evolution or something else

[szahtut]

I am looking for an answer to the question of how living things, including
ourself, came into existence?
darwinism and Evolution? or creation?
here we go?

[moninia2000]

Woooow))
And I am looking for an answer to my question: Are we monogamous?Hehe,hihi.
Moni

[szahtut]

moninia2000 napisała:

> Woooow))
> And I am looking for an answer to my question: Are we monogamous?Hehe,hihi.
> Moni
Mam, are kelling, but any way, I do believe we are monogamy, aven some crazy
minds like to screw behind their lovers;
Toto

[usenetposts]

szahtut napisał:

> I am looking for an answer to the question of how living things, including
> ourself, came into existence?
> darwinism and Evolution? or creation?
> here we go?

I myself do not believe that Evolution accounts for the origin of humankind.

Or any other kind for that matter.

[szahtut]

usenetposts napisał:

> szahtut napisał:
>
> > I am looking for an answer to the question of how living things, includin
> g
> > ourself, came into existence?
> > darwinism and Evolution? or creation?
> > here we go?
>
> I myself do not believe that Evolution accounts for the origin of humankind.
>
> Or any other kind for that matter.

wow, it is quite fuzzy sometime to make definition to revolution, that trus I
do not believe this example like:
"Giraffes had evolved from antelope-like animals who extended their necks
further as they tried to reach higher branches for food"
so that mean darwinism theory was fake, who knows?

[babiana]

According to Darwin’s theory we are descendants of apes. If so, I choose the
baboon as my ancestor.

In many ways, they are very similar to people. Like human parents, adult baboons
tend to newborns around the clock.

Baboons live in well-organized troops, and the individual is only secure within
his own troop. Large, dominant males (kings) rule the group and are responsible
for keeping order between quarrelsome members and for protecting the group from
predators.

Scientists discovered that only baboons (except humans) have the ability of
abstract thinking.

They are able to grieve for their family members the way which is unknown to
other species.

Baboons Protest Road Killings
According to a report from BBC Uganda, a group of baboons in eastern Uganda
staged a public “sit-in” after a speeding truck killed a female from their
troupe. The grieving baboons surrounded her body in the middle of the road and
refused to move for 30 minutes, blocking the highway completely. Even when
passersby tried to tempt them away with food, the baboons refused to leave their
deceased family member.

Last year, another group of baboons threw sticks and stones at passing cars
after a baby baboon from their troupe was killed on the same road..

And this Lucky Baboon (together with the one who tried to help him) should be
put on the List of XX century heroes))

www.youtube.com/watch?v=baq7Za7YxPo&mode=related&search=

[usenetposts]

szahtut napisał:

> usenetposts napisał:
>
> > szahtut napisał:
> >
> > > I am looking for an answer to the question of how living things, in
> cludin
> > g
> > > ourself, came into existence?
> > > darwinism and Evolution? or creation?
> > > here we go?
> >
> > I myself do not believe that Evolution accounts for the origin of humanki
> nd.
> >
> > Or any other kind for that matter.
>
> wow, it is quite fuzzy sometime to make definition to revolution, that trus I
> do not believe this example like:
> "Giraffes had evolved from antelope-like animals who extended their necks
> further as they tried to reach higher branches for food"
> so that mean darwinism theory was fake, who knows?

If the example you gave were the case, then Lamarck could come back with all
things forgiven.

true or false

[szahtut]

usenetposts napisał:

> szahtut napisał:
>
> > I am looking for an answer to the question of how living things, includin
> g
> > ourself, came into existence?
> > darwinism and Evolution? or creation?
> > here we go?
>
> I myself do not believe that Evolution accounts for the origin of humankind.
>
> Or any other kind for that matter.

"The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human
history. Vast amounts of blood were poured and people subjected to the most
terrible fear. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin inflicted
genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless"
exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many
Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were
compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick.

All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless
competition.

Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even
regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars
between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and
even brothers, became one another's enemies."

