From a documentary called "Jesus Camp" (lokifilms.com/site/jesuscamp.html) The following is from the Talking Heads' David Byrne Journal (http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2006/08/american_madras.html)

The kids are around 9 or 10 years old, recruited from various churches, and are pliant willing receptacles. They are instructed that evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences,.....

Awareness of the rest of the world is curtailed — one can only view or read that which agrees with the agenda.... Interesting....

Sounds like many some of the middle-eastern Islamic schoolchildren being taught that Israel doesn't exist, that Jews are as monkeys and pigs, and that the western infidels are evil.

hmmmm... maybe just me.... dunno.

We have to prepare the little ones for the upcoming apocalypse. :rolleyes:

The kids are around 9 or 10 years old, recruited from various churches, and are pliant willing receptacles. They are instructed that evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences,.....

Awareness of the rest of the world is curtailed — one can only view or read that which agrees with the agenda....They're breeding the angry atheist rebellious teenagers of tomorrow.

Hah, David Byrne.

On another note, I find this camp to be deeply disconcerting.

This happens with all religons.

Sounds like many some of the middle-eastern Islamic schoolchildren being taught that Israel doesn't exist, that Jews are as monkeys and pigs, and that the western infidels are evil.

hmmmm... maybe just me.... dunno.

Is it many or some?

ack.... mind works faster than fingers.... or maybe not :@@:

editing myself on the fly, many ME Islamic country's schools with theocratically controlled governments, only some of all ME Islamic country's schools as a whole.

Worked 10 hrs today in this damned stifling heat, surprised I didn't forget to even end the sentan

Sounds little different from Orthodox Jewish camps, or any other camps run to foster a religious belief system. Would you really expect them to teach ideas that do not agree with their religious beliefs?

Are they tellig children to get guns and kill non-Christians? Are they feeding them hallucinagens while repeating some sort of mantra, "Kill the non-believers", over and over.

What problem do people have with a conservative Christian camp fostering conservative Christian ideals?

What problem do people have with a conservative Christian camp fostering conservative Christian ideals?
Would you have a problem with a camp that repeatedly drilled into a child's head, "Christians are evil people who hate freedom"?

What problem do people have with a conservative Christian camp fostering conservative Christian ideals?
Well, in my case I happen to disagree with those conservative Christian ideals, and I don't like the idea of indoctrinating children of such a young age with religious propaganda in that way. Children need to be children, not tools or warriors for causes, this sort of teaching brands them with a certain narrow-minded way of thinking that takes advantage of their innocence and gullibility.

editing myself on the fly, many ME Islamic country's schools with theocratically controlled governments, only some of all ME Islamic country's schools as a whole.

Worked 10 hrs today in this damned stifling heat, surprised I didn't forget to even end the sentan

I would say in the Middle East that they acknowledge that Israel's treatment towards Palestinians is wrong thus they tie it into Israel's existence as a country. By monkey and pigs you are referring to this verse :

*{Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.}* (Al-Ma’idah 5: 60)

I suggest you read the whole surah or chapter. It gives a more clear understanding and does not aim only towards Jews.

I am not analysing the Koran (or what chapter and verse these specific references appear in). Just that things that are taught to children under the auspices of religious education can be ill advised and can lead to a closed-minded and bigoted adult (a suicide bomber?).

By the same token, some of these "Christian" camps do not truly follow the teachings of the Bible either (an abortion clinic bomber?). Fred Phelps University, anyone?

Both of these scriptures can (and often are) taken out of context and used to sway the young and the easily influenced. These children can grow to become an almost opposite disciple of the actual teachings.

Seems like they'er teaching Christian morals. Something I would do with my children.
If youre an Atheist teach your children what you want to.
It seems that Atheist morality is lacking.
I dont mean to upset anyone with that sentence I am sure I have, please accept my apologies.
What I am trying to get at is, while I have seen plenty of Atheist with good morals not lacking in respect to others in the least, I dont see where the code starts or ends.
I dont think I have ever had a conversation with an Atheist where they seen it or even wanted to see boundries in morality.
I think morality really isnt black or white, but it does have definitive boundries.
I have seen those boundries stretched, distorted, confused and molested over the years and I dont see an end to it.

I dont want to tell someone else that they are raising their kid wrong because their morals and values arent the same as mine.
It's your child and its under your care. Not mine.

It seems that Atheist morality is lacking.
I can live by my own moral code perfectly fine without condescending Christians such as yourself telling me that I'm not moral. And apology not accepted; if you know you were going to offend someone, shouldn't your superior morals have told you not to say it? It seems that your morality is lacking, I'm afraid.
I think morality really isnt black or white, but it does have definitive boundries.
In other words, your boundaries?

What I live by is the Wiccan Rede, also in my sig, even though I'm not Wiccan. "An it harm none, do as thou will." In other words, as long as you're not hurting anyone, do what you want. Smoke pot? Sure, go ahead. Have lots of sex? Have at it! With the same sex? Sure, why not! Burn a flag? As long as you're not setting other people's property on fire, have a ball! Worship Allah, Buddha, or Jesus? Absolutely! Drink, smoke, curse? Yes, yes, and yes! The only immoral behavior is that which harms others.

I can live by my own moral code perfectly fine without condescending Christians such as yourself telling me that I'm not moral. And apology not accepted; if you know you were going to offend someone, shouldn't your superior morals have told you not to say it? It seems that your morality is lacking, I'm afraid.

In other words, your boundaries?

What I live by is the Wiccan Rede, also in my sig, even though I'm not Wiccan. "An it harm none, do as thou will." In other words, as long as you're not hurting anyone, do what you want. Smoke pot? Sure, go ahead. Have lots of sex? Have at it! With the same sex? Sure, why not! Burn a flag? As long as you're not setting other people's property on fire, have a ball! Worship Allah, Buddha, or Jesus? Absolutely! Drink, smoke, curse? Yes, yes, and yes! The only immoral behavior is that which harms others.


Nope my superior morals told me to apologise because this is a situtation where anyone, such as yourself can get offended.
Emotions dont seem to follow in the "not harming others" moral code you are so proud of.
So burning a flag is ok as long as it is your flag?
What about burning a US flag in front of a soldier who just got home from defending what it stands for?
How about drinking yourself to death in front of your children? It's ok the children arent being harmed, physically anyway.
What about that guy who was a homicidal maniac that killed himself after killing the 3 guys that slept with his wife?
Wasnt the 3 guys fault. They werent hurting anyone.

It's greed based. You want what you want and you dont care who gets hurt because you choose not to see the hurt.
All you see is that someone doesnt agree with you.

Nope my superior morals told me to apologise because this is a situtation where anyone, such as yourself can get offended.
You expect me, an atheist, not to get offended when you essentially say, "you have no morals and I am better than you"? Or you knew I would be offended, but you said it anyway because you're a condescending fucker? It's one of the two.
Emotions dont seem to follow in the "not harming others" moral code you are so proud of.
Sure they do. My emotions aren't hurting anyone, are they?
So burning a flag is ok as long as it is your flag?
What about burning a US flag in front of a soldier who just got home from defending what it stands for?
I don't care what flag it is, and what context it's in. The person doing the burning is an idiot. But he's not hurting anyone.
How about drinking yourself to death in front of your children? It's ok the children arent being harmed, physically anyway.
That's called "child neglect" and it is, in fact, a very serious crime. Don't be ridiculous.
What about that guy who was a homicidal maniac that killed himself after killing the 3 guys that slept with his wife?
Wasnt the 3 guys fault. They werent hurting anyone.
::blinks:: No, it sure wasn't the three guys' fault. The wife was the one who was immoral (she failed to think of the needs of the one whom she was married to), and the dude who killed three guys as well, obviously.
It's greed based. You want what you want and you dont care who gets hurt because you choose not to see the hurt.
All you see is that someone doesnt agree with you.
Greed is a virtue, but I don't see how "you dont [sic] care who gets hurt" follows from "An it harm none, do as thou will."

You expect me, an atheist, not to get offended when you essentially say, "you have no morals and I am better than you"? Or you knew I would be offended, but you said it anyway because you're a condescending fucker? It's one of the two.

In your mind, I never said I was better then anyone and I did say "while I have seen plenty of Atheist with good morals not lacking in respect to others in the least, I dont see where the code starts or ends."

So far you havent put a start or a end on your morals. Only that you can do what you want if it doesnt hurt others.


Sure they do. My emotions aren't hurting anyone, are they?

I don't care what flag it is, and what context it's in. The person doing the burning is an idiot. But he's not hurting anyone.

That's called "child neglect" and it is, in fact, a very serious crime. Don't be ridiculous.

::blinks:: No, it sure wasn't the three guys' fault. The wife was the one who was immoral (she failed to think of the needs of the one whom she was married to), and the dude who killed three guys as well, obviously.

Greed is a virtue, but I don't see how "you dont [sic] care who gets hurt" follows from "An it harm none, do as thou will."

