Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hell Link

Expand Messages
  • kenhaining777
    I thought I would repost this without it going into two lines. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan
    Message 1 of 23 , May 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      I thought I would repost this without it going into two lines. 

       

      http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan

    • kenhaining777
      This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing how the short circuit works. This is where I came to after leaving the fellowship. I
      Message 2 of 23 , May 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing how the "short circuit" works.  This is where I came to after leaving the fellowship.  I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking process.  I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion.  If you examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it with the same logic you would apply to anything else you were examining, then it tends to break down.  I had to either go back to shutting off my brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.

        I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still, Bible based teachings have their problems in general.  One Waymanite, who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life and the after life, for so many people.  That would make God supremely incompetent.

        All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear.  Does all of this Bible based stuff really make sense?  

        Shalom     

        http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan 

         

         

         

         

      • nancyinsanantone
        Just wondering, where the article actually is on the ethics of hell ... maybe I m not quite awake yet, but all I see are the comments.... [:-/] Shalom and
        Message 3 of 23 , May 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment

          Just wondering, where the article actually is on the "ethics of hell"... maybe I'm not quite awake yet, but all I see are the comments.... :-/

          Shalom and stuff,

          Nancy

          --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > I thought I would repost this without it going into two lines.
          >
          >
          >
          > http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan
          > <http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughla\
          > n>
          >

        • nancyinsanantone
          Ohhhhhh, I see, it s a video... I ll probably have to wait and view it from home whenever I get the chance... As far as that waymanite, or others that believe
          Message 4 of 23 , May 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            Ohhhhhh, I see, it's a video... I'll probably have to wait and view it from home whenever I get the chance...

            As far as that waymanite, or others that believe "God didn't know" that Adam was going to fall, and so had to come up with a "plan B" for mankind.?  Balderdash.  Even the most staunch bible believer should realize that the word says "Jesus is the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world"

            I still say the bible makes sense IF you see the judgement verses in light of the mercy verses, instead of the other way around.

            God is love. Love NEVER fails.

            Shalom my friend,

            Nancy 

            --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing
            > how the "short circuit" works. This is where I came to after leaving
            > the fellowship. I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking
            > process. I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion. If you
            > examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it with
            > the same logic you would apply to anything else you were examining, then
            > it tends to break down. I had to either go back to shutting off my
            > brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.
            >
            > I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still,
            > Bible based teachings have their problems in general. One Waymanite,
            > who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that
            > Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life
            > and the after life, for so many people. That would make God supremely
            > incompetent.
            >
            > All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear. Does all of
            > this Bible based stuff really make sense?
            >
            > Shalom
            >
            > http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan
            > <http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughla\
            > n>
            >

          • nancyinsanantone
            I m not able to get youtube at work, but I was looking at the comments and saw this one that should pique any christian s interest, since Jews were the first
            Message 5 of 23 , May 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment

              I'm not able to get youtube at work, but I was looking at the comments and saw this one that should pique any christian's interest, since Jews were the first christians...

              Someone called David said:

              "Judaism does not believe in Hell. There is no "stick". Please don't rope in the Jews with its offspring religions. "

              Exactly David.  That is why it "seems" if it would've been better had Jesus not come in the first place... I know that isn't right. The 2nd covenant is far more superior to the 1st supposedly, and yet NOW we have "hell to pay"....

              It just don't jive.

              --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing
              > how the "short circuit" works. This is where I came to after leaving
              > the fellowship. I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking
              > process. I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion. If you
              > examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it with
              > the same logic you would apply to anything else you were examining, then
              > it tends to break down. I had to either go back to shutting off my
              > brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.
              >
              > I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still,
              > Bible based teachings have their problems in general. One Waymanite,
              > who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that
              > Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life
              > and the after life, for so many people. That would make God supremely
              > incompetent.
              >
              > All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear. Does all of
              > this Bible based stuff really make sense?
              >
              > Shalom
              >
              > http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan
              > <http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughla\
              > n>
              >

            • Denis Dearborn
              Just a note on Richard Dawkins, has anyone seen Expelled? That s all you have to do is see this movie and Dawkins biased agenda is in the dirt nose first. I
              Message 6 of 23 , May 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Just a note on Richard Dawkins, has anyone seen Expelled? That's all you have to do is see this movie and Dawkins biased agenda is in the dirt nose first. I don't mind people with opinion but this guy is set out to try to make any thought of religion non existent. I did enjoy the debate between him and Chuck Missler, good ol Dawkins got his ass handed to him and walked off stage and it was the most professional debate I had ever viewed as far as the Christina being calm and non threatening. Crazy as Dawkins is, can you believe that while he hates the thought about God this guy actually considers that we were created from Alien life forms? Talk about no scientific fact as he rambles off at the mouth about life and origin. Any way, the guy has contributed to science in a big way, he showed how if anyone in that field even hints that they may consider creationism they will indeed be "expelled". This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though Dawkins and his clones try to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to how anyone in the science field who goes against Darwinism is literally blackballed and while they talk about equal right to teach and that both theories should be taught you then get a clear understanding why it is such a liberal bias that controls it. Everyone should see this movie religious or not, if you believe in freedom and rights of equality this should be of zero offense to anyone.
                nancyinsanantone <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                I'm not able to get youtube at work, but I was looking at the comments and saw this one that should pique any christian's interest, since Jews were the first christians.. .
                Someone called David said:
                "Judaism does not believe in Hell. There is no "stick". Please don't rope in the Jews with its offspring religions. "
                Exactly David.  That is why it "seems" if it would've been better had Jesus not come in the first place... I know that isn't right. The 2nd covenant is far more superior to the 1st supposedly, and yet NOW we have "hell to pay"....
                It just don't jive.

                --- In Escape_from_ the_Fellowship@ yahoogroups. com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing
                > how the "short circuit" works. This is where I came to after leaving
                > the fellowship. I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking
                > process. I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion. If you
                > examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it with
                > the same logic you would apply to anything else you were examining, then
                > it tends to break down. I had to either go back to shutting off my
                > brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.
                >
                > I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still,
                > Bible based teachings have their problems in general. One Waymanite,
                > who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that
                > Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life
                > and the after life, for so many people. That would make God supremely
                > incompetent.
                >
                > All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear. Does all of
                > this Bible based stuff really make sense?
                >
                > Shalom
                >
                > http://richarddawki ns.net/article, 1075,The- Ethics-of- Hell,Brian- Coughlan
                > <http://richarddawki ns.net/article, 1075,The- Ethics-of- Hell,Brian- Coughla\
                > n>
                >


                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

              • The Graduate
                I m a scientist and I don t believe in Creation, but I agree with Denis. Dawkins has an unnatural bias towards Creationists. Actually a lot of scientists do. I
                Message 7 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm a scientist and I don't believe in Creation, but I agree with
                  Denis. Dawkins has an unnatural bias towards Creationists. Actually a
                  lot of scientists do. I try to avoid them and if I can't then just
                  avoid listening to their opinions. As to my opinion on the matter, I
                  think that challenging creation without ever having read the Bible is
                  as stupid as challenging evolution without ever having read Darwin's
                  Origins Of The Species.

                  The rest of this post I'm just stirring, so please nobody get offended
                  (unless you really want to).

                  The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that
                  the latter don't even bother to read the Bible before coming up with
                  their half-arsed opinions. But as we know, the vast majority of
                  believers do take the time to actually read Darwin's theory before
                  they make up their minds.

                  Seriously though, I don't think anybody needs to see Dawkins' video or
                  the Expelled video. Just read the Bible and read Darwin's theory for
                  yourself and then make up your own mind.