All crap related to Darwinism theory, is it true?

[babiana]

I still insist that baboons are the missing link.

[usenetposts]

szahtut napisał:

>... Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless"
> exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many
> Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden&#
> 8212;were
> compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick.
>
> All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless
> competition.
>
> Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even
> regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars
> between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and
> even brothers, became one another's enemies."
>
> All crap related to Darwinism theory, is it true?

It certainly is. Once humans got the idea that they were another sort of
animal, they started treating each other that way as never before.

Discrimination in darwinism's theory

[szahtut]

In order to demonstrate that women were "inferior," some evolutionist
scientists sought to prove that they had smaller brain capacities. Some
resorted to such humiliating and illogical methods as measuring women's skulls.
They imagined that the greater the size of the brain, the more advanced the
level of intelligence (which is now known to be invalid), compared their
skulls, and declared the women to be inferior. This was actually one of the
unscientific methods referred to in Darwin's book.

what the hell, those people were Jakeass,

Measuring people's skulls and classifying them according to race and gender has
been totally invalidated by science, since skull and brain size have nothing to
do with intelligence or mental capacity.


to be or not to be this is a cap;

[silverlode]

here we go. For once the subject is in line with my education. I do believe
partially in evolution (it takes hell a lot os years to get this giraffe necks
elongated but it sould be done I suppose) and all that stuff. But all is fine
till we come to inteligence (monkey vs human). I cannot imagine somehow such a
big step happening at once.... where are this forms in between??? So I do think
there was somebody (?), something (?) like (genetic or other) manipulation,
integretion, kind of controlled experiment.
About monogamy, it makes me feel upleasent but unfortunately it is not natural.
I mean I hate the idea of people cheating etc, but from biological point of
view monogamy is not prefered. the more crossing between subjects the better
mixing of genetic material and more adaptable next generation. I mean the good
examples are very small closed populations that do not mix with anyone else.
more and more genetic mistakes occurs until they died out or became sterile.

so that is my point of view
greetings, silverlode

[szahtut]

silverlode napisała:

> here we go. For once the subject is in line with my education. I do believe
> partially in evolution (it takes hell a lot os years to get this giraffe
necks
> elongated but it sould be done I suppose) and all that stuff. But all is fine
> till we come to inteligence (monkey vs human). I cannot imagine somehow such
a
> big step happening at once.... where are this forms in between??? So I do
think
> there was somebody (?), something (?) like (genetic or other) manipulation,
> integretion, kind of controlled experiment.
............
> so that is my point of view
> greetings, silverlode
>

My dear,
In my opinion, first thing we should think about it is why Monkeys still
monkeys? like babone!, in other words let go to the origin of the species and
fossil and read between the lines of the history.

Scientific evidence could be a answer;
Kindest regards

[brookie]

I think the brain of some species developed faster than the others.
The smarter ones ruled the group while the others took it low and slow.
The law of nature is, the strongest/ brainiest wins. That's why I believe that
some sort of clever ape gave the beginning to the human kind. No corruption.

[szahtut]

brookie napisała:

> I think the brain of some species developed faster than the others.
> The smarter ones ruled the group while the others took it low and slow.
> The law of nature is, the strongest/ brainiest wins. That's why I believe
that
> some sort of clever ape gave the beginning to the human kind. No corruption.

I do not beleive the existance of kind of mechanisms in nature which lead the
living beings to evolve. so let ask a question like: do living species came
into existence as the result of an evolutionary process? in other words "human
evolution"theory story is true or false?.

regarding:"I think the brain of some species developed faster than the others.
> The smarter ones ruled the group while the others took it low and slow.
> The law of nature is, the strongest/ brainiest wins. That's why I believe
that some sort of clever ape gave the beginning to the human kind. No
corruption",
since man has a sociable nature, he can not live alone, and of course he
couldn't forget his ancestors "Apes" without participating in thier evolution
and of course the "Apes" would disappare forever, however, nowadays,the "Apse"
still existing in this world.

fossil could prove or would not that our ancestors were "Apes";

to be or not to be this is ?

