than standard engineering disproves the Grand Canyon. 

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  I think you're taking a slight swipe because what I said damages your worldview.
  
  We're imperfect beings who can't dwell with God, or see Him, until we reach Heaven. Just because we can't test "appearances" of God doesn't mean evolution is automatically true. We meet God on His terms, not by sharing factual data and evidence. That is why very few atheists will ever understand or see the proof Christians point them to - they want God to show up in front of their eyes, but God wants THEM to show up and seek Him in prayer.
  

• exhibit_c said on Aug 31, 2007....

  "God wants THEM to show up and seek Him in prayer."
  
  As a question of abstract logic, how do you know?
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  It's a good question, exhibit. For as many things I heard were bad about the Bible or the Christians who followed it, life actually made much more sense when I started taking it at face value.
  
  The Bible is the intended means of giving every person on Earth the knowledge needed to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved:
  
  John 14:9-11
  Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father (God). How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
  
  John 20:30-31
  Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
  
  1 John 4:15
  If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
  
  John 14:6
  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  
  Colossians 1:13-14
  For he [God] has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
  
  So whether we confess it or not, Jesus died for everyone's sins, to save us a death much worse than simply ceasing to breathe. If we were really the highest intellectual beings in existence, and we could correct every mistake we ever made, and never get hurt or bitter, then Jesus died for nothing. But anyone honest enough with themselves know that many hurts go too deep to just pretend that everything's ok. We are not immune to our own flaws, and that's why Jesus inspires so many - He knows we're broken, so He came to restore us.
  
  If God sent His Son Jesus to do all that for us, then that makes Him a good God, right? In a nutshell, yes. Some claim that if God is as powerful as He is described, no mortal being can know Him. And to a degree, that's true; finite beings can't comprehend or master what is infinite (God). However, an infinite God can cross over to the finite world and make Himself known - and that's exactly what Jesus did, and exactly why we have the Bible: it tells of God's relationship with us, the human race, before and after Jesus' death and resurrection.
  
  How do we come to know that and believe it in our hearts and minds? The first thing is to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, which many people never really consider. It could be said a poor person with God is much more joyful than a rich person without God. Why? Because God's blessings to His people transcend wealth, fame, success, and even our personal freedom: a good deal of the New Testament was written by Paul while he sat in prison in Rome, but instead of wallowing in self-pity, he led fellow prisoners (and even some guards) to Christ. That is power much of the world may never see if they assume the Bible is some old, dusty book. But it applies to all people for all time; it says so, and it follows through even in today's high-tech world and human achievement.
  
  Luke 11:9 - "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."
  Jesus explained that God is a good Father to us all, and that our persistence in seeking Him will be rewarded (that is a condensed context for the above verse). Even Christians don't really see God's work in their lives unless they spend time learning about Him in the Bible, or praying to Him, or actually going out and doing what God commands - to love others unconditionally by meeting their needs and serving them. So who would think that an atheist or any skeptic of God would be personally visited by Him and have their proof, doing nothing to seek God?
  
  If you ask to see someone in person, and yet you 1) don't contact them, and 2) expect them to show up wherever you are, that's more than a bit inconsiderate. Yet many take this approach to God: "prove it to me and show up, though I doubt you will." That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, friends - you think God doesn't exist, so you live in a way that excludes Him from your life. No wonder there's little proof for them!
  
  If we acknowledge one thing - that God is God, and we are not - then we can sit quietly somewhere and ask Him to be real to us, knowing that He has all the answers and we do not, that we are not proud and haughty about our own knowledge, but that He teaches us everything that will last beyond our deathbeds. By belief in Jesus Christ, we stand to gain everything in this life and more, and that includes having health or wealth restored after we lose it in the course of our lives; God restores it all in Heaven. He heals our wounds, turns our weaknesses into strengths, and brings us in relationship with other people who we can learn from to know God even better.
  
  So truly, the only limit of knowing God is our own beliefs. Will we seek Him as the Bible says, be persistent, and actually take time away from our busy lives to pray to Him? Or will we safely stay away from all such behavior, and proudly boast that no God has ever existed? It's easy to marvel at the sand in your sandbox if you've never been to the beach - and I would wholeheartedly and gently urge everyone to not limit your life by assuming God doesn't exist. Meet God by seeking Him humbly, NOT demanding that He prove Himself to us. He loves us regardless of what we do, but no one actually experiences that love unless they know God personally.
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 02, 2007....

  I read a biography of Darwin called Angels Apes and Victorians, or something like that, many years ago.  One thing I remember from that book is that Darwin is not called an atheist.  The book contends that Darwin was a creationist, not an atheist.  Darwin believed that original life forms were created, and that evolution took it from there.
  