The things I said wouldnt happen if first we didn't do everything you said.
I keep getting in these conversations with people about emotions. I am constantly told we really dont need them and I keep saying they run our lives regardless.
There are those things that make us happy only for a moment. For a lot of people a moment isnt good enough. It becomes repetitive. After a while its a way of life. They dont even see it and it is passed on, from generation to generation.
Christian kids are taught that, evolution is being forced on us, abortion is bad and they are an army under God and people make a big deal out of it.
While people everywhere are drinking a six pack a day showing the kids its ok and dieing in their mid 50's because of liver disease.
Weed is cool to, just dont let the kids see you smoke it on the way to pick them up from school.
I am not trying to say anyone is less of a person then I am. What I am trying to say is if we stop what we know is bad at the source then it wont happen.

That doesnt mean we have to be unhappy. If we took the time to show more effection to one another life would be a lot better.
Instead we look for other options. We open ourselves up to paths of destruction and we dont see it that way because we have more control then the people we do it with.

Seems like they'er teaching Christian morals. Something I would do with my children.
If youre an Atheist teach your children what you want to.
It seems that Atheist morality is lacking.
I dont mean to upset anyone with that sentence I am sure I have, please accept my apologies.
What I am trying to get at is, while I have seen plenty of Atheist with good morals not lacking in respect to others in the least, I dont see where the code starts or ends.
I dont think I have ever had a conversation with an Atheist where they seen it or even wanted to see boundries in morality.
I think morality really isnt black or white, but it does have definitive boundries.
I have seen those boundries stretched, distorted, confused and molested over the years and I dont see an end to it.

I dont want to tell someone else that they are raising their kid wrong because their morals and values arent the same as mine.
It's your child and its under your care. Not mine.It's not just Christians that worry about the lack of innocence in these ages. Children have such short childhoods nowadays. I've worked in tough schools thousands of time and have seen it all. I've thrown 13 year olds out for rolling joints in class, been told to fuck off to my face my 9 year olds and listened to young teenagers openly gossip about who is shagging who. And that is just the start, believe me. Also, some of the above took place in Christian schools - we don't have separation of church and state in Britain.

I went to a church school as a kid and have taught in a church school as an adult. They were good places. But this camp sounds like indoctrination.

What problem do people have with a conservative Christian camp fostering conservative Christian ideals?

Well, Hitler was a conservative, if that wasn't a problem? ...

Well, in my case I happen to disagree with those conservative Christian ideals, and I don't like the idea of indoctrinating children of such a young age with religious propaganda in that way. Children need to be children, not tools or warriors for causes, this sort of teaching brands them with a certain narrow-minded way of thinking that takes advantage of their innocence and gullibility.

I happen to agree with many conservative Christian ideals and what you see as indoctrinating I see as inculcating with a belief system. I don't see it as propaganda but as Christian beliefs. You see it as narrow minded. I see it as fostering a love of God. You see the children as innocent and gullible. I see them as being able to receive a message of Christian love.

You have a problem with a Christian youth camp. I don't.

I happen to agree with many conservative Christian ideals and what you see as indoctrinating I see as inculcating with a belief system.
Indoctrinating and inculcating are synonyms, Frogger. Either word still carries the weight.
I don't see it as propaganda but as Christian beliefs.
Christian beliefs, be they positive or negative, are propaganda, especially when taught in this manner.
You see the children as innocent and gullible.
The vast majority of children are innocent and gullible.
I see them as being able to receive a message of Christian love.
They are instructed that evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences, that we must band together to insure that the right judges and politicians get into the courts and office and that global warming is a lie.--

These examples Byrne gives are hardly pinnacles of Christian love.
You have a problem with a Christian youth camp. I don't.
Incorrect, I don't have a problem with a Christian youth camp, I have a problem with this Christian camp. This camp is taking children and using religion as a facade, transmuting the religion into a tool of conservative political talking points. I see them as using God to push a political agenda that has little to do with the values The Nazarene taught.

This camp seems like it is teaching about politics and not about Christian love. I would think in a child camp you would teach about the difference between right and wrong.

They are instructed that evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences, that we must band together to insure that the right judges and politicians get into the courts and office and that global warming is a lie.--

This camp seems to be making politicians out of these children at a very young age.

What's with the global warming thing by the way? :confused:

been told to fuck off to my face my 9 year olds .




Wow, blob.
I think I may have given the little brats the back of my hand until they saw the light of day and the love of Jesus in their hearts.:eek:

I think I may have given the little brats the back of my hand until they saw the light of day and the love of Jesus in their hearts.
I would have just laughed. I mean, A)It's funny and B)at that age, and the coming years, humilation would play a much much greater part in teaching them than getting angry and traditionally punishing them.

In such extreme cases I call management staff to remove the child.

I happen to agree with many conservative Christian ideals and what you see as indoctrinating I see as inculcating with a belief system. You see it as narrow minded. I see it as fostering a love of God.........You have a problem with a Christian youth camp. I don't.

Let me see if I have this straight.....

It is being proposed that there is a situation where small children are being taught to believe, with every fiber of their being, that;

""....evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences........""

...and in your estimation that would equate to the teaching of *the love of God*.................?!?!?!?!?!

I happen to agree with many conservative Christian ideals and what you see as indoctrinating I see as inculcating with a belief system.

Why not teach the children and let them decide what to believe for themselves?

The problem I have with such camps is that for the children it's not voluntary. There is a parent, guardian, or teacher deciding what they should believe.

Let me see if I have this straight.....

It is being proposed that there is a situation where small children are being taught to believe, with every fiber of their being, that;

""....evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an “army” to defeat the Godless influences........""

...and in your estimation that would equate to the teaching of *the love of God*.................?!?!?!?!?!
I'm bumping the thread in the interests of seeing Frogger present his case in opposition to this.

all christians believe that you "choose" to become a christian. but they do their damnest to get any and all kids in church from the beginning. guilt, fear, and bigotry. if you ain't christian, you are automatically going to hell, no questions asked. they feel as if they have to convert the entire world.
i ain't talkin out me arse here. i come from christian family, live in a highly christian area. and they are all the same. period. they smile and say they love you, but in the back of their minds, you goin to hell boy.

How about a camp for Christian mothers to be and giving them all abortions?

I love this bullshit portrayal of 'war on christians' when they are in fact indoctrinating kids to hate those who don't agre with them.

How long till this potential batch of terrorists grows up?

evakian,

Evolution is basically being promulgated by atheist. While I don't believe in the six, twenty four hour day creation I do believe that God created the world. While I believe evolution takes place within species I do not believe that animal evolve into different species.

I also believe that all abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother should be stopped. I honestly believe abortion is murder.

The army of God being spoken about is not an army of soldiers in the common sense of the word army but an army of Christians armed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not an army intent on killing the enemy but one intent on changing him by Christian example.

In my estimation, yes, it equates to teaching the love of God.

evakian,

Evolution is basically being promulgated by atheist. While I don't believe in the six, twenty four hour day creation I do believe that God created the world. While I believe evolution takes place within species I do not believe that animal evolve into different species.

I also believe that all abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother should be stopped. I honestly believe abortion is murder.

The army of God being spoken about is not an army of soldiers in the common sense of the word army but an army of Christians armed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not an army intent on killing the enemy but one intent on changing him by Christian example.

In my estimation, yes, it equates to teaching the love of God.


Why couldnt God have made the Earth seem a billion years old in six days?

all christians believe that you "choose" to become a christian. but they do their damnest to get any and all kids in church from the beginning. guilt, fear, and bigotry. if you ain't christian, you are automatically going to hell, no questions asked. they feel as if they have to convert the entire world.
i ain't talkin out me arse here. i come from christian family, live in a highly christian area. and they are all the same. period. they smile and say they love you, but in the back of their minds, you goin to hell boy.

I am a born again Christian and I think God saves you if you choose it or not.

I also think non-Christians are going to Hell, so I do what I can to help them... In a matter of speaking.

Because I think someone is going to Hell doesnt mean I don't like them. It's not in the back of my mind but rather it is constantly on my mind.
I dont want to see anyone go to Hell.
I'm not wishing it on people because they are not Christians.
I 'm worried that they will suffer.

I also think non-Christians are going to Hell, so I do what I can to help them... In a matter of speaking.
This is my biggest peeve against Christianity. A person who is a FAR FAR better human being than your better than average Christian is doomed to hell because they simply do not believe in the Christian god. People who grew up in an oppressive region, raised to belive the local superstitions is doomed to hell because they weren't "privileged" to be born Christian, or had the chance to become one. I think it's arrogant and cruel and frankly, unChristian-like. So if a major Christian belief is unChristian-like, what does that mean?

While I believe evolution takes place within species.Then do you admire Darwin for discovering evolution? I mean, if you believe evolution occurs are you impressed, as I am, by the law of natural selection with its inheritance, variation and selection?