                  > Just a note on Richard Dawkins, has anyone seen Expelled? That's all
                  you have to do is see this movie and Dawkins biased agenda is in the
                  dirt nose first. I don't mind people with opinion but this guy is set
                  out to try to make any thought of religion non existent. I did enjoy
                  the debate between him and Chuck Missler, good ol Dawkins got his ass
                  handed to him and walked off stage and it was the most professional
                  debate I had ever viewed as far as the Christina being calm and non
                  threatening. Crazy as Dawkins is, can you believe that while he hates
                  the thought about God this guy actually considers that we were created
                  from Alien life forms? Talk about no scientific fact as he rambles off
                  at the mouth about life and origin. Any way, the guy has contributed
                  to science in a big way, he showed how if anyone in that field even
                  hints that they may consider creationism they will indeed be
                  "expelled". This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though
                  Dawkins and his clones try
                  > to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to how
                  anyone in the science field who goes against Darwinism is literally
                  blackballed and while they talk about equal right to teach and that
                  both theories should be taught you then get a clear understanding why
                  it is such a liberal bias that controls it. Everyone should see this
                  movie religious or not, if you believe in freedom and rights of
                  equality this should be of zero offense to anyone.
                  > nancyinsanantone <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: I'm
                  not able to get youtube at work, but I was looking at the comments and
                  saw this one that should pique any christian's interest, since Jews
                  were the first christians...
                  > Someone called David said:
                  > "Judaism does not believe in Hell. There is no "stick". Please
                  don't rope in the Jews with its offspring religions. "
                  > Exactly David. That is why it "seems" if it would've been better
                  had Jesus not come in the first place... I know that isn't right. The
                  2nd covenant is far more superior to the 1st supposedly, and yet NOW
                  we have "hell to pay"....
                  > It just don't jive.
                  >
                  > --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777
                  <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing
                  > > how the "short circuit" works. This is where I came to after leaving
                  > > the fellowship. I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking
                  > > process. I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion. If you
                  > > examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it
                  with
                  > > the same logic you would apply to anything else you were
                  examining, then
                  > > it tends to break down. I had to either go back to shutting off my
                  > > brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.
                  > >
                  > > I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still,
                  > > Bible based teachings have their problems in general. One Waymanite,
                  > > who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that
                  > > Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life
                  > > and the after life, for so many people. That would make God supremely
                  > > incompetent.
                  > >
                  > > All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear. Does all of
                  > > this Bible based stuff really make sense?
                  > >
                  > > Shalom
                  > >
                  > >
                  http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughlan
                  > >
                  <http://richarddawkins.net/article,1075,The-Ethics-of-Hell,Brian-Coughla\
                  > > n>
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
                  Try it now.
                  >
                • kenhaining777
                  Perry said: [The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that the latter don t even bother to read the Bible before coming up with their
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Perry said:

                    [The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that
                    the latter don't even bother to read the Bible before coming up with
                    their half-arsed opinions. But as we know, the vast majority of
                    believers do take the time to actually read Darwin's theory before
                    they make up their minds.]

                    Perhaps that is true of Christians who are scientists, but most believers I have talked to are not really familiar with Darwin.  What I encounter is severe mocking when I bring up evolution to Christian believers.  They call scientists who subscribe to Darwin "idiots," or, "fools," and the like. 

                    Also, I think most scientists who object to creationist theories have at least read the creation story in Genesis.  The scientific mind would, naturally, reject the idea of things being spoken into existence by a magical god who remains invisible to the supposed crown of his creation, man.  They don't have to read the whole Bible to make a decision on the creationist theory. 

                    The problem I have with the whole debate is that there is no middle ground.  How about acknowledging that there is intelligent design in nature, but also acknowledging that man has come up with a lot of mythology to explain that intelligent design, including the story in Genesis?  Why would anyone think that intelligent design being present in life on planet earth would mean that an invisible, big daddy god made all of it by speaking it into existence?  Thinking that alien life forms might have sown the seeds of life on a suitable planet is no where near as far fetched as saying an invisible, big daddy god spoke, and bang, there it was.

                    The thing I found interesting on the video is the "short circuit" that the narrator mentioned.  Religion teaches people to fear to analyze that religion with the same kind of logic that you would analyze anything else.  Religious people must have invented rationalization to explain all of the contradictions of their religions.  Unfortunately, some people judge one religion with sheer logic, only to join another religion that is just as flawed as the one they left. 

                    May the Force Be with You

                     

                     

                     

                  • potkonyak
                    Perry wrote: [The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that the latter don t even bother to read the Bible before coming up with their
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Perry wrote:
                      [The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that
                      the latter don't even bother to read the Bible before coming up with
                      their half-arsed opinions. But as we know, the vast majority of
                      believers do take the time to actually read Darwin's theory before
                      they make up their minds.]

                      I have Darwin's "On the Origin of Species...", as well as Qur'an,
                      have read good parts of the Book of Mormon and a writing (the title
                      escapes me) of a modern day Buddhist teacher - in addition to several
                      transaltions of the bible (including the Serbian one) and the Hebrew
                      and Greek dictionary and concordance. So no "pastor" can tell me what
                      those people or books say or don't say: I can see it for myself.

                      It seems to me that Darwin was not arguing or been concerned with the
                      question of divine creation or otherwise. He was arguing against the
                      claim by the creationists that each and every species has been
                      created in the form as it is today. He refers to this claim quite
                      often, for instance:

                      "On the view that each species has been independently created, with
                      all its parts as we now see them, I can see no explanation. But on
                      the view that groups of species have descended from other species,
                      and have been modified through natural selection, I think we can
                      obtain some light."

                      The most explicit statement comes in the following passage (pay
                      attention to the first part of the last paragraph)

                      "Organs of extreme perfection and complication."

                      "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
                      adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
                      amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
                      aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
                      freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason
                      tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye
                      to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
                      possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
                      so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
                      case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever
                      useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the
                      difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be
                      formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination,
                      can hardly be considered real.

                      How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more
                      than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several
                      facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered
                      sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the
                      air which produce sound."

                      In his argument against the separate creation of each and every
                      species, without any further mutations, Darwin wrote:

                      "To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an
                      unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God
                      a mere mockery and deception..."

                      This is exactly my view on some of the claims by those who try to
                      hide behind the bible in order to exert their authority over their
                      slaves (they called them "disciples"). The most glaring example is
                      the 6-day creation. The bible itself does not claim that.

                      shalom
                      george
                    • potkonyak
                      What a coincidence! I just posted my message only to see Ken s. Both of us quoted exactly the same passage from Perry s post! The great minds are always in
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What a coincidence! I just posted my message only to see Ken's. Both
                        of us quoted exactly the same passage from Perry's post!

                        The great minds are always in agreement... well, almost...;^)

                        shalom
                        george
                      • kenhaining777
                        Dennis said: [This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though Dawkins and his clones try to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Dennis said:

                          [This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though Dawkins and his clones try to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to how anyone in the science field who goes against Darwinism is literally blackballed and while they talk about equal right to teach and that both theories should be taught you then get a clear understanding why it is such a liberal bias that controls it. Everyone should see this movie religious or not, if you believe in freedom and rights of equality this should be of zero offense to anyone.]

                          Teaching from a religious document, whether it be the Bible or the Koran, has no place in a science class.  Arguments that there is intelligent design in nature in no way supports the idea that the Genesis creation story is true.  This is the missing element.  You can argue intelligent design, and that some intelligent force is behind life on Earth, but you can't say that it is therefore connected to mythological stories in the Bible or otherwise.  That is the position of the scientific community, and they are right.

                          If you were to travel back in time and show the Christian people of say 400 or 500 years ago some modern technology, you would likely be burned for witchcraft.  The church has a history of resisting science.  All Galileo did was look through a telescope and confirm that the Earth does revolve around the Sun.  For that he was accused of being a heretic, and if not for his friendship with the Pope he would have almost certainly been executed.  Why?  Because the Bible says the earth doesn't move, but science contradicted it.  So Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest, after he was forced to recant the truth. 

                          Only in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence has the church backed down.  Until recent history, the church firmly believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old.  In the face of tons of evidence that the Earth is much, much older than that, the church came up with the "Pre Adamic World."  That's not really in the Bible, but they had to come up with something.  