  My own beliefs are that original life forms were created, and that various changes in the DNA were also created, by a crew of countless intelligent designers, and that evolution works in a narrow framework, within similar life forms, but that evolution has nothing to do with changing amoebas into giraffes over time.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2007....

  1.  Evolution doesn't claim to explain the Origin of Life.  That is a separate and distinct theory just like the Big Bang is so Darwin believing that ameobas, or what not being created has little bearing on anything.
   
  2.  Interesting theory, wrong but interesting, I ask the same question I always do though.  If we are too complicated to have arrisen from chaos (which is untrue and can and has been proven but who cares I'm playing Devil's A here) why are being MORE complicated than us who infact designed us able to have come about out of chaos, or simply just are?  Eventually you have to back track to the creator's creator and well it seems like whomever was first must have evolved.  Either that or whatever stuff these beings are made from can only assemble in one way.
   
  Like if normal DNA is akin to lego blocks, evolution is pouring the bag out and seeing what peices stay together.  Once they form you glue them up tight throw them back in the bag and try again until a house is formed then they might be say puzzle peices.  It can only come together in a single very specific way.  One that is complete and complex.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 02, 2007....

  "wrong but interesting"?  That's pretty arrogant.  You know that for a fact, do you?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2007....

  Yes, yes I do.  So do the vast majority of scientists and educated people.  Granted there are SOME educated people who haven't agreed with the consensus.  I'm sure that some people claim to just because nobody will take them seriously if they don't fall in line.
   
  So yeah I know your idea is wrong, I know that gravity is real, I know that e=mc2 and atoms can be split and fusion is real.
   
  But your idea is fun and interesting and would make for an excellent sci-fi movie.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 02, 2007....

  Gravity is real here.  e=mc2 here.  no argument about that obviously.  not really sure what you're saying.  in fact i have no idea what you're saying.  what are you saying anyway?
  
  You say "I know your idea is wrong, gravity is real, atoms can be split...."  what are you talking about?  What I said was .....
  
  "I read a biography of Darwin called Angels Apes and Victorians, or something like that, many years ago.  One thing I remember from that book is that Darwin is not called an atheist.  The book contends that Darwin was a creationist, not an atheist.  Darwin believed that original life forms were created, and that evolution took it from there.
  
  My own beliefs are that original life forms were created, and that various changes in the DNA were also created, by a crew of countless intelligent designers, and that evolution works in a narrow framework, within similar life forms, but that evolution has nothing to do with changing amoebas into giraffes over time."
  
  What does that have to do with gravity being real? 
  
  And what does this mean?  "why are being MORE complicated than us who infact designed us able to have come about out of chaos, or simply just are?"
  
  And what does this mean?  "Either that or whatever stuff these beings are made from can only assemble in one way."
  
  You must be responding to a different post.  Maybe one of the posts where I speculate that Heaven is real and that our universe is composed of stage props.
  
  You may "know" that my ideas are wrong, but that doesn't mean that my ideas are wrong.  That just means you disagree with my ideas.  I have no idea if I'm right or wrong.  How the hell would I know.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2007....

  God am I that hard to follow?  Let me break this down barney style.
   
  1.  Evolution is fact.  They call it a theory, they also call gravity and relativity theory.
   
  2.  If the original life forms were created who or what created them?  How did these creators come into being?
   
  And while my "belief" doesn't make you wrong it does in my eyes and I have an obligation to prevent bad ideas from spreading.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 02, 2007....

  Of course evolution is fact.  Your mistake is in overrating it.  It is not a "fact" that all life forms on earth evolved from one original living cell.  That's where your mistake is, and it's a whopper.
  
  I don't know who created anything.  But it is self evident that somebody did.  I don't know who created the one who created anything.  I don't know who created the one who created that one.  All I know is that somebody created something.
  
  You have an obligation to decide which ideas are bad and to prevent them from spreading?  That's silly.
  

• thenack said on Sep 03, 2007....

  Lidstrom, bravo, you have much more patience than me! Thanks for your excellent comment, even if I didn't agree, which I do, I would have to consider your words.
   
  lfbno7, thanks for your great input, I took some trouble to define some of the different uses of the word evolution, because evolutionists often hide behind different meanings to escape the obvious. I like your view and quite agree. Evolution is higly overated and besides, what good has it done us anyway, all it did was justify racism.
   
  Aslo see the following, evolutionists don't even agree on evolution, BUT ITS TRUE!!!, ridiculous.
   
  Sean, funny how you are suddenly getting personal and nasty, feeling the heat? Or can you just not believe how stupid we are? I suppose you are a scientist right?
   