Why couldnt God have made the Earth seem a billion years old in six days?Why couldnt God have made the Earth last tuesday complete with false memories implanted in our brains?

Then do you admire Darwin for discovering evolution? I mean, if you believe evolution occurs are you impressed, as I am, by the law of natural selection with its inheritance, variation and selection?

BB, I have no problem with change within species. There are thousands of different type dogs, from tiny pugs to giant mastiffs. There are howling beagles and silent basenjis. That is evolution within a species. Darwinian evolution is not concerned with evolution within a species. Darwinian evolutions says one species evolves into another; slime becomes ooze, becomes one celled organism, becomes fish, becomes amphibian, becomes reptile, becomes mammal, becomes man. There is no fossile evidence to support that form of evolution. Despite millions upon millions of fossils there is no fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution. There are no replicatable tests to prove Darwinian evolution. Ever since Charles Darwin scientist have been trying to effect evolution inside a laboratory. They have tried with complex organisms. They have tried with simple organisms. They have even tried with semi-living organisms like viruses. They have never, ever, not one time been able to create any evidence of evolution, even under ideal conditions with ideal subjects.

Evolutionary scientists tell the public that evolution is an observable fact yet there are no observations that support it. Evolutionary scientists tell the public that evolution has been proven yet there is no proof of evolution.

More and more scientists are saying that Darwinian evolution simply does not and cannot work. They are looking for another explaination of how different species arrived.

BB, I have no problem with change within species. ... That is evolution within a species. Darwinian evolution is not concerned with evolution within a species.I'm interested specifically what you think the mechanism of evolution is. Darwinian evolution is based on the process of natural selection (you think it applies exlcusively to speciation and I disagree but that is not the point). The law of natural selection rests on three mechanisms: inheritance (offspring resemble their parents); variation (off-spring are not completely identical to their parents); selection (some variations are more likely to produce off-spring themselves than others within the context of the environmental conditions of that generation).

I am interested to know whether you consider your view of evolution to be based on the process of natural selection or some other mechanism.

I believe that within a species evolution can take place through natural selection or outside manipulation. I do not believe that one species can evolve into another species.

Let's look at a woodpecker, BB.

A woodpecker has certain biological manifestations that are necessary for it to live as it does but that, if existing without other biological manifestations would mitigate against life.

A woodpecker has special tail feathers that enable it to sit upright against a tree trunk, something uneeded in other birds.

A woodpecker has a special brain pad and series of bone connections to enable it to take the pounding without literally knocking its brains out. Not needed in other birds.

A woodpecker has a special bill, longer, stronger and more chiselike than other birds.

A woodpecker has a special, long, barbed tongue unlike other birds.

A woodpecker has a special area behind one nostril where its tongue can lie curled until needed.

If a woodpecker got the long chiselike beak before its long, specialized tongue evolved it would not be able to feed and would die.

If the woodpecker got the long, barbed tongue before it got the long, chiselike beak it would not be able to feed and would die.

If the woodpecker got the long, barbed tongue before it got the special area behind its nostril in which to store it when not in use the tongue would just hang there and soon be destroyed.

The long, stiff tail feathers would likewise be a hinderance rather than a help if the woodpecked did not have the special brain padding and bone structure and connections it has coupled with the long, barbed tongue, long, chiselike beak and special storage area behind one nostril.

What is the chance of all these things evolving at the same time? I think you will agree, nil. Yet, had they evolved at different times they would, rather than increasing a woodpecker's chance of survival, decrease it.

Fruitflies, Drosophilla melanogaster have been bred in laboratories to not drink poison. It seems in their natural state fruitflies have no such aversion to drinking poison. Not drinking poison would be a pretty good survival trait for a fruitfly and might be expected to increase its chances of survival and ultimately outbreeding its poison drinking brothers and sisters. Such is not the case. The non-poison drinking fruitflies do not live to outbreed their siblings. Instead, they, pardon the pun, die like flies.

There are other examples, too numerous to go into here or even mention.

There is also the fact that no evolutionary change has ever been duplicated in a laboratory. Flagella are among the simplest means of propolusion yet no scientist has ever been able to induce an organism to produce a flagella or to even explain how such an organ might have evolved.

Humans have an appendix. An appendix serves no function and is prone to bursting, thereby killing the person in whose body it is found. Why haven't people evolved to the point where they no longer have an appendix? Why would an organ that, rather than increasing survival chances lessens them not have evolved, or perhaps the word should be devolved?

BlibBlob, IMO there is more evidence to say that Darwinian evolution does not take place than there is to say it does take place.

I believe that within a species evolution can take place through natural selection or outside manipulation. I do not believe that one species can evolve into another species.Okay so we both agree on the mechanism of natural selection and that it operates over a single generation. Natural selection is what Darwin proposed - so I don't understand how you say Darwinian evolution only applies to speciation when the fundamental mechanism refers only to a single generation.

Also, if there exists a mechnaism to drive evolutionary change what is the mechanism that puts a brake on it and stops speciation in your opinion?

(Regarding evidence I can post tons of original scientific journal articles describing fossil and genetic evidence as well as laboratory experiments and have done so before in this forum. Not one of the many thousands of articles I have access to declare evolution "a fact" nor "proven" AFAIK.)

Okay so we both agree on the mechanism of natural selection and that it operates over a single generation. Natural selection is what Darwin proposed - so I don't understand how you say Darwinian evolution only applies to speciation when the fundamental mechanism refers only to a single generation.

Also, if there exists a mechnaism to drive evolutionary change what is the mechanism that puts a brake on it and stops speciation in your opinion?

(Regarding evidence I can post tons of original scientific journal articles describing fossil and genetic evidence as well as laboratory experiments and have done so before in this forum. Not one of the many thousands of articles I have access to declare evolution "a fact" nor "proven" AFAIK.)Darwinian evolution does not refer to only a single generation. It refers to the rise of species, hence the title of his book, Origin of Species.

Not one of the many thousands of articles I have access to declare evolution "a fact" nor "proven"

My point, exactly. There is not a scintilla of proof that evolution is a fact yet it is taught as fact. To question the validity of Darwinian evolution is to be delared either a fundamentalist quack or someone of sub-intelligence. The scientific community will brook no questions about the facts, or non-facts concernng evolution.

Also, if there exists a mechnaism to drive evolutionary change what is the mechanism that puts a brake on it and stops speciation in your opinion?

Since I do not believe one species evolves into another, I do not believe there is a mechanism to stop one species from doing so. I believe species arise spontaneously. I don't know how but I do not think they evolve from another species. Darwin's Finches have evolved different bills. Even these bills change within short periods of time in response to changes in the micro-climate of the Gallapagos Islands. They remain finches though. Were Darwinian evolution fact the finches should have evolved into different species but they do not. They remain finches, and not only remain finches but continue to change within their species in response to relatively short term climatic changes.

There is no fossile evidence to support that form of evolution. Despite millions upon millions of fossils there is no fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution.

Sorry Frogger that's completely false.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html


There are no replicatable tests to prove Darwinian evolution. Ever since Charles Darwin scientist have been trying to effect evolution inside a laboratory. They have tried with complex organisms. They have tried with simple organisms. They have even tried with semi-living organisms like viruses. They have never, ever, not one time been able to create any evidence of evolution, even under ideal conditions with ideal subjects.

Fortunately Frogger, that too is completely incorrect.


Early experimental evolution

One of the first to carry out a controlled evolution experiment was William Dallinger. In the late 19th century, he cultivated small unicellular organisms in a custom-built incubator over a time period of seven years (1880-1886). Dallinger slowly increased the temperature of the incubator from an initial 60 °F up to 158 °F. The early cultures had shown clear signs of distress at a temperature of 73 °F, and were certainly not capable of surviving at 158 °F. The organisms Dallinger had in his incubator at the end of the experiment, on the other hand, were perfectly fine at 158 °F. However, these organisms would not grow anymore at the initial 60 °F. Dallinger concluded that he had clearly found evidence for Darwinian adaptation in his incubator, and that the organisms had adapted to live in a high-temperature environment. Unfortunately, Dallinger's incubator was accidentally destroyed in 1886, and Dallinger could not continue this line of research.


Lenski's long-term evolution experiment with E. coli

On February 15, 1988, Richard Lenski started a long-term evolution experiment with the bacterium E. coli. The experiment continues to this day, and is by now probably the largest controlled evolution experiment ever undertaken. Since the inception of the experiment, the bacteria have grown for more than 40,000 generations. Lenski and colleagues regularly publish updates on the status of the experiments. A detailed list of publications and experimental protocols can be found on the project homepage [1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n5_v15/ai_15341763

This is just the tip of the "mountain". Need more?


Evolutionary scientists tell the public that evolution is an observable fact yet there are no observations that support it. Evolutionary scientists tell the public that evolution has been proven yet there is no proof of evolution.