                          Oh, and then there is the mounting evidence that evolution is a fact.  So what are Christians doing?  They have come up with "micro evolution" as opposed to "macro evolution."  I talked to several Christians about this.  While they reject the evolutionary theory in general, they say that certain animals evolved into similar animals.  Since it would have been scientifically impossible for all the land based animals of the world to be on a mountain in what today is the country of Turkey just about 4000 years ago, they had to come up with something.  I had one young Christian woman tell that ants became the thousands of species that exist today by different species inter mating.  Ants don't do that.  Different species generally try to kill each other.  

                          Isolated ecosystems have unique life forms.  Why?  What is the Biblical explanation for that?  I'll give you a hint.  There isn't one.  But I am sure that some Christians somewhere will come up with more amusing theories to try and make the Bible work on a scientific basis.  It doesn't work, and that is why I finally had to sadly conclude that it was not the Word of the One True God.  Some good stuff in there, but it is not "the truth."

                          When I look at history I see the Christian religion, in many instances, resisting science.  There was a time when the church considered things like surgery to be demonic.  And here we are hundreds of years later, and we sat under a religious leader who says that chiropractors impart demons.  Not much different.  The superstition in religion is the antithesis of science.   

                          So, if a scientist wants to give an alternate theory of life on planet Earth, that looks at life as having some kind of intelligent force behind it that designed it, I have no problem with that.  But if they want to attach that to a particular religious belief, and particular religious documents, then I don't think that should be allowed at all, unless it is a religious school.  Would you want your kids being taught intelligent design of life in public schools based on the Koran?  I think not.  So, really these scientists have a religious agenda when they are bringing in a particular religion, and particular religious documents.  If that is their agenda, then they need to teach in a religious institution, not in a general college.

                          Live Long and Prosper

                           

                           

                           

                           

                        • kenhaining777
                          Nancy said: [Ohhhhhh, I see, it s a video... I ll probably have to wait and view it from home whenever I get the chance...] He makes the some of the same
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Nancy said:

                            [Ohhhhhh, I see, it's a video... I'll probably have to wait and view it from home whenever I get the chance...]

                             

                            He makes the some of the same points about God putting people in hell for eternity that you make.  His conclusion is that the Bible is false and God doesn't exist.  Your conclusion is that God will eventually save everyone. 

                            The contradiction of God "so loved the world," and the vast majority of that world being horribly tortured for eternity, would need a resolution.  As I mentioned in my other post, religious people must have invented rationalization.  They need it to justify their religious beliefs. 

                            Live Long and Prosper

                             

                             

                          • Denis Dearborn
                            What is interesting about anything that has to do with Darwin is indeed the evolution of the man himself. I read a book on his genealogy and life history that
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              What is interesting about anything that has to do with Darwin is indeed the evolution of the man himself. I read a book on his genealogy and life history that was written back in 1903. When I get the title I will give it to you. So, about this book, it seems to prove true to this day that although scientist cling to all the experiments that they try and fail at over and over again, it makes me laugh to know that the man Darwin himself had zero education when it came to science yet here we are now with some of the greatest  a"hem....minds, telling us about the Father of evolution Darwin. When you understand that the man himself was a devout practicer of religion and happened to live in incest that resulted in his 1st baby to die, one would now wonder what kind of crazy thing a man would think of to completely go against what he had held as the truth his whole life until this event.
                               
                              As is with everyone Ken, the unbeliever who listens to this is no different than the religious people they accuse of clinging to some off the wall belief. What you said about evolution becoming more fact is strict opinion and there is zero evidence to back that. For as many you can quote to say yay or nay, I can do the same. How do you know how old the earth is really? How does anyone know? For the love of Pete, do you remember the great story of the carbon dated barbie doll that was alleged to be over 300k years old? This was not a myth, as a matter of fact it was broadcasted on the discovery channel due to the inaccuracy of the carbon test itself. Many of the testing gadgets they use in the science world to determine age is no better than a lie detector unit.
                               
                              The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so evolutionary that it's great to have a theory just so you can change it as the years go on..... sound familiar? Religion? Change over the years? Theory? same thing? Dr Carl Baugh is considered by many as a nutcase yet his contributions to the science community were one of the greatest in his field until he found that the Bible was indeed true according to his own studies. How can a man be considered one of the leading minds for over 35 years and then just because he now submits evidence to back a theory about biblical documentation he is now considered a loon? If you could explain that, I think you would get the Nobel prize or you could view Expelled and even see the hero of the athiest Dawkins shown for his true agenda. I do not believe in the whole earth being 6k years old, this guy does but he also proved with factual evidence that man and prehistoric dinosaurs roamed the earth together, hence destroying the entire realm of Darwin's evolution. Will the science community admit this? Of coarse not! Many of our scientist from the older days did in fact believe in a God it was not until our generation when the whole atheist thing bloomed with a few morons and where there is one idiot, you will always find more joining the circus.
                               
                              If you yourself truly think that it is more believable or humanly acceptable to think that we are a bi product of alien life form rather than a Creator then that's your opinion but i can tell you this, you are one of the very few who would accept this. I have posed this question to every science buff I know even to the head of biology at UMass and Boston University and I always get the same answer( What are you  one of those ones who think that "God" created the earth?) Mind you they say this because the question although simple is one science will never understand until they come to grips with the fact that an actual intelligent life-form had a hand in the design and the power to give life.  Remember Ken, scientific fact is this, DNA cannot co exist without a life giver, without DNA we cannot be, DNA had to be designed but who designed it? Ahhhh, yes, musta been that alien who dropped us off in the oceans 10 billion years ago. IMO, you have to be mentally disrupted to believe in such a fairy tail. Talk about big daddy God? Yeah, the probability of us changing from micro organisms is of coarse much more believable when man cannot even tell us how old a plastic doll is :)
                              kenhaining777 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              Dennis said:
                              [This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though Dawkins and his clones try to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to how anyone in the science field who goes against Darwinism is literally blackballed and while they talk about equal right to teach and that both theories should be taught you then get a clear understanding why it is such a liberal bias that controls it. Everyone should see this movie religious or not, if you believe in freedom and rights of equality this should be of zero offense to anyone.]
                              Teaching from a religious document, whether it be the Bible or the Koran, has no place in a science class.  Arguments that there is intelligent design in nature in no way supports the idea that the Genesis creation story is true.  This is the missing element.  You can argue intelligent design, and that some intelligent force is behind life on Earth, but you can't say that it is therefore connected to mythological stories in the Bible or otherwise.  That is the position of the scientific community, and they are right.
                              If you were to travel back in time and show the Christian people of say 400 or 500 years ago some modern technology, you would likely be burned for witchcraft.  The church has a history of resisting science.  All Galileo did was look through a telescope and confirm that the Earth does revolve around the Sun.  For that he was accused of being a heretic, and if not for his friendship with the Pope he would have almost certainly been executed.  Why?  Because the Bible says the earth doesn't move, but science contradicted it.  So Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest, after he was forced to recant the truth. 
                              Only in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence has the church backed down.  Until recent history, the church firmly believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old.  In the face of tons of evidence that the Earth is much, much older than that, the church came up with the "Pre Adamic World."  That's not really in the Bible, but they had to come up with something.  
                              Oh, and then there is the mounting evidence that evolution is a fact.  So what are Christians doing?  They have come up with "micro evolution" as opposed to "macro evolution."  I talked to several Christians about this.  While they reject the evolutionary theory in general, they say that certain animals evolved into similar animals.  Since it would have been scientifically impossible for all the land based animals of the world to be on a mountain in what today is the country of Turkey just about 4000 years ago, they had to come up with something.  I had one young Christian woman tell that ants became the thousands of species that exist today by different species inter mating.  Ants don't do that.  Different species generally try to kill each other.  
                              Isolated ecosystems have unique life forms.  Why?  What is the Biblical explanation for that?  I'll give you a hint.  There isn't one.  But I am sure that some Christians somewhere will come up with more amusing theories to try and make the Bible work on a scientific basis.  It doesn't work, and that is why I finally had to sadly conclude that it was not the Word of the One True God.  Some good stuff in there, but it is not "the truth."
                              When I look at history I see the Christian religion, in many instances, resisting science.  There was a time when the church considered things like surgery to be demonic.  And here we are hundreds of years later, and we sat under a religious leader who says that chiropractors impart demons.  Not much different.  The superstition in religion is the antithesis of science.   
                              So, if a scientist wants to give an alternate theory of life on planet Earth, that looks at life as having some kind of intelligent force behind it that designed it, I have no problem with that.  But if they want to attach that to a particular religious belief, and particular religious documents, then I don't think that should be allowed at all, unless it is a religious school.  Would you want your kids being taught intelligent design of life in public schools based on the Koran?  I think not.  So, really these scientists have a religious agenda when they are bringing in a particular religion, and particular religious documents.  If that is their agenda, then they need to teach in a religious institution, not in a general college.
                              Live Long and Prosper
                               