  If you have any scientific training, you would actually understand that we don't know much, we can merely describe how things will behave under certain conditions. Evolution is not the same as e=mcsqrd. Most trained evoltionists would agree  with me on this. Thats ignorant and was designed to bully someone. Nice way to win an argument.
   
  If you read Genisis, you would realise that God created the whole time-space continuem, He is not confined to either, the concept of eternity is just as difficult to ggrasp as God not being part of time. He is the master of time. We can actually get a glimpse of this reality if we consider relativity thoery. It is clear, time as humans generally perceive it, is only a part of the real nature of time. It can be bent, slowed down, and stopped. It is part of the fibre of the universe, created by God. So there is no need to bother yourself about what came before God, there was no time, the question is meaningless. Berfore Creation is not an option.
   
  Finally your last stament is extremely arrogant, you want to stop ideas that are wrong in your opinion. Well, its typical evolutionary thinking, eh? eliminate the enemy. Much the same as Hitler thought, create the ultimate race by speeding up evolution, you just want to do is mentally on a small scale.

• mrhowto said on Sep 03, 2007....

  Indeed.  Creation is not an option at all.  Creation is a continuous process, with no beginning or end, no past or future, only now!  The universe is continuously created NOW, within the universal psyche of god...or "I". 
  
  I can't believe people are still fighting over creationism vs evolution, when the truth is in fact a blatant and obvious mixture of both.
  
  There is only one "I", the I in me is the intelligence 'behind' my brain, as it is to you. 
  
  Again the daft misconception that god is a thinking being up in the sky is once again getting in the way of intelligent discussion and common sense.
  
  If "I" am not here, the universe cannot exist.  Just as the "I" in you if it didn't exist, then you would not be able to project your self out into the universe.
  
  What we know as 'solid' within our short human lives, isn't solid at all, but in fact just  a collection of ideas and communication within I, or the global singular multi-threaded psyche.
  
  Knowing this, allows one to see past the self and realise the godliness within one's being. Godliness, not being an arrogant statement, but simply a realisation of one's true intelligence and energy, which is out-of-this world as opposed to within it.
  
  The other side of the battery of life if you like.  Life as we know it is purely based on one plane, the other plane, being all that is not what we know and see.
  
  Both sides are and always have been required for life to exist.
  
  Round and round we go.
  

• thenack said on Sep 03, 2007....

  mrhowto, you also try to sound self confident and important by namecalling ("daft...") . If you want to tell us how you feel, fine, but if your going to argue a point, make some effort.

  But you also gave a pretty involved account of how you feel about the universe. I can only immagine that you are going for a kind of Niche vibe with this answer. Go cut your hand and wake up.

   

  I have to actually agree with you on something, we do posess a certain godly element. God wants to unite us through the Holy Spirit on a spirit level. The difference is, God can exist without us, but we will perish eternally without Him. Not linger on in some undefined mubo jumbo state. You may have been deceived by another spirit being, but who knows whats real right. Till I punch in the face.

• mrhowto said on Sep 03, 2007....

  So much for trying to give a useful answer.  I forgot how wrapped up in your beliefs you could be.  Didn't intend on name calling, daft is what it is, and that's simply the truth.
  
  There is no niche vibe to be carved.
  
  What does cutting my hand have to do with anything?  You are entirely missing the point.
  
  Pain exists yes.  It is here to protect 'life'.  It's as simple as that.
  
  God doesn't and 'can't' be definition 'want' anything.  That would be a selfish act, as only a being which is self-conscious can want.
  
  You are velry close on some issues, but seem to sail right by the truth and straight back into belief again.
  
  Indeed, the body perishes when we die, but 'I' the intelligence and purity within me which is the singular 'life' consciousness(which you call god), must carry on.
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 03, 2007....

  Hi there Shiningstar.  I'd say something harsh about everything else but I think my first sentence about covers it.

• thenack said on Sep 04, 2007....

  mrhowto, please forgive me for causing confusion, I was reffering to Friedrich Nietzsche. Besides this collective conciousness thing has been recycled a few times through history, but I know it's very cool (again) nowadays.
   
  God is a self concious being. We can go back and forth stating our beliefs, that's not an argument. Do you believe in evil?
   
  We both acknowlege that we are spirit beings then (more than walking compost to be), I believe we were created by God in His image (same type of self concious, free-willed being) albeit infinitely less powerfull.
   
  You are saying we are all different manifestations of a collective universal "knowlege". Why do you say this? I would like for you to tell me how this magically "evolved".
   
  You say I am "very close" close to what. If we are all different little "I gods" who cares what you think and who are you to call me close. Close to what? Your opinion? Who made you god over me that I should be close to your opinion.
   