Honestly Frogger, it amazes me that someone who spent their life in the educational field would say this. Didn't you prepare science curricula?


More and more scientists are saying that Darwinian evolution simply does not and cannot work. They are looking for another explaination of how different species arrived.

Ok...let's see some of your evidence.

BTW, the field of evolutionary study is always changing. It's possible, even likely that Darwin didn't get the answer exactly right, but his theory certainly is a lot closer to the truth than the theory that God simply created the animals as we now know them.

I also think non-Christians are going to Hell, so I do what I can to help them... In a matter of speaking.
This is my biggest peeve against Christianity. A person who is a FAR FAR better human being than your better than average Christian is doomed to hell because they simply do not believe in the Christian god. People who grew up in an oppressive region, raised to belive the local superstitions is doomed to hell because they weren't "privileged" to be born Christian, or had the chance to become one. I think it's arrogant and cruel and frankly, unChristian-like. So if a major Christian belief is unChristian-like, what does that mean?


it is because the "Pauline" form of christianity is the most dominate form of christianity. it is geared to try to dominate society, government, etc..
they spew a lot of crap about the teachings, but almost none follow waht jesus actually SAID. if they did that, the "pauline" form of it would die out.

There is also the fact that no evolutionary change has ever been duplicated in a laboratory.

You keep saying this, but even a cursory examination of the available evidence doesn't support this idea.


Flagella are among the simplest means of propolusion yet no scientist has ever been able to induce an organism to produce a flagella or to even explain how such an organ might have evolved.

Again, not true. Current theories suggest that the flagella evolved from structures designed to do other things. These structures changed slowly over time to become a method of propulsion, but they originally served other purposes in the organisms. one of the mistakes you are making is in assuming that such things had to appear as complete units or they have no function at all. The same idea is used in relation to the evolution of the eye by evolution opponents who claim that this complex structure would fall apart and be useless if you removed any single component. This presupposes that the components of the eye are in their present form, and also erroneously presupposes that they have no other functions.


Humans have an appendix. An appendix serves no function and is prone to bursting, thereby killing the person in whose body it is found. Why haven't people evolved to the point where they no longer have an appendix? Why would an organ that, rather than increasing survival chances lessens them not have evolved, or perhaps the word should be devolved?

First of all, not all mutations are advantageous ones, and secondly, how do you know we aren't evolving to the point where we no longer have an appendix, or perhaps the appendix is evolving into something useful.


BlibBlob, IMO there is more evidence to say that Darwinian evolution does not take place than there is to say it does take place.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I must say that the science doesn't back you up on this one.

evakian,

Evolution is basically being promulgated by atheist.

This statement reveals your religious bias rather than showing any bias on the part of evolutionary proponents.

Evolution is being promoted by scientists. Religion is brought into the picture by believers who feel threatened by the ramifications evolution has on the theory that God simply created everything.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Vilepagan, but what you call mountains of proof are actually hills of sand that easily crumble upon even the most cursory examination.

I have taken the liberty of copying the relevant parts of the citeations you posted.

Let's go over them one by one.

The recognition and interpretation of patterns in the fossil record require an awareness of the limitations of that record. Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record. Most marine species are soft-bodied, or have thin organic cuticles, and are essentially unpreservable except under the most extraordinary conditions. Furthermore, the destructive processes active in most marine environments prevent the preservation of even shelled organisms under normal conditions. Preservational opportunities are even more limited in the terrestrial environment. Most fossil vertebrate species are represented by no more than a few fragmentary remains. Because of the preservational biases of the fossil record, paleontologists must reconstruct evolutionary relationships from isolated branches of an originally very bushy tree.

This is simply true. We have ample examples of fossils of soft bodies organisms. During the Cambrian Period there was an explosion of species. Almost all the species we know of came about in the relatively short period of five to ten million years. Among those species are many soft bodied species. Before the Cambrian Period species consisted almost entirely of single cell organisms. Then, in an explosion of creation we have the multitude of multicellular organisms. Rather than isolated branches of an originally very bushy tree we have a veritable forest.

In evolutionary biology, the field of experimental evolution is concerned with testing the theory of evolution in controlled experiments. Evolution can be observed in the laboratory as organisms adapt to new environmental conditions. With modern microbiological tools, it is possible to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon and what brought about the adaptations and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Because of the large number of generations required for adaptation to occur, evolution experiments are typically carried out with microorganisms such as bacteria or viruses.Evolution: Fact and Theory
By Richard E. Lenski


Again, this supports what I say, not what you say. All experiments show only evolution WITHIN a species. I have already said that evolution occurs within species. It is my contention that evolution does not change one species into another.

Evolution theory explains how organisms have changed over time.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.



There are four major patterns of change.
Patterns in Nature

The field of evolutionary biology seeks to provide explanations for four conspicuous patterns that are manifest in nature. The first three concern living species, whereas the fourth relates to fossils.


Genes are linked to how organisms look and behave. Genetic variation. There is tremendous genetic diversity within almost all species, including humans. No two individuals have the same DNA sequence, with the exception of identical twins or clones. This genetic variation contributes to phenotypic variation - that is, diversity in the outward appearance and behavior of individuals of the same species.

Organisms must adapt to their environment to survive. Adaptation. Living organisms have morphological, biochemical, and behavioral features that make them well adapted for life in the environments in which they are usually found. For example, consider the hollow bones and feathers of birds that enable them to fly, or the cryptic coloration that allows many organisms to hide from their predators. These features may give the superficial appearance that organisms were designed by a creator (or engineer) to live in a particular environment. Evolutionary biology has demonstrated that adaptations arise through selection acting on genetic variation.

Species evolved along different paths from a common ancestor. Divergence. All living species differ from one another. In some cases, these differences are subtle, while in other cases the differences are dramatic. Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) proposed a classification that is still used today with slight changes. In the modern scheme, similar species are grouped into genera, similar genera into families, and so on. This hierarchical pattern of relationship produces a tree-like pattern, which implies a process of splitting and divergence from a common ancestor.

Fossils provide evidence of evolutionary changes. Fossil species. Fossils are the mineralized remnants or impressions of once-living organisms. Many fossils, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, belong to groups that no longer exist on the face of the Earth. Conversely, many modern species appear similar to other fossils, yet fossils of the modern species are absent from rocks of corresponding ages. The age of the Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years, with the earliest bacterial fossils about 3.5 billion years old. Fossils from around 550 million years ago (the Cambrian period) show a diverse assemblage of multicellular animals.

Joyce's approach mimics the time-honored strategies of Darwinian evolution: selection, amplification, and mutation. Selection is the process by which those organisms best suited to any particular environment (long-necked giraffes, for example) survive to have children--that is, to amplify their numbers. Genetic mutations in their offspring, meanwhile, ensure variety, so that new generations will be subtly different from those preceding them.

Again, the selection you have cited deals with evolution within species, something already agreed to. It does not deal with the creation of new species through evolution.

The author says it is incontravertible fact that organisms have changed over time. I am not arguing that they haven't. Animal and plant breeders can alter organisms over a relatively short period of time. They can't produce new species though.

Here is a paragraph from your citation.

The field of evolutionary biology seeks to provide explanations for four conspicuous patterns that are manifest in nature. The first three concern living species, whereas the fourth relates to fossils.

Notice, the first three concern living species and the fourth relates to fossils.

The author goes on to talk about phenotype variations, something that goes on within a species. He then goes on to talk about adaptation for survival, but again he discusses it only within the parameters of a species.

Next, the author says this:

Species evolved along different paths from a common ancestor. Divergence. All living species differ from one another. In some cases, these differences are subtle, while in other cases the differences are dramatic.

Yes, species differ from one another and in some cases, these differences are subtle, while in othes cases the differences are dramatic. What the author does not say, because he cannot say it it, there are examples of one species changing to or giving rise to another.

Last, the author talks about the fossil record. Nowhere in his discussion of the fossil record will you find him describing a fossil that shows that one species evolved into another. He talks about fossils of species that no longer exist. He talks about fossils of species that show an explosion of species from unicellular to multicellular during the Cambrian Period. The one thing he doesn't talk about is how the fossil record, extensive as it is offers one smidgeon of evidence of one species evolving into another.

Sorry, Vilepagan, but you have built your house on sand. Nothing you have cited comes even remotely close to proving Darwinian evolution.

Interspecies evolution(again):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/bird_forelimbs.gif
Figure 3.1.1. Comparison of the forelimbs of various relatives of modern birds. Forelimbs of (A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur, (B) Archaeopteryx, (C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous, and (D) the wing of a modern chicken (modified from Carroll 1988, p. 340; Carroll 1997, p. 309).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

If you feel like sifting through:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Experimental evidence extrapolates out to predict our fossil evidence. As we do not have millions of years to test, current experiments along with an ounce of logic and our fossil records easily evolution as what occured and is occuring.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Vilepagan

Don't worry, you haven't even come close.