                               
                               

                               


                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                            • Denis Dearborn
                              To bad not everyone though like you, our world with science would be so much more productive. I also agree with Ken in some of what he said. Just because a
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To bad not everyone though like you, our world with science would be so much more productive. I also agree with Ken in some of what he said. Just because a scientist says that there is indeed a creator he doesn't have to give him a name to teach it. The point is in our schools, evolution is no more a fairy tail than God is in the opinions of others. I want my children to know both ends of the claims. I will try to raise my children according to the bible as best I can and after 18 they can choose and I will still love them regardless but this biased agenda is so heavy upon our system at least here in the US you can see why our educational system ranks pretty low. When you got a bunch of people running around thinking they were once fish, then apes:) But on a more serious note, I did serve with a guy and I swear he looked just like this gorilla I seen on the cover of a national geographic book, I'm not making this up. I mean if I bathed this guy with rogaine for about a year and threw him in the bush, the real apes would think he was one of them.
                                 
                                America also has this wonderful idea of teaching kids that theory is fact, this is why you have a small % of idiots in the world who walk around yelling abut contradictions etc and I wont even get into who can think for themselves. Teach the history of people and teach it fair. I think that is the big thing, FAIR. Let people make there own minds up without hearing the negative BS that seems to be so active when the subject comes up. Again, this will never happen because agenda will always overcome fairness .

                                The Graduate <lokilad@...> wrote:
                                I'm a scientist and I don't believe in Creation, but I agree with
                                Denis. Dawkins has an unnatural bias towards Creationists. Actually a
                                lot of scientists do. I try to avoid them and if I can't then just
                                avoid listening to their opinions. As to my opinion on the matter, I
                                think that challenging creation without ever having read the Bible is
                                as stupid as challenging evolution without ever having read Darwin's
                                Origins Of The Species.

                                The rest of this post I'm just stirring, so please nobody get offended
                                (unless you really want to).

                                The reason I like creationists much more than evolutionists is that
                                the latter don't even bother to read the Bible before coming up with
                                their half-arsed opinions. But as we know, the vast majority of
                                believers do take the time to actually read Darwin's theory before
                                they make up their minds.

                                Seriously though, I don't think anybody needs to see Dawkins' video or
                                the Expelled video. Just read the Bible and read Darwin's theory for
                                yourself and then make up your own mind.

                                > Just a note on Richard Dawkins, has anyone seen Expelled? That's all
                                you have to do is see this movie and Dawkins biased agenda is in the
                                dirt nose first. I don't mind people with opinion but this guy is set
                                out to try to make any thought of religion non existent. I did enjoy
                                the debate between him and Chuck Missler, good ol Dawkins got his ass
                                handed to him and walked off stage and it was the most professional
                                debate I had ever viewed as far as the Christina being calm and non
                                threatening. Crazy as Dawkins is, can you believe that while he hates
                                the thought about God this guy actually considers that we were created
                                from Alien life forms? Talk about no scientific fact as he rambles off
                                at the mouth about life and origin. Any way, the guy has contributed
                                to science in a big way, he showed how if anyone in that field even
                                hints that they may consider creationism they will indeed be
                                "expelled". This movie by the way is not pro Christian even though
                                Dawkins and his clones try
                                > to say it is, for the most part it is a complete exposure to how
                                anyone in the science field who goes against Darwinism is literally
                                blackballed and while they talk about equal right to teach and that
                                both theories should be taught you then get a clear understanding why
                                it is such a liberal bias that controls it. Everyone should see this
                                movie religious or not, if you believe in freedom and rights of
                                equality this should be of zero offense to anyone.
                                > nancyinsanantone <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com> wrote: I'm
                                not able to get youtube at work, but I was looking at the comments and
                                saw this one that should pique any christian's interest, since Jews
                                were the first christians.. .
                                > Someone called David said:
                                > "Judaism does not believe in Hell. There is no "stick". Please
                                don't rope in the Jews with its offspring religions. "
                                > Exactly David. That is why it "seems" if it would've been better
                                had Jesus not come in the first place... I know that isn't right. The
                                2nd covenant is far more superior to the 1st supposedly, and yet NOW
                                we have "hell to pay"....
                                > It just don't jive.
                                >
                                > --- In Escape_from_ the_Fellowship@ yahoogroups. com, kenhaining777
                                <no_reply@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > This video does an excellent job, for a brief presentation, of showing
                                > > how the "short circuit" works. This is where I came to after leaving
                                > > the fellowship. I realized that I had been short circuting my thinking
                                > > process. I was trained to do that by the Waymanchrist religion. If you
                                > > examine Christian religion, or Bible based religion, and you do it
                                with
                                > > the same logic you would apply to anything else you were
                                examining, then
                                > > it tends to break down. I had to either go back to shutting off my
                                > > brain, or let myself see what I was so clearly seeing.
                                > >
                                > > I know that Nancy's beliefs circumvent the hell argument, but still,
                                > > Bible based teachings have their problems in general. One Waymanite,
                                > > who posts on another message board, insists that God had no idea that
                                > > Adam was going to fall and bring in all this misery, both in this life
                                > > and the after life, for so many people. That would make God supremely
                                > > incompetent.
                                > >
                                > > All it takes is allowing yourself to think without fear. Does all of
                                > > this Bible based stuff really make sense?
                                > >
                                > > Shalom
                                > >
                                > >
                                http://richarddawki ns.net/article, 1075,The- Ethics-of- Hell,Brian- Coughlan
                                > >
                                <http://richarddawki ns.net/article, 1075,The- Ethics-of- Hell,Brian- Coughla\
                                > > n>
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
                                Try it now.
                                >



                                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                              • kenhaining777
                                Dennis said: [The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so evolutionary that it s great to have a theory just so you can change it as the
                                Message 15 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Dennis said:

                                  [The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so evolutionary that it's great to have a theory just so you can change it as the years go on..... sound familiar? Religion? Change over the years? Theory? same thing? Dr Carl Baugh is considered by many as a nutcase yet his contributions to the science community were one of the greatest in his field until he found that the Bible was indeed true according to his own studies. How can a man be considered one of the leading minds for over 35 years and then just because he now submits evidence to back a theory about biblical documentation he is now considered a loon?]

                                  If a man with a great scientific mind studied the Koran and became a Moslem, would that lend credence to the Moslem religion, as far as you were concerned?  My son was reading some stuff out of a magazine where "secular" scientists were talking with Moslem scientists.  It was the same stuff about creation, and when really pinned down, the Moslem scientists would fall back on the Koran as God's truth.  So, would you think that the Moslem religion had great credibility if there are great Moslem scientists? 

                                  Explain isolated ecosystems having different species than other regions of the world.  How does that fit in with the Noah's ark story?  It doesn't.  That's not just an opinion, it flat doesn't.  However, it does fit in with evolution. 

                                  Given trillions upon trillions of incidents involving different elements of energy and matter, it is possible that DNA resulted.  I personally think there is intelligence in the Universe.  However, as I keep pointing out, some stories that ancient man wrote to try and explain our existence are in no way proven by there being intelligence in the Universe.  That is the flaw of the creationist argument.  They make a false conclusion.  They say, if there is intelligent design, then the Bible is true.  Quite frankly, that's retarded.  The Moslems could say the same thing about the Koran. 