  This way of thinking is one of the most useless philosophies ever contrived. It has no absolute basis for saying anything. Therefore anything goes. I should punch you in the face for that. Because I can. Thats all the reason I need.
   
  This philosophy causes problems, it doesn't solve them.
   
  Reality will show you that evil excists (or would you like to deny it?) Good exists far beyond your personal "inteligence and purity".
   
  What will your "I" carry on to and as what? Aliens eh? It will cary on, about that you are right. If you want to deny God, you deny all absolute morality and all absolute logic. the fruit of such ignorance will catch up with you whether your personal "I" likes it or not.

• mrhowto said on Sep 04, 2007....

  First off, it's not a philosophy, it's just plain common sense.
  
  Secondly, there is no such thing as good and evil, these are just ideas and labels given to things by humans.  A cat doesn't 'know' the difference between these two ideas and you would never be able to teach it that.  Does this mean the cat must be evil?
  
  I meant you are close to seeing the truth, but you let your own beliefs and opinions get in the way and cloud it so much that you cant see the obvious.
  
  What makes me god over you?  That's is a stupid question, I'm surprised you don't already know the answer...with all your beliefs and opinions am sure you can come up with something sufficiently imaginative.
  
  I am here...now, not in the past or future of thought, beliefs and opinions.  I need no god but the I in me that provides my body with consciousness.  I don't need to be a god over anyone either, as what I have is enough.
  
  As for punching me in the face, if you feel that you have that much anger and frustration within yourself that you are clearly making it show and embarrassing yourself here with, then perhaps you should come and punch me in the face.  See if it actually solves anything...of is perhaps just silly.
  
  All philosophies cause problems...that's why I don't subscribe to one, I simply see life for what it is.
  
  Why are you more concerned with what I will carry on to, instead of what I IS, right here and now?
  
  I am not denying god, just the common conception of what god is.
  

• thenack said on Sep 04, 2007....

  Mrhowto, seems in your "I" universe you make the rules. I have tried many tacticks to get you to actually say something. Up to now you have denied many things, and used the word I a lot. I am not even close to punching you. the point is your "reality" is silly and does not correlate to what we witness in history and today.

  The most obvious place your way of seeing the world, (which is a philosophy used by many, your not special) fails is right at the point where evil exists whether you think so or not, and I'll punch you to show you. Or just come to South Africa and get gangraped. That should get the message accross. Or will you be the first to say that its fine to be gangraped, as for those guys its their idea of "right"

  You are relative on everything, if everybody is like that, the world will go to hell, its called anarchy. If you don't see how this is a logical conclusion of your worldview, you are mistaken. Says I.

   

• mrhowto said on Sep 04, 2007....

  When you clearly don't understand a word I've said, why try to assume things about the way I live?
  
  In my 'I' universe as you put it, I don't make any rules.  There are no rules, only the way things simply are.  Why fight nature and life, when you can just go with the flow and be happy simply BEING!
  
  To give ones' self rules, implies things are not right with ones' self already - a perfect sign of what you call evil.  Harmony and love can only exist where one has realised the connection in all things, which is LIFE!  Are we or are we not all connected by LIFE?!??  Is Life not one thing we all have in common?  Even a 4 year old could answer that.
  
  Rules are for those who don't realise that simple fact and have to keep being reminded.
  
  History has nothing to do with anything, people who live in the past might as well not be here at all.
  
  Today, is close to now, but it isn't now, so what does that have to do with anything?
  
  Of course other people have realised god or I within themselves...oh yes - one of them was called Jesus, that's right.  The holy spirit as he so finely put it hit the nail right on the head.  Is this not the best description of intelligence, energy and life within ones' self?  Or are you denying that too?  Wouldn't that be slightly hypocritical?
  
  The evil you speak of wouldn't happen if everyone was self-realised.  Everyone would love life too much to even consider doing such a thing.  It is warped religions and bad parenting that cause things like this as they probably thing they can go and confess their sins every Sunday and get let off.
  
  
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 04, 2007....

  Self-realization on a widespread scale has already been realized. It's called Christianity - flawed and broken people who don't have the confidence or resources to self-realize on their own, so to speak, are told of the incredible worth they already have, simply because God created and loves them, and Jesus died for them so they wouldn't be caught up in evil. There is a clear solution to the flaws and evil of the world, and self-realization is not the best one. I say that because you don't see people actively going around, helping each other to self-realize. What true change is, includes a system of morality to hold people accountable, to discern what is right and wrong, to live your life for that, and to share that with others. But if that message isn't truth, you risk spreading a bunch of hooey.
  
  Yes, parts of religion are warped - including people living how they want to and thinking going to church will wipe the slate clean - but when it comes down to it, having a savior who teaches you how to live and forgives mistakes and rewards an honest effort to stop committing evil, is better than simply achieving a personal high yourself, because the former is meant to be spread to all people to give them hope.
  