Again, this supports what I say, not what you say. All experiments show only evolution WITHIN a species. I have already said that evolution occurs within species.

Yes you did, but you also said, "They have never, ever, not one time been able to create any evidence of evolution, even under ideal conditions with ideal subjects."...and "There is also the fact that no evolutionary change has ever been duplicated in a laboratory." It was these ridiculous comments that I was addressing with my citations. Nice attempt at backpedalling.


It is my contention that evolution does not change one species into another.

It is my contention that you've taken a position that's impossible to prove.


Sorry, Vilepagan, but you have built your house on sand. Nothing you have cited comes even remotely close to proving Darwinian evolution.

Try this:


Fossil discovery fills a piece of evolutionary puzzle
In a fish, scientists see link to humans
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | April 6, 2006

Scientists working in the Canadian Arctic have discovered fossils of a fish that had fins like limbs, capturing in stone the crucial period in evolution when creatures climbed from water onto land.

The new species, named Tiktaalik roseae, lived about 375 million years ago, and was a sharp-toothed predator that resembled a crocodile and grew to at least 9 feet in length. Like its fish ancestors, Tiktaalik had scales, but also a number of innovations, including fins with an elbow joint that could lift the animal from the ground.

''It is like a fish that can do a push-up," said Neil H. Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago and one of the principal scientists. The team, which also included a Harvard University scientist, describes the find in the journal Nature today.

Scientists hailed the long-sought discovery of the transition from sea to land. In the story of life on earth, these fish fossils mark what is considered one of the major transitions, along with such milestones as the first multicellular organism or the first warm-blooded animal. The find, scientists said, provides the clearest picture yet of this moment, as well as clues to how such major shifts in evolution happen. The fossils are especially interesting, they said, because they show the beginning of the basic human body plan: Over the course of eons, Tiktaalik's front fins became the human arm and hand.

''It is an extraordinary discovery," said Philippe Janvier, a leading paleontologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris who was not involved in the find. ''It fits perfectly in the tree of life."

For the public, the fossils will probably become an icon of evolution and the transition to land because of the animals' mix of features, but also because the fossils are unusually well preserved, researchers said. The rust-red cache of fossils features a number of skeletons, including three skulls. Often, paleontologists find bones scattered by the elements or fossils that have become deformed by their long residence in rock. But these fish have largely held their shape. Even the fine lines of individual scales are visible.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/04/06/fossil_discovery_fills_a_piece_of_evolutionary_puz zle/

That fish is nothing new. There are fish alive today that can do pushups. They are, however, still fish.

I have already said evolution takes place within species. Evolution does not change one species into another.

That fish is nothing new.

Well it isn't new in the sense that it's 375 million years old, however it is new in the sense that this species has just been recently discovered.


I have already said evolution takes place within species. Evolution does not change one species into another.

Perhaps if you actually looked at the evidence rather than just keep repeating yourself over and over you might begin to sound credible.

I also notice you didn't address Blib's posts, despite the fact that according to you he's usually dead on with his posts.

BTW, any luck finding any evidence to support your case? Of that's right, you don't have a case, just an opinion that something didn't happen. It's tough to prove a negative isn't it Frogger.

Evolution is basically being promulgated by atheist.
Does that make it wrong?
While I don't believe in the six, twenty four hour day creation I do believe that God created the world. While I believe evolution takes place within species I do not believe that animal evolve into different species. I also believe that all abortions other than those necessary to save the life of the mother should be stopped. I honestly believe abortion is murder. The army of God being spoken about is not an army of soldiers in the common sense of the word army but an army of Christians armed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not an army intent on killing the enemy but one intent on changing him by Christian example.

In my estimation, yes, it equates to teaching the love of God.
I am aware what they mean when they say "Army of God." But, you can't skip around the fact that teaching global warming and evolution as evil and/or lies, as well as saying that abortions should be stopped at all costs, does not equate to "teaching the love of God." It is teaching closemindedness, it is teaching bigotry, and fear of God seems to be playing a bigger role, as I saw no hint of "love" or the teaching of "love" in the entire process, especially towards God.

Interesting video on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH50oSVMqzk

/discuss

I have already said evolution takes place within species. Evolution does not change one species into another.
I don't know how you can possibly corroborate that, especially considering that "species" is an ambiguous, man-made definition that doesn't have clear boundaries. Incidentally, would you like to comment on Blib's evidence, or are you just going to ignore it because it's information that directly contradicts your opinion?

Borghunter, Nope, I'm not going to ignore it. BlibBlob's pictures show similarities in structure of certain anatomical features but they do not show one specied changing into another.

evakian, I didn't make a value judgement when I said evolution is basically being promulgated by atheist. I merely stated a fact. You are the one who seems to have projected a value judgement onto my statement.

Vilepagan, It doesn't matter how old the fish is, it's still a fish, just as the Coelocanth is still a Coelocanth.

I am not denying that evolution occures within species. I am saying that there is no evidence proving that Darwinian evolution occurs.

Borghunter, Nope, I'm not going to ignore it. BlibBlob's pictures show similarities in structure of certain anatomical features but they do not show one specied changing into another.
That is probably the most unsubstantiated dismissal of evidence I have ever seen. It shows exactly what you claim it not to. It is a chronological anatomical progression. Which, hmm... is pretty much what evolution is. If this isn't it, then what your asking for is for GOD to declare evolution to be true, because regardless of the mountains of evidence, you'll just dismiss it for absolutely no reason.

BlibBlob,

Your pictures show similarites in bone structure. They do not show one species evolving into another. The dinosaurs are always dinosaurs. The birds are always birds. Scientists have yet to find a half bird, half dinosaur.

Scientists may one day find such a creature and if they do I will say they have found the missing link but until that day I will continue to believe that Darwinian evolution does not take place. Notice I said Darwinian evolution, not evolution.

Even if Darwinian evolution is some day proven, something I feel highly unlikely since scientists have been so far unable to prove it even though they have tried with might and main, that will not change my view of the place of God in the universe. With God all things are possible, even Darwinian evolution.

I am posting at another site at the same time I am posting at this one, trying to convince a fellow poster over there to give Allforums a try. My main selling point is the fact that while discussion can be joined by people with many different views, unlilke at the other site, no one here calls people who disagree with him retard or asshole.

It is really unusual to have a site where disagreement can be so fundamental and yet people don't have to be totally disagreeable. I commend all the posters and especially the mods for making this a great site.

LOL.
Do you know what a species is? Do you know what an Archaeopteryx is? How about a Pteranodon? You're correct in stating that a dinosaur is a dinosaur and a bird is a bird. However, an Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur bird. Take a quick gander at artist represtentations, compare to the bone structure. Then compare to their ancestors and decendents. It is absolutely the most basic of transition species. Those very simple bone structures, the wing on the later flying dinosoaus and on the birds, and the arm of the early dinosaurs, show a distinct progression from dinosaur to bird. There is no denying that. You can't, that is unless you don't know what a species is.
Then there was the progression from early hominids to modern man. Again, a very very distinct progression of skull structure. Step by step the species changed until you look at yourself. It's beyond just the skull, it's also the rest of the skeleton, how they stand, walk, etc. Frankly, you don't understand the evidence, and that's why you're dismissing it.

Scientists have yet to find a half bird, half dinosaur.
I'd like to note one thing: You seem to have a tenuous (at best) grasp of how evolution works. It's not a smooth progression like those programs that show a morph from a dinosaur to a bird or whatnot. It doesn't work that way. Evolution is all about random mutations that happen to be beneficial. Phyletic gradualism, which you seem to think evolution is, simply isn't seen in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is.

Dear Frogger,

Please cite your evidence against evolution. You say that there isn't enough evidence to prove evolution, fair enough. Please provide any and all evidence for your alternative theory.

Sincerely,
your 500lb non-man

PS maybe we could ask the Time-Walker to settler this...

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
Ker Than

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.

The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.

Religion belief and evolution

The researchers also compared 10 independent variables—including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”—between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.

The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.

“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”

This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060810/sc_space/uslagsworldingraspofgeneticsandacceptanceofevoluti on

Dear Frogger,

Please cite your evidence against evolution. You say that there isn't enough evidence to prove evolution, fair enough. Please provide any and all evidence for your alternative theory.

Sincerely,
your 500lb non-man

I'll save you both some time.

Here's the ENTIRE body of evidence he has against evolution;

--------------------------- "My God did it all" ----------------------------

Why couldnt God have made the Earth last tuesday complete with false memories implanted in our brains?


I know! He can totally do that.

:cool:

I also think non-Christians are going to Hell, so I do what I can to help them... In a matter of speaking.
This is my biggest peeve against Christianity. A person who is a FAR FAR better human being than your better than average Christian is doomed to hell because they simply do not believe in the Christian god. People who grew up in an oppressive region, raised to belive the local superstitions is doomed to hell because they weren't "privileged" to be born Christian, or had the chance to become one. I think it's arrogant and cruel and frankly, unChristian-like. So if a major Christian belief is unChristian-like, what does that mean?