                                  There are a lot of ways of determining the age of things besides carbon dating.  However, carbon dating is fairly reliable in most cases, and had been successful most of the time.  If you are testing plastic, and think you are testing something else, you can be totally off.  Thus the ancient doll.  But if anything would be subject to mockery, it would be the Bible time line.  Again, the Noah's ark story comes to mind.  Do you really think all the land based animals were on a mountain in Turkey 4000 years ago?  And what about the different races of man coming out of just Adam and Eve 6000 years ago? 

                                  The evidence for evolution is mounting.  They have discovered dinosaur remains with feathers.  It seems the idea that they were the ancestors of birds is gaining more credence.  How do you explain there being all of these remains and fossils of animals that at one time existed on this planet, but now are extinct?  The animals of today did not exist side by side with them, but appear later in the strata of the earth.  This contradicts the idea that God made all the animals around the same time.  Where did the animals that came after the dinosaurs come from?  There are more and more ancient animals whose fossils are being discovered all the time.  Some kind of adaptation had to be taking place for animal life to have survived until now.  The Bible doesn't explain all those fossils remains, leading up to the animals and plants of today, but evolution does.

                                  Perhaps there is an intelligence behind evolution.  The Force?  Who knows?  But I still think ancient stories were invented to try and explain our existence as best as ancient man could.  Hardly something to base your life on.

                                  Shalom

                                   

                                   

                                • The Graduate
                                  ... My skull structure resembles that of a Neanderthal. Seriously. Go figure.
                                  Message 16 of 23 , May 1, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > I did serve with a guy and I swear he looked just like this gorilla
                                    > I seen on the cover of a national geographic book, I'm not making
                                    > this up. I mean if I bathed this guy with rogaine for about a year
                                    > and threw him in the bush, the real apes would think he was one of
                                    > them.

                                    My skull structure resembles that of a Neanderthal. Seriously. Go figure.
                                  • Denis Dearborn
                                    I used to be able to pick up socks and other things with my toes, I wonder if I could be on to something here? The Graduate wrote:
                                    Message 17 of 23 , May 2, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I used to be able to pick up socks and other things with my toes, I wonder if I could be on to something here?

                                      The Graduate <lokilad@...> wrote:
                                      > I did serve with a guy and I swear he looked just like this gorilla
                                      > I seen on the cover of a national geographic book, I'm not making
                                      > this up. I mean if I bathed this guy with rogaine for about a year
                                      > and threw him in the bush, the real apes would think he was one of
                                      > them.

                                      My skull structure resembles that of a Neanderthal. Seriously. Go figure.



                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                                    • Denis Dearborn
                                      Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does one have to be the
                                      Message 18 of 23 , May 2, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does one have to be the God of the Koran or the God of the Bible? YOu also seem to mock the Bible as if it was supposed to be some sort of book on scientific theory, as you know it's not so you have no argument there and while the world at large tries to compair the Bible as such, this is where we always end up. The last point is where have you heard many of these alleged facts other than the CFM?LOL
                                         
                                        As far as the global flood, there is penty of evidance that sugjests that it did happen. AS said, it just depends on who you listen to when dealing with it. For instance check out the studies by the following as I have already myself done so,
                                        Dr. Thomas Barnes, Fossile record, this reading is very interesting and I have also looked into the whole geological colum theory myself. What makes me dismiss it as BS is that indeed as Carl Baugh has proven is that only a small % of the earths surface is subject to this but what realy takes the cake is that the colum is indeed filled with polystrate fossils wich would then tie the time lines together to one time frame, hence destroying the speculation of time lines of life between different animals and man.
                                         
                                        Henry Voss also proved through sedimentory layering that the basic theory on this in the science community at large is that it did indeed happen at such a rapid pace this is how they prove the fact that earth was indeed under water. ONe film I watched was very interesting it was on the basis of fossil recovery but what was interesting was that  the dinosaurs when recovered in a semi to full skeliton they all are in the same position. This position is when the head is always thrown back and we can google prehistoric fossiles and see this without haveing to read about it. The conclusion was that when the flood waters came these reptiles trying to get air died in such a position that once again supports this theory. I would have to coppie the whole book on here to shed the light on the many pionts to make clear understanding but I know most of us are educated enough to already know what this is talking about.
                                         
                                        People: Ken, this is what really seperates at lest myself from others,as you know many CFMers amongst others will grab the latest book writen by some guy who claimes he now knows the answers to biblical events and then when the pastor overhears the conversation he then throws it into a sermon hence the whole NASA vs the 1 day of light theory. By the way, you never did get back to me on that. I did prove that the timeline in question is caculated into a formula that is used to this day by the military at large and it is strait out of the Bible :)
                                        Anyway about these "people" I 99% of the time will challenge what anything says seen as how I didnt seem to be of that mind frame while under the spell of Mitch. For instance, if I buy a book, I will read up on the guy who wrote it and find out what the person actually did. I also do not pay attention to google, anyone who quotes sites and such from the net is pretty much dismissed unless it is an official site. So many people read something, dont agree with it, and then promote a website telling you why they feel it's worng. The bad thing is all the idiots who actually listen to these "trolls" and think that somehow they know more about the subject matter thatn the person who studdied it for 40 years just by reading an opinion that they claim is fact due to biased accounts, again, no different than a religous person with there claimes.

                                        kenhaining777 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                        Dennis said:
                                        [The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so evolutionary that it's great to have a theory just so you can change it as the years go on..... sound familiar? Religion? Change over the years? Theory? same thing? Dr Carl Baugh is considered by many as a nutcase yet his contributions to the science community were one of the greatest in his field until he found that the Bible was indeed true according to his own studies. How can a man be considered one of the leading minds for over 35 years and then just because he now submits evidence to back a theory about biblical documentation he is now considered a loon?]
                                        If a man with a great scientific mind studied the Koran and became a Moslem, would that lend credence to the Moslem religion, as far as you were concerned?  My son was reading some stuff out of a magazine where "secular" scientists were talking with Moslem scientists.  It was the same stuff about creation, and when really pinned down, the Moslem scientists would fall back on the Koran as God's truth.  So, would you think that the Moslem religion had great credibility if there are great Moslem scientists? 
                                        Explain isolated ecosystems having different species than other regions of the world.  How does that fit in with the Noah's ark story?  It doesn't.  That's not just an opinion, it flat doesn't.  However, it does fit in with evolution. 
                                        Given trillions upon trillions of incidents involving different elements of energy and matter, it is possible that DNA resulted.  I personally think there is intelligence in the Universe.  However, as I keep pointing out, some stories that ancient man wrote to try and explain our existence are in no way proven by there being intelligence in the Universe.  That is the flaw of the creationist argument.  They make a false conclusion.  They say, if there is intelligent design, then the Bible is true.  Quite frankly, that's retarded.  The Moslems could say the same thing about the Koran. 
                                        There are a lot of ways of determining the age of things besides carbon dating.  However, carbon dating is fairly reliable in most cases, and had been successful most of the time.  If you are testing plastic, and think you are testing something else, you can be totally off.  Thus the ancient doll.  But if anything would be subject to mockery, it would be the Bible time line.  Again, the Noah's ark story comes to mind.  Do you really think all the land based animals were on a mountain in Turkey 4000 years ago?  And what about the different races of man coming out of just Adam and Eve 6000 years ago? 
                                        The evidence for evolution is mounting.  They have discovered dinosaur remains with feathers.  It seems the idea that they were the ancestors of birds is gaining more credence.  How do you explain there being all of these remains and fossils of animals that at one time existed on this planet, but now are extinct?  The animals of today did not exist side by side with them, but appear later in the strata of the earth.  This contradicts the idea that God made all the animals around the same time.  Where did the animals that came after the dinosaurs come from?  There are more and more ancient animals whose fossils are being discovered all the time.  Some kind of adaptation had to be taking place for animal life to have survived until now.  The Bible doesn't explain all those fossils remains, leading up to the animals and plants of today, but evolution does.
                                        Perhaps there is an intelligence behind evolution.  The Force?  Who knows?  But I still think ancient stories were invented to try and explain our existence as best as ancient man could.  Hardly something to base your life on.
                                        Shalom
                                         
                                         


                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                                      • nancyinsanantone
                                        “Henry Voss also proved through sedimentary layering that the basic theory on this in the science community at large is that it did indeed happen at such
                                        Message 19 of 23 , May 2, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          “Henry Voss also proved through sedimentary layering that the basic theory on this in the science community at large is that it did indeed happen at such a rapid pace this is how they prove the fact that earth was indeed under water.”

                                           

                                          Not far from San Antonio there is a great recreational lake by the name of “Canyon Lake” ,  a few years back we had tremendous flooding in the area, and lo and behold, a brand new canyon was formed in the area that has become quite a tourist attraction.  While it looks like it could’ve taken thousands of years to form, it was indeed created by ONE hellacious flood.

                                           

                                          Now about evolution, I have a few questions about the human body.  Why is it that we possess an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, that hangy-down thing in the back of the throat (uvula), when in actuality we can live perfectly well WITHOUT them??  What is the actual purpose of the uvula?  I remember a BUGS BUNNY cartoon when he was in a giants mouth using the “uvula” as a punching bag ?! B-)

                                           

                                          Also in Brazil, apparently some “probable new species” have been discovered â€" I wouldn’t agree that they are NEW, but they are evolved. QUOTE:

                                           

                                          “A legless lizard, knobby horned toad and mini-woodpecker have come out of hiding in Brazil, where scientists recently spotted the basket of probable new species.

                                          With a pointed snout and missing legs, the new Bachia lizard species looks like a slithering snake. The new horned toad belongs to the genus Proceratophrys.

                                          The clutch of suspected new species includes 12 others, including eight fish, three reptiles, an amphibian, a mammal and a bird.

                                          The animals were discovered in wooded grasslands that carpet about 20 percent of Brazil.Called the Cerrado, the grasslands once covered an area half the size of Europe, though they are now being converted to crop- and ranchlands at twice the rate of the neighboring Amazon rain forest, the researchers say.

                                          It usually takes weeks or months of careful comparative work back in the lab to definitely establish animals as new species, but biologists who spend a lot of time studying a group of animals or a region are often correct when they suspect they've found new species.”

                                          So, obviously there have been changes in species through the years…

                                           

                                          As for religion --  I forgot who said “religion is an opiate for the masses” …..

                                          but as for me,

                                          Believing that SOMEONE really is ultimately in control of this big mess personally brings ME comfort! I would hate to think that I was just some “organism” or “accident of happenstance”.  Jesus brings me comfort, for me HE is real â€" and either I have some really good luck, or He has saved my bacon on numerous occasions. 

                                          I just don’t believe in being “exclusive” anymore , and that I am right and everyone else has it wrong, and they can burn for it.   

                                          The Potterites can have that gig!

                                          I believe what I believe by faith.  And THAT (faith) we know can’t be proved by science.

                                          As far as the bible.  I think some parts are history, some parts are literal, and some parts are parables or myths to teach a spiritual lesson.

                                          That is where I have “evolved” to at this point in my earthly existence…..

                                          Shalom to you all,

                                          Nancy

                                           


                                          --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, Denis Dearborn <iwas1ncthr@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does one have to be the God of the Koran or the God of the Bible? YOu also seem to mock the Bible as if it was supposed to be some sort of book on scientific theory, as you know it's not so you have no argument there and while the world at large tries to compair the Bible as such, this is where we always end up. The last point is where have you heard many of these alleged facts other than the CFM?LOL
                                          >
                                          > As far as the global flood, there is penty of evidance that sugjests that it did happen. AS said, it just depends on who you listen to when dealing with it. For instance check out the studies by the following as I have already myself done so,
                                          > Dr. Thomas Barnes, Fossile record, this reading is very interesting and I have also looked into the whole geological colum theory myself. What makes me dismiss it as BS is that indeed as Carl Baugh has proven is that only a small % of the earths surface is subject to this but what realy takes the cake is that the colum is indeed filled with polystrate fossils wich would then tie the time lines together to one time frame, hence destroying the speculation of time lines of life between different animals and man.
                                          >
                                          > Henry Voss also proved through sedimentory layering that the basic theory on this in the science community at large is that it did indeed happen at such a rapid pace this is how they prove the fact that earth was indeed under water. ONe film I watched was very interesting it was on the basis of fossil recovery but what was interesting was that the dinosaurs when recovered in a semi to full skeliton they all are in the same position. This position is when the head is always thrown back and we can google prehistoric fossiles and see this without haveing to read about it. The conclusion was that when the flood waters came these reptiles trying to get air died in such a position that once again supports this theory. I would have to coppie the whole book on here to shed the light on the many pionts to make clear understanding but I know most of us are educated enough to already know what this is talking about.
                                          >
                                          > People: Ken, this is what really seperates at lest myself from others,as you know many CFMers amongst others will grab the latest book writen by some guy who claimes he now knows the answers to biblical events and then when the pastor overhears the conversation he then throws it into a sermon hence the whole NASA vs the 1 day of light theory. By the way, you never did get back to me on that. I did prove that the timeline in question is caculated into a formula that is used to this day by the military at large and it is strait out of the Bible :)
                                          > Anyway about these "people" I 99% of the time will challenge what anything says seen as how I didnt seem to be of that mind frame while under the spell of Mitch. For instance, if I buy a book, I will read up on the guy who wrote it and find out what the person actually did. I also do not pay attention to google, anyone who quotes sites and such from the net is pretty much dismissed unless it is an official site. So many people read something, dont agree with it, and then promote a website telling you why they feel it's worng. The bad thing is all the idiots who actually listen to these "trolls" and think that somehow they know more about the subject matter thatn the person who studdied it for 40 years just by reading an opinion that they claim is fact due to biased accounts, again, no different than a religous person with there claimes.
                                          >
                                          > kenhaining777 no_reply@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                                          > Dennis said:
                                          > [The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so evolutionary that it's great to have a theory just so you can change it as the years go on..... sound familiar? Religion? Change over the years? Theory? same thing? Dr Carl Baugh is considered by many as a nutcase yet his contributions to the science community were one of the greatest in his field until he found that the Bible was indeed true according to his own studies. How can a man be considered one of the leading minds for over 35 years and then just because he now submits evidence to back a theory about biblical documentation he is now considered a loon?]
                                          > If a man with a great scientific mind studied the Koran and became a Moslem, would that lend credence to the Moslem religion, as far as you were concerned? My son was reading some stuff out of a magazine where "secular" scientists were talking with Moslem scientists. It was the same stuff about creation, and when really pinned down, the Moslem scientists would fall back on the Koran as God's truth. So, would you think that the Moslem religion had great credibility if there are great Moslem scientists?
                                          > Explain isolated ecosystems having different species than other regions of the world. How does that fit in with the Noah's ark story? It doesn't. That's not just an opinion, it flat doesn't. However, it does fit in with evolution.
                                          > Given trillions upon trillions of incidents involving different elements of energy and matter, it is possible that DNA resulted. I personally think there is intelligence in the Universe. However, as I keep pointing out, some stories that ancient man wrote to try and explain our existence are in no way proven by there being intelligence in the Universe. That is the flaw of the creationist argument. They make a false conclusion. They say, if there is intelligent design, then the Bible is true. Quite frankly, that's retarded. The Moslems could say the same thing about the Koran.
                                          > There are a lot of ways of determining the age of things besides carbon dating. However, carbon dating is fairly reliable in most cases, and had been successful most of the time. If you are testing plastic, and think you are testing something else, you can be totally off. Thus the ancient doll. But if anything would be subject to mockery, it would be the Bible time line. Again, the Noah's ark story comes to mind. Do you really think all the land based animals were on a mountain in Turkey 4000 years ago? And what about the different races of man coming out of just Adam and Eve 6000 years ago?
                                          > The evidence for evolution is mounting. They have discovered dinosaur remains with feathers. It seems the idea that they were the ancestors of birds is gaining more credence. How do you explain there being all of these remains and fossils of animals that at one time existed on this planet, but now are extinct? The animals of today did not exist side by side with them, but appear later in the strata of the earth. This contradicts the idea that God made all the animals around the same time. Where did the animals that came after the dinosaurs come from? There are more and more ancient animals whose fossils are being discovered all the time. Some kind of adaptation had to be taking place for animal life to have survived until now. The Bible doesn't explain all those fossils remains, leading up to the animals and plants of today, but evolution does.
                                          > Perhaps there is an intelligence behind evolution. The Force? Who knows? But I still think ancient stories were invented to try and explain our existence as best as ancient man could. Hardly something to base your life on.
                                          > Shalom
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ---------------------------------
                                          > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                          >
                                        • kenhaining777
                                          Dennis said: [Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does one
                                          Message 20 of 23 , May 2, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dennis said:
                                             
                                            [Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does one have to be the God of the Koran or the God of the Bible? YOu also seem to mock the Bible as if it was supposed to be some sort of book on scientific theory, as you know it's not so you have no argument there and while the world at large tries to compair the Bible as such, this is where we always end up. The last point is where have you heard many of these alleged facts other than the CFM?LOL]
                                             
                                            I've talked to a lot of Christians who insist that "real science" proves the Bible is correct and the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things, etc.  Some of them get quite nasty, and insulting, when you point out that this isn't true.  So, you are wrong.  It isn't just CFM.
                                             
                                            Religion tends to be contrary to science, as true science allows for new evidence to reach new conclusions.  If science contradicts religious dogma, then religious people tend to mock that science, pointing out that it is not infallable.  They mock things like carbon dating while subscribing to things like Balaam's talking donkey.
                                             
                                            So why do isolated ecosystems have unique species if there is no evolution?  Give a reasonable, scientific explanation of this, taking into account the alledged fact that all the land based animals of the world were on a mountain in Turkey 4000 years ago.
                                             
                                            Shalom
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                               
                                          • nancyinsanantone
                                            In case anyone thinks I m exaggerating about Canyon Lake and the flood... It made the national news in 2002:
                                            Message 21 of 23 , May 2, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              In case anyone thinks I'm exaggerating about Canyon Lake and the flood... It made the national news in 2002:

                                              http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3695730


                                              --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, nancyinsanantone <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > “Henry Voss also proved through sedimentary layering that the
                                              > basic theory on this in the science community at large is that it did
                                              > indeed happen at such a rapid pace this is how they prove the fact that
                                              > earth was indeed under water.”
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Not far from San Antonio there is a great recreational lake by the name
                                              > of “Canyon Lake” , a few years back we had tremendous
                                              > flooding in the area, and lo and behold, a brand new canyon was formed
                                              > in the area that has become quite a tourist attraction. While it looks
                                              > like it could’ve taken thousands of years to form, it was indeed
                                              > created by ONE hellacious flood.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Now about evolution, I have a few questions about the human body. Why
                                              > is it that we possess an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, that
                                              > hangy-down thing in the back of the throat (uvula), when in actuality we
                                              > can live perfectly well WITHOUT them?? What is the actual purpose of
                                              > the uvula? I remember a BUGS BUNNY cartoon when he was in a giants
                                              > mouth using the “uvula” as a punching bag ?! [B-)]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Also in Brazil, apparently some “probable new species”
                                              > have been discovered …amp;quot; I wouldn’t agree that they are NEW,
                                              > but they are evolved. QUOTE:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > “A legless lizard, knobby horned toad and mini-woodpecker have
                                              > come out of hiding in Brazil, where scientists recently spotted the
                                              > basket of probable new species.
                                              >
                                              > With a pointed snout and missing legs, the new Bachia lizard species
                                              > looks like a slithering snake. The new horned toad belongs to the genus
                                              > Proceratophrys.
                                              >
                                              > The clutch of suspected new species includes 12 others, including eight
                                              > fish, three reptiles, an amphibian, a mammal and a bird.
                                              >
                                              > The animals were discovered in wooded grasslands that carpet about 20
                                              > percent of Brazil.Called the Cerrado, the grasslands once covered an
                                              > area half the size of Europe, though they are now being converted to
                                              > crop- and ranchlands at twice the rate of the neighboring Amazon rain
                                              > forest, the researchers say.
                                              >
                                              > It usually takes weeks or months of careful comparative work back in the
                                              > lab to definitely establish animals as new species, but biologists who
                                              > spend a lot of time studying a group of animals or a region are often
                                              > correct when they suspect they've found new species.”
                                              >
                                              > So, obviously there have been changes in species through the
                                              > years…
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > As for religion -- I forgot who said “religion is an opiate for
                                              > the masses” …..
                                              >
                                              > but as for me,
                                              >
                                              > Believing that SOMEONE really is ultimately in control of this big mess
                                              > personally brings ME comfort! I would hate to think that I was just some
                                              > “organism” or “accident of happenstance”.
                                              > Jesus brings me comfort, for me HE is real …amp;quot; and either I have
                                              > some really good luck, or He has saved my bacon on numerous occasions.
                                              >
                                              > I just don’t believe in being “exclusive” anymore ,
                                              > and that I am right and everyone else has it wrong, and they can burn
                                              > for it.
                                              >
                                              > The Potterites can have that gig!
                                              >
                                              > I believe what I believe by faith. And THAT (faith) we know
                                              > can’t be proved by science.
                                              >
                                              > As far as the bible. I think some parts are history, some parts are
                                              > literal, and some parts are parables or myths to teach a spiritual
                                              > lesson.
                                              >
                                              > That is where I have “evolved” to at this point in my
                                              > earthly existence…..
                                              >
                                              > Shalom to you all,
                                              >
                                              > Nancy
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, Denis Dearborn
                                              > iwas1ncthr@ wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Well one thing I see you talking about is the issue that creates the
                                              > BS in the first place. Why does it have to be a certain God? Why does
                                              > one have to be the God of the Koran or the God of the Bible? YOu also
                                              > seem to mock the Bible as if it was supposed to be some sort of book on
                                              > scientific theory, as you know it's not so you have no argument there
                                              > and while the world at large tries to compair the Bible as such, this is
                                              > where we always end up. The last point is where have you heard many of
                                              > these alleged facts other than the CFM?LOL
                                              > >
                                              > > As far as the global flood, there is penty of evidance that sugjests
                                              > that it did happen. AS said, it just depends on who you listen to when
                                              > dealing with it. For instance check out the studies by the following as
                                              > I have already myself done so,
                                              > > Dr. Thomas Barnes, Fossile record, this reading is very interesting
                                              > and I have also looked into the whole geological colum theory myself.
                                              > What makes me dismiss it as BS is that indeed as Carl Baugh has proven
                                              > is that only a small % of the earths surface is subject to this but what
                                              > realy takes the cake is that the colum is indeed filled with polystrate
                                              > fossils wich would then tie the time lines together to one time frame,
                                              > hence destroying the speculation of time lines of life between different
                                              > animals and man.
                                              > >
                                              > > Henry Voss also proved through sedimentory layering that the basic
                                              > theory on this in the science community at large is that it did indeed
                                              > happen at such a rapid pace this is how they prove the fact that earth
                                              > was indeed under water. ONe film I watched was very interesting it was
                                              > on the basis of fossil recovery but what was interesting was that the
                                              > dinosaurs when recovered in a semi to full skeliton they all are in the
                                              > same position. This position is when the head is always thrown back and
                                              > we can google prehistoric fossiles and see this without haveing to read
                                              > about it. The conclusion was that when the flood waters came these
                                              > reptiles trying to get air died in such a position that once again
                                              > supports this theory. I would have to coppie the whole book on here to
                                              > shed the light on the many pionts to make clear understanding but I know
                                              > most of us are educated enough to already know what this is talking
                                              > about.
                                              > >
                                              > > People: Ken, this is what really seperates at lest myself from
                                              > others,as you know many CFMers amongst others will grab the latest book
                                              > writen by some guy who claimes he now knows the answers to biblical
                                              > events and then when the pastor overhears the conversation he then
                                              > throws it into a sermon hence the whole NASA vs the 1 day of light
                                              > theory. By the way, you never did get back to me on that. I did prove
                                              > that the timeline in question is caculated into a formula that is used
                                              > to this day by the military at large and it is strait out of the Bible
                                              > :)
                                              > > Anyway about these "people" I 99% of the time will challenge what
                                              > anything says seen as how I didnt seem to be of that mind frame while
                                              > under the spell of Mitch. For instance, if I buy a book, I will read up
                                              > on the guy who wrote it and find out what the person actually did. I
                                              > also do not pay attention to google, anyone who quotes sites and such
                                              > from the net is pretty much dismissed unless it is an official site. So
                                              > many people read something, dont agree with it, and then promote a
                                              > website telling you why they feel it's worng. The bad thing is all the
                                              > idiots who actually listen to these "trolls" and think that somehow they
                                              > know more about the subject matter thatn the person who studdied it for
                                              > 40 years just by reading an opinion that they claim is fact due to
                                              > biased accounts, again, no different than a religous person with there
                                              > claimes.
                                              > >
                                              > > kenhaining777 no_reply@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                                              > > Dennis said:
                                              > > [The other great thing about science is that it in itself is so
                                              > evolutionary that it's great to have a theory just so you can change it
                                              > as the years go on..... sound familiar? Religion? Change over the years?
                                              > Theory? same thing? Dr Carl Baugh is considered by many as a nutcase yet
                                              > his contributions to the science community were one of the greatest in
                                              > his field until he found that the Bible was indeed true according to his
                                              > own studies. How can a man be considered one of the leading minds for
                                              > over 35 years and then just because he now submits evidence to back a
                                              > theory about biblical documentation he is now considered a loon?]
                                              > > If a man with a great scientific mind studied the Koran and became a
                                              > Moslem, would that lend credence to the Moslem religion, as far as you
                                              > were concerned? My son was reading some stuff out of a magazine where
                                              > "secular" scientists were talking with Moslem scientists. It was the
                                              > same stuff about creation, and when really pinned down, the Moslem
                                              > scientists would fall back on the Koran as God's truth. So, would you
                                              > think that the Moslem religion had great credibility if there are great
                                              > Moslem scientists?
                                              > > Explain isolated ecosystems having different species than other
                                              > regions of the world. How does that fit in with the Noah's ark story? It
                                              > doesn't. That's not just an opinion, it flat doesn't. However, it does
                                              > fit in with evolution.
                                              > > Given trillions upon trillions of incidents involving different
                                              > elements of energy and matter, it is possible that DNA resulted. I
                                              > personally think there is intelligence in the Universe. However, as I
                                              > keep pointing out, some stories that ancient man wrote to try and
                                              > explain our existence are in no way proven by there being intelligence
                                              > in the Universe. That is the flaw of the creationist argument. They make
                                              > a false conclusion. They say, if there is intelligent design, then the
                                              > Bible is true. Quite frankly, that's retarded. The Moslems could say the
                                              > same thing about the Koran.
                                              > > There are a lot of ways of determining the age of things besides
                                              > carbon dating. However, carbon dating is fairly reliable in most cases,
                                              > and had been successful most of the time. If you are testing plastic,
                                              > and think you are testing something else, you can be totally off. Thus
                                              > the ancient doll. But if anything would be subject to mockery, it would
                                              > be the Bible time line. Again, the Noah's ark story comes to mind. Do
                                              > you really think all the land based animals were on a mountain in Turkey
                                              > 4000 years ago? And what about the different races of man coming out of
                                              > just Adam and Eve 6000 years ago?
                                              > > The evidence for evolution is mounting. They have discovered dinosaur
                                              > remains with feathers. It seems the idea that they were the ancestors of
                                              > birds is gaining more credence. How do you explain there being all of
                                              > these remains and fossils of animals that at one time existed on this
                                              > planet, but now are extinct? The animals of today did not exist side by
                                              > side with them, but appear later in the strata of the earth. This
                                              > contradicts the idea that God made all the animals around the same time.
                                              > Where did the animals that came after the dinosaurs come from? There are
                                              > more and more ancient animals whose fossils are being discovered all the
                                              > time. Some kind of adaptation had to be taking place for animal life to
                                              > have survived until now. The Bible doesn't explain all those fossils
                                              > remains, leading up to the animals and plants of today, but evolution
                                              > does.
                                              > > Perhaps there is an intelligence behind evolution. The Force? Who
                                              > knows? But I still think ancient stories were invented to try and
                                              > explain our existence as best as ancient man could. Hardly something to
                                              > base your life on.
                                              > > Shalom
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ---------------------------------
                                              > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
                                              > it now.
                                              > >
                                              >

                                            • The Graduate
                                              ... bag ?! With evolution there s no big why. There s when, what, how and where, but no why. Why implies an agenda. You need think more outside your box when
                                              Message 22 of 23 , May 3, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > Now about evolution, I have a few questions about the human body.
                                                > Why is it that we possess an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, that
                                                > hangy-down thing in the back of the throat (uvula), when in
                                                > actuality we can live perfectly well WITHOUT them??  What is the
                                                > actual purpose of the uvula?  I remember a BUGS BUNNY cartoon when
                                                > he was in a giants mouth using the “uvula” as a punching bag ?!

                                                With evolution there's no big why. There's when, what, how and where, but no why. "Why" implies an agenda. You need think more outside your box when pondering these things. I know it's hard for a religious person to do that (I used to be one).

                                                You might be interested in one of my research projects (deftly changing the subject). The reason you might be interested is that it involves Garage Band, which you said your son uses. In this research project I have an ensemble of virtual musicians: cello, violin, oboe, flute. I'm training them to play the second movement from Beethoven's 6th symphony. Ahem... how do you train a computer to play something when computers can already play from digitized sheet music? Simple. I give them the score, but it's up to them how they interpret it. Actually... not really so simple. Think of he character Data from Star Trek. He could play things perfectly, but that did not make him human.

                                                Anyway, once they've learnt to play Beethoven in classical Beethoven style, I'm going to give them some Bach and then sit back and see how they interpret it. The catch being that I won't train them beforehand to play in Back style. One of my advisors suggested dispensing with Back and giving them AC/DC instead. That would be cool (I think), but it's probably expecting too much.

                                                The connection with Garage Band is that whatever they play will be played in Garage Band. This is kinda neat. If I do this properly I could end up with a product that Apple might be interested in acquiring the rights to.

                                                Apple -> $$$$$ -> Me -> :D
                                              • kenhaining777
                                                Perry said: [Anyway, once they ve learnt to play Beethoven in classical Beethoven style, I m going to give them some Bach and then sit back and see how they
                                                Message 23 of 23 , May 4, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                  Perry said:

                                                  [Anyway, once they've learnt to play Beethoven in classical Beethoven style, I'm going to give them some Bach and then sit back and see how they interpret it. The catch being that I won't train them beforehand to play in Back style. One of my advisors suggested dispensing with Back and giving them AC/DC instead. That would be cool (I think), but it's probably expecting too much.

                                                  The connection with Garage Band is that whatever they play will be played in Garage Band. This is kinda neat. If I do this properly I could end up with a product that Apple might be interested in acquiring the rights to.

                                                  Apple -> $$$$$ -> Me -> :D]

                                                   

                                                  I hope you are able to get something going with Apple.  As I said in my other post, you are a really good example of someone who overcame the negative effects of having been a part of Wayman's World.  I find it interesting that you also left behind dogmatic religion of any kind.  I think one of the things that holds ex members of Waymanland back from making real recoveries of their lives is still making religion too big of an issue in their lives. 

                                                  Well, perhaps Apple will pick you up as one of their programmers.  Maybe they will move you to the United States.  That way you can make a real personal assessment of the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

                                                  May the Force be with You

                                                   

                                                   


                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.