  As for good and evil: if there is no good and evil, you have moral relativism, where what's "right" for one person isn't necessarily true for the next person. What's to keep us from creating our own morality? What if your child was murdered and the judge acquitted the murderer because, "I don't personally believe in sending people to jail." Where does justice come from if we don't have a law that we're all subjected to?
  
  In order for any law to be effective, we have to define what is "right" and what is "wrong." Yes, this counts for the concept of good and evil. Even if we don't acknowledge evil (which I think we should), what counts as "good"?
  
  And if we believe in an afterlife, it gets even trickier. How many "good" things must we do get to a happy afterlife? How many good things do we do in order to consider ourselves a "good person?" What defines that? If we have a personal truth that doesn't necessarily apply to every other person, then we just have our own little sandbox and think good of ourselves while the rest of the world suffers, in need of a true message that covers all people for all time. That's the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and when we break God's laws, Jesus' sacrifice gives us peace. It's as simple as that.
  
  
  

• mrhowto said on Sep 05, 2007....

  I don't want to keep repeating myself, because it's boring and if I can't help anyone realise what I'm saying then there's no point.  You can't force someone to learn something if they are stubborn and happy with being unhappy all the time.
  
  But I'll have one more go, as you all seem to be missing the points I'm trying to make.
  
  I am pretty sure that in the early days of Christianity, they were self realised, but now the teachings have been so warped that the true messages have been lost and covered over.  If you dig deep enough though the essentials are still there, but people would rather picture god as a guy up in heaven telling them what to do - it's like they still want a parent even after they have grown up because they are too scared to think for themselves.
  
  I know what is right or wrong - it's in my genes, I don't need anyone to tell me what is right and wrong, and neither does anyone else.
  
  The sentence you said about if someone murdered my child, wouldn't happen in a world of the self realised, so it is totally irrelevant.
  
  But people do die, it's perhaps THE only thing you can count on in life.  So why be afraid of it.  What people need to understand is that the body perishes, and helps feed other life on the planet, through the soil or whatever, so that ALL other life can carry on.
  
  Intelligent life exists and always will, but most people are not intelligent enough to understand what intelligent life is.
  
  The sentence you said regarding 'happy afterlife' for example is an oxymoron.  Happiness is an emotion - emotions are of the brain, which is part of the body, which perishes at the moment of physical death.  But life as a whole carries on.  At which point you are simply the pure godly essence of life - nothing more, nothing less.  In which state, you cannot 'think', as you don't have a brain.  It's common sense.  Come on guys, stay with me here, it's stuff a child could understand. 
  
  What is more heavenly and pure than the essence of life itself.  Nothing at all.  This is what the bible is really trying to teach you all, and you have the audacity to call yourselves Christians.  If Jesus were alive today he would be ashamed of you.
  
  To think that 2000 years ago, they had more common sense than people have today.
  
  Indeed, laws are definitely required in today's society.  I never debated that. They are required simply because man is not mature enough to be responsible for his own life.  It is something which has grown into what it is through necessity to help mature man into a being which can start being responsible and intelligent.
  
  Jesus can't give you peace, a person can only do that for themselves.  Through a proper understanding of Jesus' teachings - maybe...or maybe even on their own.
  
  Have I missed anything out?
  
  Is it still too complicated to understand?
  
  Surely not.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 05, 2007....

  Forgive the bluntness...it's not that your concepts are hard to understand, it's just that you're wrong. If you don't ascribe to the Bible, you have no place saying exactly who Jesus would be ashamed of. And no, not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong as you do. Not everyone had loving parents to teach them properly, and we all need a father in God, especially those who are fatherless. Self-realization is not the end-all, be-all that you claim it to be. The sanctity of life itself is something God gave us, and I'd think the Word of God has more credibility than just being a document warped by human hands. Where was self-realization then? And the analogy about the murdered child...nice cop-out, bro. I am being this direct because you speak as if you have all the answers and are teaching us as children...but if what you teach doesn't hold water, you WILL get some confused looks. About the happy afterlife...I used those words instead of Heaven because not everyone believes in Heaven. Happiness is an emotion, you're quite right. A better word is joy. You know how people sometimes say love is a verb, an action? It's the same thing with joy - it's not just an emotion, it's a way of living life so that you are content no matter what your circumstances. I'd imagine it might sound a bit similar to self-realization or nirvana or other concepts...in Christianity it comes from gaining strength and patience from God. We have souls - not just a physical body and a brain that controls thoughts and feelings. Christians gain a new, perfect body free of flaw or defect in Heaven - how joyful is that to someone who spent life deaf, blind, mute, crippled? Thus, in Heaven we DO have brains, and are more than capable of enjoying the glory of God. Mrhowto, we agree on the importance of laws...God gave us a law to live by - not JUST for the courtroom, but in living our personal lives. He knows we need direction, and those who obey Him are known for self-control, obedience, and true freedom. Some might say that following God limits you, but I say it keeps a believer hopeful even under persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death. No one (not even Nietzche) can say Jesus was the only true Christian, and that anyone else who says they are gets it wrong. Why do I say this? Because Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, and what it is like, and what gets us there. Howto, Jesus valued our lives greatly, but he did not call us to worship it (aka, hold it above all else). We worship Him, because Jesus gave up HIS life for us, to set us free from the lawlessness and hurt. I believe following Jesus gives us much more than self-realization, in the end.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2007....