You think its un-Christian like, you arent a Christian. What does that mean?

One person is not any better then the other.
If I believe in God then I also believe there are poeple who are going to Hell.
If I have compassion for those people, does that make me a bad person?

No, the fact that I believe people are going to Hell makes me a bad person.
Right?
There are a few different ways to see Hell and the way I see it may not be the same way you do.
Hell to me is the absense of God.
Thats what it is for quite a few Christians.
I help people to realise that Jesus is looking for them and he can save you from Hell, in doing so Jesus keeps them from being absent of God for eternity.

Let me explain. If you put a thought into a bugs brain that the bug can not understand. The bug will spend the rest of its life trying to figure out the thought.
Compared to God we have the thought process of less then a bug.
Now Christians will be modified so to speak, upon death so they can understand Gods love.
Non-Christians wont be modified in anyway. So they will know of Gods love and not understand it.
This will torment them through out eternity.
That is Hell.
With out first knowing God here on Earth we will not be accepted into Heaven and remain seperated from God.
Only on Earth do we have the choice to chose God or not. After we die we will know everything about God and the choice will not be there.
So through compassion Christians do what they can.

Now Christians will be modified so to speak, upon death so they can understand Gods love.
Non-Christians wont be modified in anyway. So they will know of Gods love and not understand it.
This will torment them through out eternity.That is a sick, demented, capricious and stupid way to run a universe.

I'll take a pass on any such God, thanks.

Yes, BlibBlob, I know what an Archaeopteryx is. I also know what a species is.

You contend that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form halfway between dinosaurs and birds. I disagree. I contend that an Archaeopteryx is a mosaic, an organism displaying fully reptilian and fully avian features, not transitional features halfway between the two. If we were to look at the fossil record some time in the far future of a platypus we could say it was a transitional organism partway between birds and mammals but that is not what it is. Monotremes are mammals, not birds.

I am not arguing that evolution does not take place. It does. My contention is that we did not all evolve from primoridial ooze the evolved up the ladder of life successively becoming one species then another almost ad infinitum. I believe that different species came about independently and were not the result of haphazard mutations over time.

That is a sick, demented, capricious and stupid way to run a universe.

I'll take a pass on any such God, thanks.


Good for you! You got the power to chose.

Go power to chose go!

Good for you! You got the power to chose.

Go power to chose go!I suppose this exemplifies your 'compassion'.

You might as well say "Be my guest! Go to hell!".

I suppose this exemplifies your 'compassion'.

You might as well say "Be my guest! Go to hell!".


You called my God "sick, demented, capricious and stupid"
That does 2 things.
1, Gives overwhelming proof that we have free will
2, tells me there really isnt anything I can say to help keep you from Hell.

Is that my fault?

1, Gives overwhelming proof that we have free willNo it doesn't, explain yourself.
2, tells me there really isnt anything I can say to help keep you from Hell. You don't even know sedan, his life/beliefs, or his morals, how can you be sure of this?
Is that my fault?
"Man is guilty of every good he did not do"- Voltaire

No it doesn't, explain yourself.
You don't even know sedan, his life/beliefs, or his morals, how can you be sure of this?

"Man is guilty of every good he did not do"- Voltaire

When I said we have the right to chose. It is a play on free will and he showed it when he said what he said.

If he loved God he wouldnt have said what he said. So I concluded he wasnt a Christian.


"Man is guilty of every good he did not do"

So true, I was getting to the good part.

Is that my fault?We are each of us free to believe as we please. The difference is I wont tell you that you're going to hell. And why do you feel 'compassion' for those you think are doomed to hell? Don't they deserve their fate? Haven't they asked for it?

When I said we have the right to chose. It is a play on free will and he showed it when he said what he said.
Nonsense, how is insulting God a form of free will? How do you know God would be so vain as to make all his creatures obedient? His statements are not indicative of "free will" at all.
If he loved God he wouldnt have said what he said. So I concluded he wasnt a Christian.
One can love God and still make those comments.
So true, I was getting to the good part.
The quote was supposed to make the case that if sedan ends up in Hell, it is also your fault as well as his because you did not make a conscious effort to help save him.

You contend that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form halfway between dinosaurs and birds. I disagree. I contend that an Archaeopteryx is a mosaic, an organism displaying fully reptilian and fully avian features, not transitional features halfway between the two.
This arises from your incomplete comprehension of what evolution is and what actually defines a species. An Archaeopteryx does not have "fully reptilian and fully avian features", it had feathers, a wishbone, and a partially reversed first toe. None of those features are to the extent of modern birds. It also had distinct reptilian and theropod features, which I'll just quote from wikipedia: a long ascending process of the astragalus, interdental plates, an obturator process of the ischium, long chevrons in the tail. Again, still not entirely reptilian. It is entirely illogical for something to be "fully reptilian" and "fully avian".

If we were to look at the fossil record some time in the far future of a platypus we could say it was a transitional organism partway between birds and mammals but that is not what it is. Monotremes are mammals, not birds.
This clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this field. No, we couldn't. While a platypus lays eggs, it has no other avian features. Monotremes lactate and feed and protect the egg in its early stages.

I am not arguing that evolution does not take place. It does. My contention is that we did not all evolve from primoridial ooze the evolved up the ladder of life successively becoming one species then another almost ad infinitum. I believe that different species came about independently and were not the result of haphazard mutations over time.
Independently? You have yet to disprove the idea that evolution occurs between species.

Darwinian evolution does not refer to only a single generation. It refers to the rise of species, hence the title of his book, Origin of Species.
Er... you were the one arguing Darwin's evolution applies only to speciation. I was the one arguing that it applies to all evolution from a single generation through to speciation and beyond that.

Not one of the many thousands of articles I have access to declare evolution "a fact" nor "proven"

My point, exactly. There is not a scintilla of proof that evolution is a fact yet it is taught as fact. To question the validity of Darwinian evolution is to be delared either a fundamentalist quack or someone of sub-intelligence. The scientific community will brook no questions about the facts, or non-facts concernng evolution.Perhaps the media and education system in your country is scientifically inept but that is irrelevant. You said scientists claim evolution is fact and proven and I pointed out this is not the case - you can hardly say "my point exactly".

Also, proof and fact are not the realm of science which is a method for validating theory not for establishing proof or fact. So I don't see how "facts" and "proofs" have any bearing on any scientific debate, your flip-flopping notwithstanding.

The funny thing is that when creationists aren't busy 'pointing out' that scientists claim evolution is "proven fact" they are busy 'pointing out' that they don't. When they are not busy asserting scientists are abandoning evolution they are busy asserting they won't abandon it for selfish motives. Scientists are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Whatever science says or does the creationist mind is made up already and will spin it to fit its theology.

Also, if there exists a mechnaism to drive evolutionary change what is the mechanism that puts a brake on it and stops speciation in your opinion?

Since I do not believe one species evolves into another, I do not believe there is a mechanism to stop one species from doing so. I believe species arise spontaneously. I don't know how but I do not think they evolve from another species. Darwin's Finches have evolved different bills. Even these bills change within short periods of time in response to changes in the micro-climate of the Gallapagos Islands. They remain finches though. Were Darwinian evolution fact the finches should have evolved into different species but they do not. They remain finches, and not only remain finches but continue to change within their species in response to relatively short term climatic changes.Frankly you're all over the place Frogger. You admitted above that Darwinian evolution, as you call it, explains single generation changes yet here you are back to associating it with speciation. You assert changes within species falsifies speciation yet it is the very driving force for speciation: evolution is about evolutionary change - not revolutionary change. But your biggest fallacy is to acknowledge the mechanism of natural selection above but offer no counter-mechanism to explain how speciation is prevented from occuring.

More generally, the biggest mistake creationists make is to accept evolution based on Darwin's natural selection yet demonise Darwin. Why not celebrate Darwin for making this incredibly and powerful theory of natural selection which you and other creationists do accept as valid (at least upon probing you all do in my experience)?

You may convince yourself with all this but you do nothing but make Christianity look silly with pseudoscience. Perhaps one day I'll be a Christian - who knows? - but so long as these absurd attacks on science are part and parcel of modern Christianity I seriously can't see it happening. It's bad, bad PR for your theology, Frogger.

[QUOTE=Inviolable
Hell to me is the absense of God.
===============================

What if hell is dying, and because of preconcieved ideas, have no idea what has happened?

[QUOTE=Inviolable
Hell to me is the absense of God.
===============================

What if hell is dying, and because of preconcieved ideas, have no idea what has happened?


Depends, would that be better then knowing you are in Hell?
In this case Ignorance would be bliss.

Inviolable

Just a quick question for you, after reading this thread. You said that for you; "hell is the absence of God". Does this apply solely after life here on earth or would you then consider a professed atheist to be currently existing in hell?