[usenetposts]

Dear Szahtut,

We may not agree on a number of issues regarding the value of Islam, but you
are quite correct in saying that there is no mechanism in nature that enables a
Kind, or true genus, to change into another one, other than by the process of
decay and corruption. It is written that "God created them after their Kinds",
and the most we see within a Kind is diversification into species (called
speciation) which takes a long time, and also diversification into races.

The place at which these things cut off, in accordance with modern creation
science, is that two races within a species can freely interbreed and will if
they meet, and they will produce fertile, vigorous offspring. Two species
within a genus can be brought to breed, but either their offspring will be
infertile or have other problems, such as genetic defects that do not allow
them to live long enough to reproduce further, or will lack vigour. Sometimes
there is also technical speciation because of a physical barrier, such as size.
Chihuahuas and great danes are not really different species, but the size
differential prevents it effectively and where we have wild species having
similar barriers, (such as certain livebearing fishes with either left or right
pointing gonopodiums) we would already be talking about technical speciation.

Nevertheless, with help, some offspring, however unviable, will occur in
pairings within a genus. The help I refer to is only mechanical help such as
artificial without direct physical interference in the DNA.

If pairings between animals are only possible when you play about with their
DNA, then these animals, or plants, are in a separate genus or Kind. And of
course, we shouldn't actually be doing that. It will end in tears of
unfathomable sadness.

No genus is ever known to have given risen to a new one by the addition of
fresh information. In the known cases where one genus has under observed
conditions given rise to a new one, it is by decay.

The classic case of this is the cancer cells of Henrietta Lacks, whose German
born physician, cut out of her and cultured contrary to medical ethics without
her informed consent (she was black, and in those days they did not consider it
worthwhile asking a black woman what she thought about decisions made
concerning her own body) in order to examine them and try to find a cure, which
then changed in his laboratory to become a separate species of unicellular
organism called Helacyton gartleri, which exists in various universities to
this day.

We know Helacyton is a genus derived by decay and corruption from human cells,
but what medical science in its bondage to evolutionary thought refuses to
acknowledge is how many bacteria and viruses are nothing but rogue human cells
which have taken on a life of their own.

They need for bacteria to have evolved in order for evolution to be true.
Otherwise the missing link between nothingness and multicellular animals would
be too great to countenance. They indeed posit that the entire change from the
system of anaerobic life to aerobic life took plave only in blue-green algae
and bacteria, that they are all there was at that time.

But it is utter nonsense, as an organism is either aerobic or anaerobic. If you
introduce oxygen into the system of an anaerobic bacterium, it dies.

Also it is clear that viruses could not have evolved from lower forms of life,
as they cannot reproduce without higher cells. They are rogue DNA from higher
cells which became motile, and went on to become their own organism.

Science was aware of this before eveolutionary politically correctness silenced
them. In fact, it was originally thought that the sperms of a human being were
a separate animal that did us the service of carrying our seed. That is why
they were first termed "spermatozoans" or "seed animals" a termed gone into
disuse seeing that they themsleves have no life of their own, and will not
survive long outside the parts of the body made for them, however, sometimes
they do go independent, and do the Lacks thing, which accounts for the fact
that there are micro-organisms that you will find in ponds and rivers which
propel themselves with a tail in the way that the sperm of higher animals do.
These things didn't evolve, they disevolved from higher animals.

There is a strong correlation between the number of species in a genus and
generational life, in all warm-blooded animals. If you trace back those lines
of correlation through time, you get to an intersection at a point about 8000
years ago - the time of the Genesis Flood.

[ianek70]

Natural selection occurs, and species evolve. This is a fact. People are much
taller than they were 500 years ago.
So, over the course of millions of years, one species can evolve so much that
it has to be considered a different one.