  As much as I disagree with most everything you've just said lid I hope you win this debate.  I refuse to side with Shiningstar/mrhowtwo (I find it hard to believe that two people with the same posting patterns and same belief structure are here and seemingly no place else) so even though I am closer to their belief and find it to be less dangerous I'm not gonna team up on you.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 05, 2007....

  Thanks for the support, guy. lol, I like your rationale.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2007....

  I do have morals and while I'm all about self power and self esteem his path is wrong and he's one of the people that I refuse to support because it weakens my position and ultimately his ideas are more destructive.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 05, 2007....

  I agree with you, Renaud. The comment you made about his ideas being destructive - how so? I'd like your input on that.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2007....

  For the sake of this debate I am going to speak as neutrally as possible.
   
  Shining/Mr uses an extremely unusual combination of our truths.  From you he takes a powerful figure, Jesus Christ.  It gives him a great tool to work with as far as convinvincing people that his way is right.  Once you say Jesus said something a good majority of people lose all semblance of reality.  Jesus is a VERY important person and his divinity aside what he says holds a lot of pull with the world.  By connecting his message with Jesus and then tapping into what many people (most commonly the Gnostics who believe that the God in the OT is actually the Devil and Jesus and the God he is the son of is the original greater god.  It is frightening how similar Mr. Shin's beliefs are to theirs considering he laims to have never heard of them.)  Anyway he becomes a powerful symbol.  It hurts your cause because he's hijacking Jesus which is really the defining point of your faith without him you have terribly little and turning him against you.  If his message were to become popular you'd have a lot to potentially lose.
   
  For me he ends up still teaching against evolution, he's still against much of the science that I'm against.  Worse he's against judgements which to me are an absolutely vital part of human survival.  We need to make MORE judgements not less and until and unless people realize that the world won't get better.  Radical Islam isn't something we can kill.  It is something that will die when enough Muslims stand up and say we're sick and tired of this.  These people aren't welcome in our church, they don't represent me so on and so forth.  Just like what the white community has done with the KKK.  Even most racists refuse to be associated with them.

• mrhowto said on Sep 06, 2007....

  Am clearly getting nowhere with you guys.  Shall not waste any more of my time and energy on people who would rather suffer with their own ignorance, than be free and alive now.
  
  Take care.
  

• thenack said on Sep 07, 2007....

  Is it just me or has MrHowto not actually said anything? It seems to me he came in and commented on everyones opinions without ever really saying what his own opinion is. We were only allowed loving repramands on our mistakes. But it shure sounds great! So mystical and free.
   
  Anyhow, Sean, I enjoy talking to you. On what basis will you make your judgements? Surely not on what is good for everyone?
   
  Lidstom, again, I am totally in support of you, you are super logical, just like our God who created a logical universe.

• thenack said on Sep 07, 2007....

  Oh but Sean, I am with you that the solution to all the problems in the world does not lie in more and more tollerance. Someone has to stand up and make decisions on whats right. the thing is who deicdes what is right, as I'm sure you realise.

• thenack said on Sep 07, 2007....

  Mr howto, You are right about one thing, people like being "parented", because people don't like taking responsibility. While this is true of all people, christians included, it is not Christian by definition.
   
  Anyway, I quote you "I know what is right or wrong - it's in my genes, I don't need anyone to tell me what is right and wrong, and neither does anyone else."
   
  So why then do people disagree on what is right and wrong? The only reason you could possibly give me is that right and wrong evolved differently for different people, seeing as its in your genes. So raping someone is a genetic thing, actually quite natural. Right? Unless the person feels guilty, in which case his genes said rape was wrong, and he should be punished.
   