We are each of us free to believe as we please. The difference is I wont tell you that you're going to hell. And why do you feel 'compassion' for those you think are doomed to hell? Don't they deserve their fate? Haven't they asked for it?

Because I dont "think" you are doomed to Hell, I know it. I feel compassion because you are suffering, deserving has nothing to do with it.

Human nature tells us we are all.... Well, only human.
One bad apple ruins the bunch. Cant have those people who would defy God hanging out with those people who wouldnt for all of eternity now can we?

BB,

Frankly you're all over the place Frogger. You admitted above that Darwinian evolution, as you call it, explains single generation changes yet here you are back to associating it with speciation.


I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I accept evolution within species. I accept the fact that species evolve into different forms within themselves.

When I speak of Darwinian evolution I am not speaking about change within a species but of one species evolving into another. I do not believe that all life on earth has evolved from some primordial ooze. I look at the Cambrian record and the explosion of species that occured over a geologically short period of time and it makes me believe that the species arose independently and not one from another. I see the fossils in the Burgess Shale and IMO it gives the lie to the Darwinian's claim that we don't have a fossil record of evolution because soft bodies organisms did not fossilize. There are thousands upon thousands of fossils of soft bodied organisms found in the Burgess Shale.

You keep saying I don't understand the science or don't know what a species is. I do understand the science and I do know what a species is. One of my majors in college was biology and I have taken courses ranging from basic botany and zoology, through invertebrate and vertebrate physiology and ecology (then called field biology) to genetics and biochem. I can talk about the Kreb's Cycle, F1 and F2 generations, the interaction of organisms and substrate in an ecosystem. Trust me, I understand the science involved.

I am part of the minority of those who while understanding science involved do not think it proves Darwinian evolution. I am not alone in this belief as there are many well qualified scientists who believe as I do.

Nonsense, how is insulting God a form of free will? How do you know God would be so vain as to make all his creatures obedient? His statements are not indicative of "free will" at all.

One can love God and still make those comments.

The quote was supposed to make the case that if sedan ends up in Hell, it is also your fault as well as his because you did not make a conscious effort to help save him.

I'll agree with the first 2 statements you made.

The first post he replied to was a conscious effort to help save him. I gave him a fairly nice explanation. Least I thought I did.
The second reply I made, only further helped to grab his attention.
He'll keep asking, I'll keep replying and maybe he will walk away with a thought that isnt negative tward Christians and or God.

Inviolable

Just a quick question for you, after reading this thread. You said that for you; "hell is the absence of God". Does this apply solely after life here on earth or would you then consider a professed atheist to be currently existing in hell?


Atheist always ask me that, they think that I am under the assumption that my life is better then their life is.
I am not.
To me, God created everything. Considering that he has created everything knowing him can only make anyones life better through understanding.
I am not saying I am any happier then you are. Your life could be complete and you would still miss knowledge God can offer.

None of us are perfect and we could all use some modification's to help us grow into better people.
For me God is my knowledge base for modifying myself and that is my life.

With out God here on Earth you are not in Hell, but you are also not living my life.

evakian,

You seem to be blaming inviolable because his faith tells him to believe the biblical statement that no man comes to the Father save through the Son. This is a basic Christian concept. "He that believeth in me shall be saved."

Neither Inviolable nor I can tell God what to do. God does what God wishes to do. However, as believing Christians we believe that for us the only way to heaven is through belief in Jesus as the Christ. God may have different rules for other people. We can't know what God will do and we can't tell Him what to do. All we can do is follow his precepts to the best of our ability.

When Inviolable says that certain people will go to hell if they don't change their beliefs this is not an act of hatred. It is rather an act of love on his part. Just as you would expect someone to shout a warning if you were about to step off the curb into the path of a moving car you should expect those who believe that salvation is through Christ to warn you that you are stepping into the path of a speeding car if you refuse or deny Him.

Christians have an obligation to tell people the saving message of Christ. It is not something they do out of hatred but out of love.

You seem to be blaming inviolable because his faith tells him to believe the biblical statement that no man comes to the Father save through the Son.
Blaming him for what? His beliefs?

On another note: You seem to be blaming me for attacking Inviolable and gmsisko (in another thread) despite the fact that I did not attack either one. You also failed to address how the political agenda being pushed by the camp at the start of the thread is teaching "love of God." I am awaiting a response to these unresolved issues.
When Inviolable says that certain people will go to hell if they don't change their beliefs this is not an act of hatred. It is rather an act of love on his part. He may intend it to be an act of "love", but the consequences of such do mostly negative things. The run-of-the-mill atheist is likely to grow greater in dislike for the people who have condemned him or her, or may have a cloud of overbearing guilt now on their lives. Acts of love are not purely determined by the intent of the giver, the means, and ends of such a decision must be weighed as well.

You're not saving me by telling me I am going to Hell, you're scaring me and making me loathe myself. If you want me to join you and your brothers in faith, I want to hear about the salvation, compassion, and joy that accepting Jesus can entail. Getting followers by fear-mongering seems counterintuitive to the methods of The Nazarene himself.
Christians have an obligation to tell people the saving message of Christ. It is not something they do out of hatred but out of love.
Telling me I'm going to Hell is not a saving message of Christ, it is a negative comment of consequence.

Cant have those people who would defy God hanging out with those people who wouldnt for all of eternity now can we?No, of course not. The God you believe in will consign to eternal torment people who are more charitable, more chaste, more honest and more pious than the average Christian for the simple reason that they are not Christian. Worship that God if you want but like I said. I'll pass.

I wonder if your 'compassion' will accompany you to your heaven. Will you sit there consumed with sorrow for all the souls burning in hell? That would be an eternal bummer.

Atheist always ask me that, they think that I am under the assumption that my life is better then their life is.
I am not.
To me, God created everything. Considering that he has created everything knowing him can only make anyones life better through understanding.
I am not saying I am any happier then you are. Your life could be complete and you would still miss knowledge God can offer.

None of us are perfect and we could all use some modification's to help us grow into better people.
For me God is my knowledge base for modifying myself and that is my life.

With out God here on Earth you are not in Hell, but you are also not living my life.

Just to clarify, I am not an atheist. And I would not accuse you of thinking your life is better than mine since you have zero knowledge of my life and I have zero knowledge of yours. I know miserable Christians and happy atheists. Many factors contribute to a person's happiness or state of mind other than their spiritual belief system.

I merely asked the question since your post was unclear to me.

BB,
It was me not BlibBlob who you are responding to.

You keep saying I don't understand the science or don't know what a species is. I do understand the science and I do know what a species is. One of my majors in college was biology and I have taken courses ranging from basic botany and zoology, through invertebrate and vertebrate physiology and ecology (then called field biology) to genetics and biochem. I can talk about the Kreb's Cycle, F1 and F2 generations, the interaction of organisms and substrate in an ecosystem. Trust me, I understand the science involved.I apologise if it came across I was implying you are generally ignorant about science. All I said was "you are all over the place" and perhaps I should have said "your post in this thread on this topic is all over the place." That said, citing one's cv is not good form in a debate. I have more letters after my name than it (literally!) and have taught high school science but wouldn't use that as an argument in of itself.

You continue to use "darwinian evolution" where you mean speciation and this after you acknowledged earlier that Darwin's contribution to science was the mechanism of natural selection which applies to all evolution. You argue against evolution because it is not fact or proven when science is not in the business of fact of proof. You assert natural selection cannot or has not given rise to speciation but provide no explanation of how this logical consequence is halted. You argue that scientists have never created evolved new species in the lab as an argument against evolution (they have - want links to original scientific articles?) when scientists have never spontatneously created new species in the lab - why isn't this evidence against creationism? You assert evolution can not explain these or those fossils but do not establish where the process of natural selection breaks down. For every example you cite peer-reviewed scientific articles exist that rigorously explain in quantitative scientific detail the evolutionary path these organisms followed - including flagellum, Burgess shale and any other creationist favourite. Thousands of articles on evolution are published continuously based on evidence, lab experiments and computer simulations. Creationism has nothing to offer in response - merely a few non-peer-reviewed popularist books with zero scientific credibility.

Your arguments are exactly like saying "not every star in the universe has been observed therefore all of physics is false." Even if you had successfully refuted evolution you still don't explain why creationism should then fill the gap as opposed to, say, Jainist theology, Australian aboriginal dreamtime stories or any of the other thousands of cultural/theological creation stories.

I'm glad you mentioned the flagellum, Blob. Since it is such a basic organ evolutionists should have no trouble explaining how it evolved.

I am not saying evolution does not exist. I am saying Darwin was wrong, just as Lysenko was wrong. I am not saying God created the world in six days. I am saying that one species does not evolve into another, one genus does not evolve into another, one phyllum does not evolve into another, one kingdom does not evolve into another.