The same principle applies to languages, but they develop much more quickly.
Nobody ever forced the citizens of Rome to start speaking a new language, their
speech developed gradually over the years, passed on down the generations.
Italian and Latin are completely different languages, but there was never a
single moment in time when people suddenly realised they couldn't understand
their parents and decided that since Tuesday they'd been speaking Italian and
not Latin.

Can current knowledge about evolution adequately explain how inorganic matter
originally became life? Did it happen suddenly, then gradually spread? Or was
it a slow process, lasting hundreds, thousands or millions of years? Scientists
can speculate. They can speculate about anything, but can't prove everything.
Nobody has ever proved the existence of any of the thousands of deities our
neighbours or ancestors have worshipped.
Scientists devote a lot of effort to researching the existence of life on other
planets, so why don't they try to discover if God exists?

Evolution, although generally (if not uncritically) accepted, is still
considered a theory because nobody can prove with 100% certainty that something
is true if it happened a long time ago. I can't prove that Neil Armstrong stood
on the moon, because I wasn't born in 1969, but that doesn't mean it's not
true. There's a lot of evidence to support it.

Even if it were possible to prove that life (on Earth, at least) could not have
begun because of simple chemistry, that is not acceptable evidence of
supernatural intervention. And even if real evidence of such intervention could
be found, there is no proof that any supernatural being exists who could have
intervened.

The evidence for completely chemical-based biological evolution is incomplete
and sometimes debatable, but the evidence to support any of our ancestors' many
creation myths simply does not exist.

[usenetposts]

Ianek70 wrote:

> Natural selection occurs, and species evolve. This is a fact.

Natural selection occurs and animals do speciate. That is an observable fact.

> People are much
> taller than they were 500 years ago.

This is not necessarily a genetic issue, but one of diet and general health.

If natural selection is all about getting bigger, then we might well ask why
animals used to be bigger than they are now, according to the fossil record.

Also, see www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsCWrv_GCk for an argument that
having big people is counter-evolutionary anyway.

> So, over the course of millions of years, one species can evolve so much that
> it has to be considered a different one.

??? How did you get from a to b on that one? It doesn't take millions of years
for an animal to speciate. It takes a certain number of iterations. That is why
there are few species in genera of animals with long generational periods, such
as elephants, rhinoceroses, hippoes, etc, and many more species in animals with
short generations, such as rodents and bats. This corresponds to the number of
generations of them there has been since the flood. And this speciation, as I
defined it earlier, takes in fact very little time, but doesn't necessarily
lead on to further genera emerging, as no fresh data enters the gene pool, only
a refinement of genes that were already there. The tall genes before squeezed
out the smaller genes, but both were there already - nothing new happened.

>
> The same principle applies to languages, but they develop much more quickly.
> Nobody ever forced the citizens of Rome to start speaking a new language,
their
> speech developed gradually over the years, passed on down the generations.
> Italian and Latin are completely different languages, but there was never a
> single moment in time when people suddenly realised they couldn't understand
> their parents and decided that since Tuesday they'd been speaking Italian and
> not Latin.
>

That is more true than you know, that analogy. Languages likewise do not
evolve, but simplify. It's certainly true that more words appear, and this is
because human history and experience is relatively much longer now than it was
at the time of the Roman empire. Nevertheless, people still do not like to
invent most words but always rehash them from older languages.

So for example we have butter from Germanic Buter, which comes from Ancient
Greek byteros, which itself came from a Scythian word, and no doubt the
Scythians took that word from another language, and you could probably trace
the word back to one of the several thousand individuals' one-man languages
that ran away from the Babel event.

Almost every word can be traced back. People feel silly about dreaming up words
from nothing. What does happen though is that language simplifies -
international words appear, the number of cases and tenses and separate endings
reduce. You talk of Latin, it has 6 cases. PIE had 8. In the Vulgate latin
loses its cases and you are left with 4 in Romanian and Moldavian, and a
maximum of three in any of the others, but pretty much limited to pronouns.