  This is trully silly dude. But I suppose you'll find a creative way not to answer this. You'll probably say people only think they disagree, deep down everyone feels the same. This statement is actually fine, but its incompatible with evolution and genes. Cause all people could not have evolved the same, especially when its the evolution of genetic moral indicators we are talking about. Would you venture a gues on where in the genetic code the moral law is saved? Must be some of the so called "junk DNA" that scientists could understand, so thougth was useless.
   
  Everyone in the world, deep down, knows there has to be more, a higher power, a creator, the giver of universal moral law. Evidence that humans have this similarity is overwhelming. That is because they did not evolve genetic right-wrong, but was all created by God in His image and He wanted them to seek Him, so he planted a seed in everyone. Seek God, He is knoking at your door.

• exhibit_c said on Sep 07, 2007....

  thenack said,
  
  "Everyone in the world, deep down, knows there has to be more, a higher power, a creator, the giver of universal moral law."
  
  I certainly don't think this is true. Do you have any evidence?
  
  You guys might give some brain room to the long secular/academic study of right and wrong taught in the philosophy department of the world under the heading of Ethics. Some pretty smart cookies have contributed to the literature: Aristotle, Plato, Socreates, Mill, Bentham, Locke (who should be a favorite among Americans), Pascal, etc, etc.
  
  It turns out to be pretty hard to codify right and wrong in a way that doesn't read to paradoxical results, i.e. instances of great cruelty, and that's true of religious codifiers as well as secular codifiers.
  
  Jesus, you will remember, was not a codifier. He did not give out lists of "250 sins you must avoid to go to heaven." He was actually quite hard on people who taught that being moral was a matter of following rules. Perhaps that's one reason for the success of his teaching.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2007....

  We all decide both as individuals and as a society what is right and wrong.  That is why it is so important that you judge people.  Since to many people think that judge=condemn I'm going to start by saying it doesn't.  Judge means making a decision and defining something as good or bad, to you.  On Soulcast people whom you have judged as good you compliment, you read their blogs, so on and so forth.  People you have judged as bad you argue down, sometimes redicule or block.  When you see somebody doing charity hopefully you atleast nod and smile and acknowledge them doing good works.  If you see a rapists hopefully you do what is in your power to stop them.
   
  We make these decisions each and every day mostly without even thinking about them.  The fact is that we need start saying what we thing, raising up the good, punishing the wicked and the stress needs to be on APPROPRIATE action.  A boy who helps an old lady cross the street doesn't deserve a million dollars (even if you could give it to him) he deserves a pat on the back and a kind word.  A person who jaywalked doesn't deserve to be run over with a car, but a good talking to is definitely in order (particularly if you nearly hit them).
   
  As for "universal good" obviously there is no such thing but there are enough nearly universal goods that blatant rules can be set.  Murder=bad.  Charity=good.  While you can come up with hypotheticals about murdering Hitler or giving charity to the Taliban well use your individual judgement.
   
  There is no inteligent reason to believe there has to be a higher power.  NONE.  The fact that most societies have similar laws isn't proof, it's just that there is only one way that a society can form.  Most animals have similar behavior patterns of protecting children, not killing their own kind, respecting other's territory etc etc.  It's just the way life works.

• thenack said on Sep 10, 2007....

  Sean, for all your smart comments you end with "It's just the way life works." Excuse me for chuckeling at this.
   
  Am pretty bussy at the moment, will give apt reply to you and excibit ASAP. Excibit, all those smart guys noticed something that was already there (in various forms, bu there), and then they started studying it. theres your proof, and if you don't get this reasoning, go ask someone who understands formal logic.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 10, 2007....

  I think it's safe to say that the best universal goods and universal morality are in accordance with the Ten Commandments. One could say that's a coincidence, and that the Ten Commandments don't address anything we don't already know.
  
  And yet we still hate others, still commit adultery (if not with our bodies, then with our hearts), still covet what others have (keeping up with the Joneses, as it were), and so forth. At a closer look, the Commandments demand more of us than we could give. Who hasn't lusted, or hated, or coveted? Some have murdered, some have dishonored their parents, some have stolen, cheated, lied...and CERTAINLY, the most important - all of us have, at one time (myself included) worshiped something other than God. Could it be that the Ten Commandments were set down in the ancient world to establish a law that wasn't common knowledge back then? Could it be that it is the universal precedent and the reason why there's really "only one way a society can form?" I believe that is the case, personally.
  
  With a universal morality under the authority of God, there is less questioning about what is right and wrong, and there is a more thought about a decision given to proper punishment. For instance, my friend's brother had his shoes stolen in middle school by this other kid. He went to the principal and brought him and the other kid before her to figure it out. As it turned out, the principal not only refused to give the shoes back to my friend's bro, but let the other kid keep them and wear them home. That is my point exactly: if we are sketchy on the details of what is right and wrong, it is MUCH less likely we will arrive to a proper decision on punishment .
  