You have my blessing to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I think Darwin was wrong and overstated his case. I am not alone in thinking this.

My posting some of the course work I took was in direct response to your posting I didn't understand science. It wasn't just thrown in there for no reason.

No, of course not. The God you believe in will consign to eternal torment people who are more charitable, more chaste, more honest and more pious than the average Christian for the simple reason that they are not Christian. Worship that God if you want but like I said. I'll pass.

I wonder if your 'compassion' will accompany you to your heaven. Will you sit there consumed with sorrow for all the souls burning in hell? That would be an eternal bummer.


Uhhh, no I'll be rejoycing eternal in Gods love.

Why would you think Christians wouldnt be more charitable and all that other stuff you said, then an Atheist?

Where do you get the average Christian thing from?

Is there an average Christain chart on what we are and are not?

Uhhh, no I'll be rejoycing eternal in Gods love.So your 'compassion' is an earthly emotion. Here I thought Christian love was of divine origin.Why would you think Christians wouldnt be more charitable and all that other stuff you said, then an Atheist?

Where do you get the average Christian thing from?

Is there an average Christain chart on what we are and are not?Some Christians are very selfless and altruistic. Others are far less so. The 'average Christian' would fall somewhere in between. There exist people who are not Christians who are more virtuous than the 'average Christian'. Your God says they must burn in hell. Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm glad you mentioned the flagellum, Blob. Since it is such a basic organ evolutionists should have no trouble explaining how it evolved.I agree.

Albertini, A. M., Caramori, T., Crabb, W. D., Scoffone, F. and Galizzi, A., 1991. The flaA
locus of Bacillus subtilis is part of a large operon coding for flagellar structures, motility
functions, and an ATPase-like polypeptide. J Bacteriol. 173 (11), 3573-3579.

Arora, S. K., Ritchings, B. W., Almira, E. C., Lory, S. and Ramphal, R., 1998. The
Pseudomonas aeruginosa flagellar cap protein, FliD, is responsible for mucin adhesion. Infect
Immun. 66 (3), 1000-1007.

Auvray, F., Ozin, A. J., Claret, L. and Hughes, C., 2002. Intrinsic membrane targeting of the
flagellar export ATPase FliI: Interaction with acidic phospholipids and FliH. Journal of
Molecular Biology. 318 (4), 941-950. DOI link.

Bayley, D. P. and Jarrell, K. F., 1998. Further evidence to suggest that archaeal flagella are
related to bacterial type IV pili. J Mol Evol. 46 (3), 370-373.

Berg, H. C., 2003. The rotary motor of bacterial flagella. Annu Rev Biochem. 72, 19-54.

Berg, H. C. and Anderson, R. A., 1973. Bacteria swim by rotating their flagellar filaments.
Nature. 245 (5425), 380-382.

Berry, R. M., 2000. Theories of rotary motors. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 355
(1396), 503-509.

Bischoff, D. S. and Ordal, G. W., 1992. Identification and characterization of FliY, a novel
component of the Bacillus subtilis flagellar switch complex. Mol Microbiol. 6 (18), 2715-
2723.

Blocker, A., Komoriya, K. and Aizawa, S. I., 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial
flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100
(6), 3027-3030

Brown, I. I. and Häse, C. C., 2001. Flagellum-independent surface migration of Vibrio
cholerae and Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 183 (12), 3784-3790.

Brown, P. N., Hill, C. P. and Blair, D. F., 2002. Crystal structure of the middle and C-terminal
domains of the flagellar rotor protein FliG. Embo J. 21 (13), 3225-3234.
Those are just the A and B references from a single reference list of which there are hundreds more. In total thousands of papers of original research into flagella have been and are being published. Some are direct evidence explaining models of development others draw on such models to explain attributes and effects of flagella.

btw the term is "evolutionary scientists" not "evolutionists" and flagella is not an organ.

I am not saying evolution does not exist. I am saying Darwin was wrongYet you agree Darwin proposed natural selection and you agree natural selection is the basis of evolution. Why not credit him as a great scientist for these contributions?

I am saying that one species does not evolve into another, one genus does not evolve into another, one phyllum does not evolve into another, one kingdom does not evolve into another.You say that but do not explain what it is that brings natural selection to a sudden halt.

My posting some of the course work I took was in direct response to your posting I didn't understand science. It wasn't just thrown in there for no reason.I never said that. Perhaps you are mixing up what I said with something BlibBlob said.

So your 'compassion' is an earthly emotion. Here I thought Christian love was of divine origin.Some Christians are very selfless and altruistic. Others are far less so. The 'average Christian' would fall somewhere in between. There exist people who are not Christians who are more virtuous than the 'average Christian'. Your God says they must burn in hell. Hope that clears it up for you.

Our love is of a devine nature, why would we have to suffer eternaly because you made the wrong choice here on Earth?
That sounds pretty selfish to me, you want me to suffer because thats what you chose to do.

No actualy you havent cleared anything up, so far you are informing me of your own beliefes in an odd way.
I kind of think Atheism is a religion all its own, with the values people put on it it really isnt to dissimilar then any other religion.
To bad its a beliefe in nothing.

Just to clarify, I am not an atheist. And I would not accuse you of thinking your life is better than mine since you have zero knowledge of my life and I have zero knowledge of yours. I know miserable Christians and happy atheists. Many factors contribute to a person's happiness or state of mind other than their spiritual belief system.

I merely asked the question since your post was unclear to me.

My bad I jumped the gun there. That question is ask so many times I just respond to it to quickly.

My bad I jumped the gun there. That question is ask so many times I just respond to it to quickly.I am an atheist so you can have that one on me, Inviolable. ;)


Nice to see you again Sal!

I find Athiests and Agnostics to be very OPEN MINDED people.....You can talk to them about ANYTHING it seems and they dont judge you,etc...........

I have a couple ATHIEST friends and a couple AGNOSTIC friends also......

Maybe its cause they havent been affected by religion??

I dunno,i just have noticed that......

Our love is of a devine nature, why would we have to suffer eternaly because you made the wrong choice here on Earth?
That sounds pretty selfish to me, you want me to suffer because thats what you chose to do.
It also sounds selfish when you tell people they are destined to Hell while you sit there gladly proclaiming you are going to an eternal paradise, just a thought.

Also, you seem to put emphasis on "choice", as in "you chose to do" (referring to disbelief in Christ). I never chose to disbelieve in Jesus' divinity or the afterlife, I just read the Bible and disbelieved it based upon my knowledge of this world, I would give anything for those things to be true and to have faith and believe, but I do not presume those beliefs as truth. This was not a conscious decision on my part, it just conflicts with my logic and therefore I cannot accept it. Accepting it would be lying to myself and not earnest and true, which is not the sort of relationship necessary for the suppose "entry to Heaven", since you have to "believe with all your heart. I was even raised in a Christian household, my father was a theologian, yet my sentiment came.

You can sit there and tell me that I'm going to Hell, but know you are neither being compassionate nor correct in doing so.

No actualy you havent cleared anything up, so far you are informing me of your own beliefes in an odd way.I have not attempted to explain my beliefs beyond saying that sending someone to hell for the simple reason they are not a Christian is a sick, demented, capricious and stupid way to run a universe. Sorry you don't understand why, normally my English is plain enough.

It also sounds selfish when you tell people they are destined to Hell while you sit there gladly proclaiming you are going to an eternal paradise, just a thought.

Also, you seem to put emphasis on "choice", as in "you chose to do" (referring to disbelief in Christ). I never chose to disbelieve in Jesus' divinity or the afterlife, I just read the Bible and disbelieved it based upon my knowledge of this world, I would give anything for those things to be true and to have faith and believe, but I do not presume those beliefs as truth. This was not a conscious decision on my part, it just conflicts with my logic and therefore I cannot accept it. Accepting it would be lying to myself and not earnest and true, which is not the sort of relationship necessary for the suppose "entry to Heaven", since you have to "believe with all your heart. I was even raised in a Christian household, my father was a theologian, yet my sentiment came.

You can sit there and tell me that I'm going to Hell, but know you are neither being compassionate nor correct in doing so.


I dont think I am being selfish when I try to explain God to them.
I mean you and I alone have had page after page of conversations about God.
You were making a choice through all of it.
I did what I could to convince you and failed to even budge your beliefes.
After all they are beliefs, just as I believe in God you don't believe in God.
I can try and you can keep telling me Im delusional, or that God is not real.
As a matter of fact I think you did what you could to convince that I was and God is.
In the end it is what you beleive and beliefs can change. There for it is a choice.

I have not attempted to explain my beliefs beyond saying that sending someone to hell for the simple reason they are not a Christian is a sick, demented, capricious and stupid way to run a universe. Sorry you don't understand why, normally my English is plain enough.

Maybe you should, because I am not understanding your english at all.

Maybe you should, because I am not understanding your english at all.No, I've tilted this windmill enough, thanks.