And if we get on to the questions of how language came about in the first place
then you will find no linguist has so far posited a model that is better than
pure science fiction.

> Can current knowledge about evolution adequately explain how inorganic matter
> originally became life? Did it happen suddenly, then gradually spread? Or was
> it a slow process, lasting hundreds, thousands or millions of years?

It cannot. If you actually look at what is necessary to make the very simplest
viable life unit in terms of a strand of DNA in a semi-permeable cell wall, the
chances of getting the massive string of atoms to line up in an appropriate
order is so vanishingly small that the odds against it dwarfs the actual number
of atoms in the known universe.

It is a fools' fairy tale that life could have come of a chance meeting of
chemicals, with no intelligence helping them in a powerful, intrusive,
deliberate and designing way.



>Scientists
>
> can speculate. They can speculate about anything, but can't prove everything.
> Nobody has ever proved the existence of any of the thousands of deities our
> neighbours or ancestors have worshipped.

True, but here, you see, they don't have to. According to the Christian model
God won't prove himself as he justifies in the basis of faith, which pretty
much leaves us in trouble if he does prove himself. It means he would need to
test our faith in other ways, and I for one don't fancy going through the test
of a Job or an Abraham, who had to have their faith tested on that level
because they knew jolly well that there was a Creator and anyone seriously
suggesting the contrary in the days when most men had seen miracles would have
been dismissed as unserious or mad.

> Scientists devote a lot of effort to researching the existence of life on
other
>
> planets, so why don't they try to discover if God exists?
>

The evangelical Christian and the conservative Catholic likewise would say they
already know he exists, and are already doing all they can to deny that he
exists. Why can't they manage it? In deductive reasoning, as expounded by
Arthur Conan Doyle in the mouth of Sherlock Holmes, if you cannot disprove
something it must be true.

> Evolution, although generally (if not uncritically) accepted, is still
> considered a theory because nobody can prove with 100% certainty that
something
>
> is true if it happened a long time ago. I can't prove that Neil Armstrong
stood
>
> on the moon, because I wasn't born in 1969, but that doesn't mean it's not
> true. There's a lot of evidence to support it.
>

Evolutionists take pretty much on faith that this time even existed. I have no
reason to believe that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

It was created mature, and endured the catastrophes of Flood, Asswaging, and
division of continents each mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis as well
as in Sumerian literature, and in various aboriginal traditions from around the
world.

> Even if it were possible to prove that life (on Earth, at least) could not
have
>
> begun because of simple chemistry, that is not acceptable evidence of
> supernatural intervention. And even if real evidence of such intervention
could
>
> be found, there is no proof that any supernatural being exists who could have
> intervened.
>

That is why some scientists, even one Nobel Prize winner, have seriously
posited panspermia, which means that they think life was seeded on this planet
from another planet. That is an acknowledgement from the minds that understand
these things of the enormity of the proposition that life here could have come
from the inanimate, but all it serves to do is to remove the question as to
where we came from into the realm where further questioning is impossible ("it
all happened on some other planet, so don't ask") and make us shut our mounths.
Any nonsense will do, as long as it isn't the Biblical account, and atheists
are ready to acknowledge that they know nothing about how these questions can
be answered, but one thing they know of a certainty, and that is it can't have
been God. And all because the lady doesn't love that particular Milk Tray, and
therefore protests too much...

> The evidence for completely chemical-based biological evolution is incomplete
> and sometimes debatable, but the evidence to support any of our ancestors'
> many creati

[usenetposts]

That broke off. Here's the end bit. Thankfully I had it saved as I was
expecting that to happen, noticing it was getting rather long ...:


> The evidence for completely chemical-based biological evolution is incomplete
> and sometimes debatable, but the evidence to support any of our ancestors'
> many creation myths simply does not exist.

You will find that this is not the case, it exists well enough, but there is a
consensus in the scientific community to ignore it, ridicule it, and blot it
out. There is a book in Polish called "Pomylka Darwina" which is in the shops,
or if you prefer there are links on my website (bottom left) to places where
there are learned rebuttals of all the evolutionists' claims against the Bible.
You will see it just under the button that links to this forum on my homepage.

You may also note that a challenge to scientists I left here:

groups.google.com/group/Creation-Acceptance

has gone unanswered for about 5 months now. I also asked 12 questions of a
leading Usenet skeptic David W. showing loopholes in evolution and he could not
answer in a convincing way a single one of them, even though I asked them
following on from his challenge to take on "the action" of any discussion of
evolution from creationists.

But in the end it is a false premise to put on a level playing field for the
purposes of empirical support one philosophy that says "I must be based on
observable evidence" (science) and another that says "I will accept that which
I inherit from revelation or tradition" (religion/faith)(I am borrowing heavily
from Bertrand Russell here, ironically enough). Science only lives when proven,
faith dies when proven. So if we say we believe in evolution when it cannot be
demonstrated empirically and there are counterarguments to each and every one
of its claims, can we say, in this case, that evolution is science or just
another faith-based philosophy?

[ianek70]

usenetposts napisał:

> But in the end it is a false premise to put on a level playing field for the
> purposes of empirical support one philosophy that says "I must be based on
> observable evidence" (science) and another that says "I will accept that
which
> I inherit from revelation or tradition" (religion/faith)(I am borrowing
heavily
>
> from Bertrand Russell here, ironically enough). Science only lives when
proven,
>
> faith dies when proven.

So any kind of debate about religion is a total waste of time.
Rational people say: I believe this because it seems to be true (or probably
true) because there is at least some evidence, it is logical and consistent
with other things which are proven or accepted to be true, or which I have
observed, but I could be wrong, I'm open minded.
Religious people say the opposite: This is true because I believe it. No ifs,
no buts, no maybes, I personally believe this and my opinions are worth more
than other people's so I don't need proof, logic, common sense or any of that
other PC bollocks.

Religion has built in double-standards.
Superstitious folk can believe in the observable and logical when it suits
them, but sensible, rational people tend not to suddenly justify things by
blaming the supernatural. I would never say to an employer, "Sorry I'm late,
bloody demons holding up the traffic again".
If a devout Christian gets drunk on a Saturday night, does he say "I remember
nothing at all about last night, I simply know I was rat-arsed, it's a question
of faith."?
Does he think, "Hmm, no beer left in the fridge, there's a kebab in my pocket,
I've got the phone number of someone called Wee Brenda Fae The Baur written in
lipstick on a beermat, my head hurts like buggery and I feel like there's a
badger in mouth. But such circumstantial evidence proves nothing, I believe I
spent last night at home doing crosswords, and that the Lord has sent these
shaking hands, smelly breath and vomit-stained trousers to test my faith. For
which I thank him."?

[szahtut]

ianek70 napisał:


>
> So any kind of debate about religion is a total waste of time.
> Rational people say: I believe this because it seems to be true (or probably
> true) because there is at least some evidence, it is logical and consistent
> with other things which are proven or accepted to be true, or which I have
> observed, but I could be wrong, I'm open minded.
> Religious people say the opposite: This is true because I believe it. No ifs,
> no buts, no maybes, I personally believe this and my opinions are worth more
> than other people's so I don't need proof, logic, common sense or any of that
> other PC bollocks.

In his book "The Descent of Man, 1871" Darwin claimed that human beings
and “Apes” descended from a common ancestor. From that time, the followers of
Darwin tried to support his claim by any concrete scientific evidence,
especially the fossil evidence.

Dr David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the
meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go
on."
www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinEnigmaCvrBackLg.jpg

Darwin claimed that modern human beings evolved from some kind of “Ape-like=
Australophithecines” ancestor, during evolutionary process which is considered
to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago.

Recently, it was proved that Australopithecus cannot be considered as ancestor
of man, and it has been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French
popular scientific magazine “Science et Vie” made the subject the cover of its
May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy= Goodbye Lucy". Lucy being the
most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus. “the magazine
reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed
from the human family tree”.
www.retromag.com/index/titles/96.html.

> Religion has built in double-standards.
> Superstitious folk can believe in the observable and logical when it suits
> them, but sensible, rational people tend not to suddenly justify things by
> blaming the supernatural. I would never say to an employer, "Sorry I'm late,
> bloody demons holding up the traffic again".

The philosophical skepticism is an important key of science, it is based on the
idea that scientific development is possible only through doubting.
If science is based on skepticism, then in the same manner, they believed that
chanceor luck brought everything into being, so Darwinists should also allow
the possibility that everything is created by God. Since skepticism is
indispensable in science, then they should give right that <50%> possibility,
that God created living things.
skepdic.com/skepticism.html
> If a devout Christian gets drunk on a Saturday night, does he say "I remember
> nothing at all about last night, I simply know I was rat-arsed, it's a
question
>
> of faith."?
it is possible that you beleive that God exist, but you have no faith and vise
versa.

to be or not to be....

[nearlypolish]

Take a look at all the 'theories' & that includes the bible & make your own
mind up. It will be as close to the truth as the other 'truths' outhere.

There is of course the 'alien theory'....i.e. we are descendants from some
alien beings who landed here circa. time of Abraham in the old testament.

[szahtut]

nearlypolish napisał:

> Take a look at all the 'theories' & that includes the bible & make your own
> mind up. It will be as close to the truth as the other 'truths' outhere.
>
> There is of course the 'alien theory'....i.e. we are descendants from some
> alien beings who landed here circa. time of Abraham in the old testament.


To be an open mind prompts us toconsider if other points of view are true or
not. So, let take a quick look inside the link:

www.vegsource.com/biospirituality/judaism.html
to be or not to be this is what other religions' are saying

[szahtut]

Did Darwinism reestablish the Atheism?

It is true that the main reasons why materialist support Darwinism with such
intense determination is its atheistic aspect.

The former president of the American Association Charles Smith for the
Advancement of Atheism, also grants in argument by saying "evolution is
atheism."

to be or not to be is that true,

[usenetposts]

szahtut napisał:

> Did Darwinism reestablish the Atheism?
>
> It is true that the main reasons why materialist support Darwinism with such
> intense determination is its atheistic aspect.
>
> The former president of the American Association Charles Smith for the
> Advancement of Atheism, also grants in argument by saying "evolution is
> atheism."
>
> to be or not to be is that true,

I think that Darwinism is not equal to atheism. It was invented by a theist,
and there are theists around the world who simply think that's how God did it.
I beg to differ. I think God has told us in the Book how He actually did it.

The issue is that Darwinism is very atheist-enabling, once you take it with al
of its plug-ins like huge amounts of space and time that nobody can objectively
prove ever really happened. It enables the universe, or our perception of it,
not to stand in need of a creator.

It has massive holes in it such as the inability to explain the beginnings of
life, as well as dozens of other issues that are serious flaws in it, but there
are a lot of people who lap up the idea that there is a theory (they usually
say a scientific theory, totally ignoring the fact that evolution is not
science, but philosophy, even by Bertrand Russell, the noted atheist's view, as
expounded in the introduction to his History of western Philosophy). People
have a desire to disbelieve in God so that they can go ahead and do what they
like without feeling guilty, and so they are not gonna look a gift horse in the
mouth by actually studying the things that show how evolution is a load of
nineteenth century baloney.

[szahtut]

usenetposts napisał:

Many thanks for your clarification and consideration, Since we see ourselves as
one more animal on the evolutionary system, then we must either affirm that our
morality applies to all living or deny that our morality has any base at all.

to be or not to be ?

[babiana]

www.wynalazki.mt.com.pl/rozr/txt/beczka.html