  The Bible claims that everyone is subject to the authority of God, and that might not matter much to some people. But what if it's true? That means reaching Enlightenment, reaching self-actualization, reaching self-realization, or worshiping yourself, Muhammed, Allah, incarnations of Brahma...all of that is for naught if the God of the Bible is the only person worth worshiping. You might ask that if that's really how it is, why isn't God's law more universal? Why isn't there definitive proof of God's existence that would make the choice obvious? Consider this: God's people saw Him in parting the Red Sea, in manna falling from Heaven, in a cloud going before them to shield the Israelites from their enemies day and night - and the people STILL doubted and complained about God! I guarantee that if God showed up in Boise today, you'd still have doubters in Brixton.
  
  Consider this also: The Bible is the bestselling book of all time. Some might think that is unfair because many times, bibles are distributed freely, apart from a person who went into a store and bought it. But it is the bestSELLING book of all time, not the most published. That means it's not like it's been published and is sitting on store shelves, collecting dust. It's sold billions of copies. No other book comes close. Don't we think that maybe the Bible contains all of the evidence of God that we need to have a relationship with Him and His Son, Jesus Christ? If we don't read the Bible, we don't understand God, and if we sit back and demand proof but do not go to the source, we missed out because of our chosen ignorance. Perhaps we aren't that willing to look in the Bible for the evidence we week.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 10, 2007....

  Why is that? Well, maybe some of us don't like the message the Bible has to say. If the Bible is true, maybe we're the ones reading it wrong. I've seen people approach the Bible the way I approached Advanced Algebra in high school: I didn't immediately understand it, so I hated it. I didn't even try to LEARN the concepts, and I quit on the whole subject because it wasn't easy. Friends, life isn't easy.
  
  But the Bible speaks of a savior in Jesus, a man who overcame the world by sacrificing His own life, by his choice, to give us hope. He's not merely a good teacher - He lived out everything in God's word, and He also gave us the proper perspective on how to live it out. He blasted the Pharisees for making belief in God a list of rules and rituals, but He also commanded - again, the Ten Commandments - that we worship God and nothing else. He also reminded us to love our neighbor as ourselves. That means that just as much as you take care of yourself, take care of others. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Shelter the homeless. How many of us are content with what we have, and never take the time to make the world a more hopeful place?
  
  God knew it would take perfection to follow the law of the Ten Commandments. None of us can do it. That's why Jesus came. And Jesus is not the savior of just the Jews, or of America, or the peoples of the Mediterranean. His Gospel is to be spread across all the world. Very few of those reading this right now will do that. That is the honest truth. And there are some who may never see the Bible as the most important document in human history. That's their choice. But remember, Christianity doesn't put to death those who defect from it. It also doesn't just tell us what we want to hear - it challenges us to follow a "universal morality" so that we can't justify bad deeds with intellectual razzmatazz. It also tells us that a life with Jesus gives us much more hope and direction than any source of power on this Earth for all time. More than our own ability, more than a destiny of molecules to man evolution, more than any other person or deity who has ever claimed the title of a "god."
  
  I firmly believe the proof we seek is in the Bible, but we must challenge ourselves to have an open mind about it. Not all of life is in black and white morally, but the Bible gives discernment to us. More than anything, the Bible gives us the knowledge and ability to be set apart from merely "just the way life works." We can change the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not with the sword, not with threats of condemnation, not with promise of all our cares taken away (this world is far too full of hurt for us to deceive ourselves that way)...but a simple message that we mess up even the best of intentions, and that Jesus gives grace and peace to everyone who believes He was who He said He was. When asked if He was the Son of God, He replied, "It is as you say."
  
  Just because the events of the Bible happened before we were around, doesn't make them fiction. In fact, human nature hasn't changed much at all in thousands of years. Whether cavemen or Californian, we'll still lie, cheat, steal, murder, lust, covet, and idolize. Oh sure, we may have the Internet, and electric cars, and iPhones, but I'm sure we were just as prideful about our own power thousands of years ago, when kings sat on thrones of solid gold and jewels, and commanded armies of men in numbers that would still amaze us today. The technology has changed, but not the human condition. That all goes to say that for the need of a savior, the Bible is just as relevant and vital today, as it was when Jesus returned to Heaven. He will come back one day, and the Bible is here to give us direction and counsel to be ready when that day comes.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 10, 2007....

  Whoa, sorry for the double post, guys - Soulcast posted that big blob of text before I signed in. I recommend reading the two-part posts with actual paragraphs! :)

Comment on "Evolutionist claim women are stupid"

Currently tagged	god Darwin men women evolution religion atheism silly men talk too much (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously