The Great Evolution Deception

[John Chingford]

We have been duped by the lies of those who want a reason to ignore their consciences or justify why they can do what they want. Evolutionists and scientists state their findings as if fact. They say that the Big Bang actually happened, but it is NOT a fact it is a theory!!!!!! They ignore the real test of science which is making discoveries by examination and real evidence.

To all scientists, evolutionists etc I challenge you: were you there when the so called big bang happened? Also, it sounds incredibly ludicrous to state that "in the beginning NOTHING exploded". There has always got to be cause and effect. How can nothing cause an explosion?

In fact, ALL explanations of fossils etc can be explained by the global flood of Noah in Genesis. Even in our day discoveries have been found by those who do not have a closed mind that fossils have been produced in front of our eyes under the right conditions. Some fossils have been found that have been aged at millions of years, but actually it has taken a matter of weeks to develop because of catastrophic events like volcano, floods etc

Please see www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

This website is incredible. It has made great discoveries which gives strong evidence that evolutionists have got it completely wrong and bring great doubts into the ageing techniques scientists use. They have very strong arguments to show that this world is MUCH younger than science professors state as shown by many evidences they have found. Do not be scared to be confronted bvy truth. If you truly have an open mind and are convinced of what you believe then it wont cause you harm to check it out, unless you want to believe the lie?

[Scouse]

Unlike most religious people you will find that most scientists accept what they put forward is only theory although they are often called 'laws'.

Do some research and try reading some Kuhn's theory of paradigms.

Scintists don't spend their time trying to prove things but trying to disprove theories.

Their work is based on empirical observation for which they propose a theory of cause and effect. This is accepted until disproved and a new theory becomes the paradigm.

Yes some things can be faked but this does not disprove the theory behind fossils, evolution, gravity etc.

Open your mind you might learn something useful.

[Jamesey]

Please see www.answersingenesis.org.



This post and the website are a joke, right?

Normally, I would see the funny side, but, incredibly, some people want to see this drivel taught in schools. That's ridiculous! :cwm23::Brick::bigcry:

[John Chingford]

What I do not like is that those who teach evolution and put dates on the age of the earth do not state it is theory but teach it as if it is fact. You read in books or hear on TV and documentaries and it is taught in schools and universities that the age of something is millions or billions of years old but do not add "it is thought to be or it is just a theory". Therefore most of the people in the world believe it to be a fact because that is the way it is taught.

I just want to readress the issue as I am fed up with the lies.

[Tawi2]

I once had a debate with a west african who told me that scientists had buried T-rex fossils to fool the masses :icon_lol: I have also been to the tomb of jesus christ in kashmir in India :Erm:Incestuous lot if we are all descended from a single couple,surprised we havent got more inbred defects :icon_lol: Anyone play Duelling-banjoes like Billy Redden?:Erm:

[John Chingford]

Answers In Genesis are a serious organisation who do nothing else but research, investigate and examine evidence. They are a global organisation with many scientists working for them.

Actually it is a joke to believe such monstrocities that are taught in the schools etc. There is MUCH evidence to prove that things age much quicker than you think. Many discoveries have been found in our day that prove that (under the right conditions) things are produced very quickly. As scientists have watched it with their own eyes in their own lifetime it is PROOF! What is NOT proof is theorising something you cannot substantiate because no-one is alive who has lived that long!

I wouldn't be surprised if we discover fossils developing in our day after the tsunami in South Asia. Watch this space!

[Tawi2]

:Erm: So Jurrassic park isnt real then :Erm:

[John Chingford]

Regarding incest. Sin is only sin if God forbids it. If He created everything He has the right to say what is right or wrong. He set the rules for our own good. At the beginning He stated that the first couple should be responsible for filling the Earth with people. God called it incest and a sin much later at the time of Moses (about 2000 years later).

God created the first couple perfect and to live for eternity but stated that if they sinned their bodies would start to decay "on the day you eat of it you will die". Ever since that time death and corruption has entered the human race, but it took 2000 years for the full impact of that corruption to reduce our life span to about 80ish years. By the time of Moses, incest was called incest because it had now become harmful to continue the practice

[joebloggs]

In fact, ALL explanations of fossils etc can be explained by the global flood of Noah in Genesis.

:icon_lol: :Cuckoo:

i didn't know Noah was a Neanderthal or Noah was around 350,000 - 600,000 years ago :doh

[John Chingford]

Please check out answers in genesis for yourself. You will be surprised what you find. They do not deny that dinosaurs existed but they argue that humans and dinos lived at same time. For example caves have been found showing paintings of dinos. The bible mentions dragons (the bible word for dinos).

[Tawi2]

The very concept of Incest is disgusting,have you SEEN my brother :yikes: No way!!!!!:NoNo:

[bornatbirth]

i once played one of the wise men at school.

[Jamesey]

What is NOT proof is theorising something you cannot substantiate because no-one is alive who has lived that long!



This is ridiculous. :doh:doh:doh:Brick::Brick::Brick:

Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

If you believe the science behind radiocarbon dating is flawed, please provide your evidence and calculations.

[John Chingford]

The global flood caused such catastrophies. There were earthquakes, volcanos. The earth opened up underground floods as well as the torrents from above the earth. Genesis tells us that above the whole earth was a firmament of water and that it had never rained on the earth until the flood. The tremendous action of all these things happening at the same time caused things on the earth to happen and develop very quickly. I am no expert and cannot explain it as well as AIG. I suggest you read their material and watch their videos. As far as I am concerned it is very conclusive to me.

[jimeve]

:icon_lol: :Cuckoo:

i didn't know Noah was a Neanderthal or Noah was around 350,000 - 600,000 years ago :doh

Gosh was it that long ago, don't time fly.

[John Chingford]

This is ridiculous. :doh:doh:doh:Brick::Brick::Brick:

Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

If you believe the science behind radiocarbon dating is flawed, please provide your evidence and calculations.

It would take too long to tackle that here. However, www.answersingenesis.org argue the flaws of carbon dating very well. If you are open minded I suggest you read their material on the subject :)

[Tawi2]

Theres approx 4600 different species of mammal on the face of the planet John,how big was Noahs boat?:Erm:

[joebloggs]

According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. :yikes:

ok, so what does the bible say about Neanderthal man ???

can't find anything on your site :NoNo:

[Tawi2]

Yup,what happened to nearderthal,cro-magnon,homo erectus?:Erm:

[joebloggs]

Theres approx 4600 different species of mammal on the face of the planet John,how big was Noahs boat?:Erm:

never ending to, the gastrotrich (a minute aquatic animal) lives for only three days, just as you've found one, you would have to find another one :doh

maybe the T-rex died out because Noah couldn't fit one in his ark :Erm:

[Tawi2]

How would you feed a T-rex?How many extra elephants would you have to put on a T-rex chow?Thats the thing about religious people,blinkered,I always said the bible was a story written and amended over the years,a bit like Hans Christian Andersons books,parchment,scrolls,you know the sort of stuff,the bible is just a chronicle,factional maybe,but its not 100% accurate to the letter.Not that John is wrong in his belief,its just not shared by everyone,and as his belief it does actually need respecting :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[joebloggs]

How would you feed a T-rex?How many extra elephants would you have to put on a T-rex chow?Thats the thing about religious people,blinkered,I always said the bible was a story written and amended over the years,a bit like Hans Christian Andersons books,parchment,scrolls,you know the sort of stuff,the bible is just a chronicle,factional maybe,but its not 100% accurate to the letter.Not that John is wrong in his belief,its just not shared by everyone,and as his belief it does actually need respecting :xxgrinning--00xx3:

could be right there Tawi2, maybe it starved to death, as it would have probably eaten everything on the ark within the 40 days if Noah had let it :doh

sorry for poking fun at you john, but i just can't see it happened that way :NoNo:

the Sumerian people were around 4,500bc, before dinosaurs ?

[John Chingford]

According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. :yikes:

ok, so what does the bible say about Neanderthal man ???

can't find anything on your site :NoNo:

If you use the search key on any subject it probably gives you an answer. That is what I just did and found this on their website. Please click on:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-063/neanderthal-mantoo-advanced-evolution

[KeithD]

What I do not like is that those who teach evolution and put dates on the age of the earth do not state it is theory but teach it as if it is fact.
That may have something to do with the FACT we know the decay rate of Carbon, so SIMPLE maths is used to back date something :doh We can time the decay in our own lifetimes. You are decaying now.....your brain faster than the rest of you by the looks of it! :)

By the way it is officially called 'The Big Bang Theory' for a reason :doh

EVERY single Creationist argument has been proven wrong so far, they have not proven one idea.

Next you'll be questioning the speed of light :Cuckoo: :icon_lol:

[somebody]

That may have something to do with the FACT we know the decay rate of Carbon, so SIMPLE maths is used to back date something :doh We can time the decay in our own lifetimes. You are decaying now.....your brain faster than the rest of you by the looks of it! :)

By the way it is officially called 'The Big Bang Theory' for a reason :doh

EVERY single Creationist argument has been proven wrong so far, they have not proven one idea.

Next you'll be questioning the speed of light :Cuckoo: :icon_lol:


What is the speed of light:Erm:

[KeithD]

What is the speed of light:Erm:
6,000 years per person looking at it :Erm:

[Pepe n Pilar]

Dear John - I am actually very open minded and do believe in a higher power. However, it does make me laugh when you make a comment like: "were you there when the so called big bang happened?" to which I would ask; were you there when God supposedly created the Universe in only 6 days? And while we are on the subject of "As in the days of Noah", please explain to me how he managed to get one pair of every species on earth into an ark that was, using the actual measurements in cubits, not very big. To collect one pair of just every insect species on earth would require something the size of a small stadium and for a pair of every mammal you would need a whole town. I don't mind people having their own views, but at least check your own facts before trashing everyone elses. :-)

:)

[Tawi2]

CRUEL :NoNo:Johns brain isnt actually decaying faster than the rest of him,but some of his theorys stretch the imagination somewhat :Erm:

[Tawi2]

God created the world in 6 days :omg: It took me that long just to erect an MFI flat-pack wardrobe :Erm: He must have had the "60 minute makeover" team working double-time :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Pepe n Pilar]

Interestingly, the speed of light is a scientifically proven fact. So, if we are seeing light from galaxies that are almost 14 billion years old, how can the Universe only be 6,000 years old?

[John Chingford]

This is the problem with those who want to reject the bible. They throw anything out that doesn't make sense to their finite minds and make assumptions about what they read. The bible does not say that every animal that has ever existed was on the ark, nor does it say that every species was in the ark. The bible does not argue against species evolving, but it states that originally two of every animal went into the ark, ie 2 dogs may have evolved into different type of dogs. In otherwords dogs make dogs, cats make cats, dinos make dinos. Regarding T REX, it probably died in the flood but smaller versions of dinos may have entered. Regarding T Rex being a meat eater. How do you know? Because it had big teeth - no proof it was ferocious. When God first made the animals they were as pets for man. The full decay caused by sin changed tamed animals ferocious, but how do we know for sure that the ferocious animals we now know were always that way? Regards the Ark, did you know that it was about half the size of the QE2, and very high, plenty of room for all types of animal. We cannot judge the bible or what things were like at that time by todays theories or experiences. We need to know the actual facts

[Tawi2]

I dont think anyone ever kept a T-rex as a pet John,imagine cleaning up Rex-poo :Erm: Its bad enough with the dog in the park never mind having to carry a bin-bag around :NoNo: T-rex had those sharp,serated teeth for a reason,and it wasnt to eat lentil soup,look at its living relatives,Komodos,when I went to komodo,flores,and Rinca years ago we bought a goat,it was legal then though its not allowed now,we took the goat to the dry-gully where the dragons were used to being fed..................:NoNo:

[Tawi2]

Didnt they think they had found the remnants of the ark high up on Mt Ararat?:Erm: Wheres Indie when you need him :rolleyes:

[joebloggs]

john how do you know it was half the size of the QE2? did you see it ?
and how long did it take Noah to build it then ?

the QE2 would have taken years to build with modern machinery, how long would it have taken Noah and his family to build an ark half the size, decades ? :doh

[bornatbirth]

i was speaking to a very old friend of mine the other day,i mean hes as old as the bible.

and funny you mention it he told me about his pet t-rex who was very well behaved until one day he ate his wife!

so sadly t-rexs dont make very good pets?

[Pepe n Pilar]

What part of "And of every living creature of every sort of flesh, two of each, you will bring into the ark" (Gen. 6:19) would lead you to suppose that every species was not represented? That is what The Bible purports. And of course, he had to feed them all for seven months and seventeen days - still think the ark was big enough?

[John Chingford]

I dont know about all creationist groups. I have to admit that I don't hold onto many of their arguments. However, Answers In Genesis are different. They don't just make unsubstantiated arguments but have a very strong foundation for their reasoning based on things happening in our day. They examine and test rocks, fossils etc etc which have developed before their very eyes. Were they there when these things were formed? Yes they were. That is the difference. Forget what other creationists have said in the past. I challenge you to examine all the arguments presented by AIG. Maybe you are scared to check it out (joking) lol

[Tawi2]

Noah must have been knee-deep in dung :NoNo:

[John Chingford]

john how do you know it was half the size of the QE2? did you see it ?
and how long did it take Noah to build it then ?

the QE2 would have taken years to build with modern machinery, how long would it have taken Noah and his family to build an ark half the size, decades ? :doh

The bible does not state how long it took Noah to build the ark. It does state that he was 600 when the flood came. Did you know that the remains of the ark has been seen on top of mount Ararat but because of political reasons in Turkey the site is closed off

[Tawi2]

John,if you scroll back I mentioned about Mt Ararat,but because the place is close to the iraq border and the kurds are a little edgy its not allowed for archaeological teams to enter :NoNo: But they have done in the past :rolleyes:

[Pepe n Pilar]

Perhaps it would be easier to accept what the Bible says if it wasn't so full of contradictions. That is certainly not the case with most science texts. :-)

[John Chingford]

What part of "And of every living creature of every sort of flesh, two of each, you will bring into the ark" (Gen. 6:19) would lead you to suppose that every species was not represented? That is what The Bible purports. And of course, he had to feed them all for seven months and seventeen days - still think the ark was big enough?

We are measuring how many animals existed at that time by how many exist today. For example God said choose 7 of every kind of bird. Obviously, today there are much more than 7 types of bird. After 4000 years those 7 types of bird have evolved into hundreds or is it thousands of types of bird?

Maybe there were just enough animals, birds etc sufficient to be the root of every future species evolving from the root of each kind of animal? For example zebras come from the horse root? Again I am no scientist, but it makes sense to me. It makes more sense to believe in God who created all things and if God created all things He is therefore fully capable of ensuring that the bible will be trustworthy for all generations

[Tawi2]

The bible is a book written by men about men,you know how documents change over the years,Thou shalt not kill,Thou shalt not commit adultry,Thou shalt no shag your neighbours wife etc are all social rules,not made by a higher being called god :icon_lol:
Mt Ararat was closed to archaeologists in 1991 after 5 were kidnapped by kurds,the CIA published a 15 page document called "The Ararat Anomaly" they concluded the "Ark" was just an unusually shaped rock formation,and was no where near the size of the biblical ark :NoNo:

[Tawi2]

We are measuring how many animals existed at that time by how many exist today. For example God said choose 7 of every kind of bird. Obviously, today there are much more than 7 types of bird. After 4000 years those 7 types of bird have evolved into hundreds or is it thousands of types of bird?

Maybe there were just enough animals, birds etc sufficient to be the root of every future species evolving from the root of each kind of animal? For example zebras come from the horse root? Again I am no scientist, but it makes sense to me. It makes more sense to believe in God who created all things and if God created all things He is therefore fully capable of ensuring that the bible will be trustworthy for all generations
Birds originally evolved from reptiles John,and how does an eagle evolve from a Lyre-bird for example?:NoNo:

[joebloggs]

After 4000 years those 7 types of bird have evolved into hundreds or is it thousands of types of bird?

and what about my Neanderthal man was he on the ark ? if he was did he evolve in 4000years to what we are today ?

maybe Noah used them to build the ark ?

[John Chingford]

I am yet to be shown a contradiction in the bible that cannot be explained. Indeed, archeology today is presenting answers to many of those so called contradictions. Let us stop measuring yesterdays society by todays standards. History and its ideas change. In same way, one generation and the terminology or jargon they use, changes from generation to generation. It means that we cannot always think we understand what the authors are describing in there text without some background information. Life NOW is totally different.

[Tawi2]

Johm,archaeology is now actually presenting answers that the bible is a work of fiction :doh

[John Chingford]

Birds originally evolved from reptiles John,and how does an eagle evolve from a Lyre-bird for example?:NoNo:

How do you know that eagles evolved from reptiles? Were you there?:NoNo: Again AIG website gives a convincing argument to show that reptiles could NOT have evolved into birds.

[jimeve]

Neanderthal man was European origin, and modern man was from Africa,
according to the history channel :D

[John Chingford]

and what about my Neanderthal man was he on the ark ? if he was did he evolve in 4000years to what we are today ?

maybe Noah used them to build the ark ?

Have you checked out the web page I gave you about Neanderthal man? There are other materials on that site that may answer your question. I dont know the answer to that question myself

[Tawi2]

The original birds John evolved from reptiles,theres enough fossil evidence :icon_lol: No,I wasnt there,but there again,neither were you :icon_lol: My father always said religion is for weak willed people who cant believe in themselves so they cling to this desperate ideology of a "Higher being" :Erm: I never believed in the bible john,nor god,nor jesus for that matter,but I do believe in T-rex :icon_lol:

[Tawi2]

There is documented proof that the "Boat" on the slopes of Ararat is an unusual rock formation,theres plenty of photographic evidence to show it :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[jimeve]

How do you know that eagles evolved from reptiles? Were you there?:NoNo: Again AIG website gives a convincing argument to show that reptiles could NOT have evolved into birds.

we all evolved from a single cell. in the ocean. thats how life began.

crikey don't you watch the docs on tv :doh

[Tawi2]

When I was a kid I went to quarrington quarry in county durham with the school fossil hunting,I found several fossils a hundred feet from the roof of the quarry,fossilised in sedimentary rock how do you explain them john,a hundred foot below the surface of the soil?:Erm:

[jimeve]

The original birds John evolved from reptiles,theres enough fossil evidence :icon_lol: No,I wasnt there,but there again,neither were you :icon_lol: My father always said religion is for weak willed people who cant believe in themselves so they cling to this desperate ideology of a "Higher being" :Erm: I never believed in the bible john,nor god,nor jesus for that matter,but I do believe in T-rex :icon_lol:

shame he crashed.

[Tawi2]

:icon_lol:Not Marc Bolan,I mean the dinosaurs that neanderthal men kept as pets :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Tawi2]

The title of the thread john should actually be "The great biblical deception" because you cant just explain away evolution etc as easily as that :NoNo:

[jimeve]

:icon_lol:Not Marc Bolan,I mean the dinosaurs that neanderthal men kept as pets :xxgrinning--00xx3:

couldn't resist :icon_lol:

[Pepe n Pilar]

We are measuring how many animals existed at that time by how many exist today. For example God said choose 7 of every kind of bird. Obviously, today there are much more than 7 types of bird. After 4000 years those 7 types of bird have evolved into hundreds or is it thousands of types of bird?

Maybe there were just enough animals, birds etc sufficient to be the root of every future species evolving from the root of each kind of animal? For example zebras come from the horse root? Again I am no scientist, but it makes sense to me. It makes more sense to believe in God who created all things and if God created all things He is therefore fully capable of ensuring that the bible will be trustworthy for all generations

Sorry John - I think what he meant was choose 7 of every species of bird, just as he asked them to choose 2 of every species of animal, not that there were only 7 species in total. Evolving all the species we have today from only 7 in 6,000 years would be some feat!

Incidentally, birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles.

[Tawi2]

Dinosaur's were reptiles,the word translates into terrible lizard,a lizard is a reptile :Erm:

[John Chingford]

we all evolved from a single cell. in the ocean. thats how life began.

crikey don't you watch the docs on tv :doh

With all respect, yes I do, but those who put trhese documentaries together are strongly biassed against God and religion. They teach as if "fact" never admitting that their conclusions to the findings are their own ideas (theories). If it is not fact they should state so.

[jimeve]

Sorry John - I think what he meant was choose 7 of every species of bird, just as he asked them to choose 2 of every species of animal, not that there were only 7 species in total. Evolving all the species we have today from only 7 in 6,000 years would be some feat!

Incidentally, birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles.

what did reptiles evolved from.... dinosaurs.

[Tawi2]

I just checked online,dinosaurs were reptilian,birds evolved from reptiles :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Tawi2]

Any form of religious debate always elicits a massive response :icon_lol:

[jimeve]

I just checked online,dinosaurs were reptilian,birds evolved from reptiles :xxgrinning--00xx3:

saw one flying around Torchwood.

[Mrs.JMajor]

Any form of religious debate always elicits a massive response :icon_lol:

Sinabi mo pa,ewan ko ba sa mga taong ito:CompBuster::action-smiley-081:

[John Chingford]

When I was a kid I went to quarrington quarry in county durham with the school fossil hunting,I found several fossils a hundred feet from the roof of the quarry,fossilised in sedimentary rock how do you explain them john,a hundred foot below the surface of the soil?:Erm:

The global flood of Noah created them. As I understand it fossils are created by sudden death happening on a wide scale caused by a large amount of water, volcanic activity and mudslides etc. Exactly what happened at the flood.

[jimeve]

Sinabi mo pa,ewan ko ba sa mga taong ito:CompBuster::action-smiley-081:

yes your right, mrs jm:ARsurrender:

[John Chingford]

I just checked online,dinosaurs were reptilian,birds evolved from reptiles :xxgrinning--00xx3:

So you believe everything you read online? This is what I find. The world is being brainwashed into believing as fact something which is NOT cast iron proof. So the world would rather believe in anything other than a God who they must give account to for their life.

[jimeve]

what about the Karim, must be a twist in the tale there eh.

[Pepe n Pilar]

Agreed - dinosaurs were reptilian (genetically speaking), but modern birds are directly descended from the original bipedal dinosaurs (raptors, etc.) whereas modern reptiles such as lizards and crocodilians were already well evolved at the time of the dinosaurs. Fossils of eryops (the modern crocodile) were around 300 million years ago, long before the bipedal dinosaurs. :-)

[Jay&Zobel]

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, 'Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the 'beginning'.'


'Oh, is that so? Tell me....' replies God.


'Well', says the scientist, 'we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.'

'Well, that's interesting. Show Me. '

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.


'Oh no, no, no...' interrupts God,


(I love this):
------------------------------------------

'Get your own dirt.':xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::cwm38::cwm38::cwm38::D

[Sophie]

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, 'Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the 'beginning'.'


'Oh, is that so? Tell me....' replies God.


'Well', says the scientist, 'we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.'

'Well, that's interesting. Show Me. '

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.


'Oh no, no, no...' interrupts God,


(I love this):
------------------------------------------

'Get your own dirt.':xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::cwm38::cwm38::cwm38::D

VERY NICE ONE ZOBEL :xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::D:D

[John Chingford]

Quite honestly,with all due respect you all seem to show signs of closed minds(I say that with compassion -not condescending). All I am asking is that you be prepared to compare the brain-washing teachings of so called atheistic experts with other experts who can give an equally good argument for proving the creation. Before you continue this thread I challenge you to check out the arguments given on www.answersingenesis.org

I have raised the issue but will cease to continue the discussion until you have checked out the website sufficiently enough to give the website justice. I will only repond to questions or statements once I can see that you have given the "other" evidence a chance. Thankyou all for the debate. I appreciate your thoughts but I just wanted to present food for thought. I hope it has been just that

[Pepe n Pilar]

Sorry John but what you are saying indicates the same closed mind that you are accusing everyone else of having. I have fully investigated the evidence from science and the Bible and to me....well, the jury is still out on that one. I am happy to post the facts from either side, but I would never be arrogant enough to say that either side is right or wrong. You can never fully prove one or the other. :-)

:)

[Tawi2]

Agreed - dinosaurs were reptilian (genetically speaking), but modern birds are directly descended from the original bipedal dinosaurs (raptors, etc.) whereas modern reptiles such as lizards and crocodilians were already well evolved at the time of the dinosaurs. Fossils of eryops (the modern crocodile) were around 300 million years ago, long before the bipedal dinosaurs. :-)

Reptiles are reptiles :Rasp:Theres even bipedal reptiles nowadays,though they only run on two legs for short distances :)

[Tawi2]

So you believe everything you read online? This is what I find. The world is being brainwashed into believing as fact something which is NOT cast iron proof. So the world would rather believe in anything other than a God who they must give account to for their life.

I am fairly open minded John,not brainwashed into anything and that includes the existance of god or the fictional jesus :icon_lol:

[somebody]

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, 'Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the 'beginning'.'


'Oh, is that so? Tell me....' replies God.


'Well', says the scientist, 'we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.'

'Well, that's interesting. Show Me. '

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.


'Oh no, no, no...' interrupts God,


(I love this):
------------------------------------------

'Get your own dirt.':xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::cwm38::cwm38::cwm38::D

What happens if God is a scientist and we all leave in a human version of a goldfish bowl:Erm:

I always see pictures of God and jesus with a Beard like scientists:rolleyes:

[Tawi2]

I always imagine god as a Morgan Freeman sort with a shawshank redemption gravelly voice :Erm:

[John Chingford]

I have found a more exact website page. Here is the shortcut to save you looking:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

I copy and paste a dinosaur article which I think will give a good answer to all the questions raised on this thread so far:

Dinosaurs are used more than almost anything else to indoctrinate children and adults in the idea of millions of years of earth history. However, the Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs in terms of thousands of years of history, including the mystery of when they lived and what happened to them. Two key texts are Genesis 1:24–25 and Job 40:15–24.
Are Dinosaurs a Mystery?
Many think that the existence of dinosaurs and their demise is shrouded in such mystery that we may never know the truth about where they came from, when they lived, and what happened to them. However, dinosaurs are only a mystery if you accept the evolutionary story of their history.
According to evolutionists: Dinosaurs first evolved around 235 million years ago, long before man evolved.1 No human being ever lived with dinosaurs. Their history is recorded in the fossil layers on earth, which were deposited over millions of years. They were so successful as a group of animals that they eventually ruled the earth. However, around 65 million years ago, something happened to change all of this—the dinosaurs disappeared. Most evolutionists believe some sort of cataclysmic event, such as an asteroid impact, killed them. But many evolutionists claim that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, and thus they are not extinct but are flying around us even today.2
There is no mystery surrounding dinosaurs if you accept the Bible’s totally different account of dinosaur history.
According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.3 God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time.

Dinosaurs could not have died out before people appeared because dinosaurs had not previously existed; and death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a resultof Adam’s sin (Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 5:12, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils.

After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs?
Why Such Different Views?
How can there be such totally different explanations for dinosaurs? Whether one is an evolutionist or accepts the Bible’s account of history, the evidence for dinosaurs is the same. All scientists have the same facts—they have the same world, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe.
If the “facts” are the same, then how can the explanations be so different? The reason is that scientists have only the present—dinosaur fossils exist only in the present—but scientists are trying to connect the fossils in the present to the past. They ask, “What happened in history to bring dinosaurs into existence, wipe them out, and leave many of them fossilized?”4
The science that addresses such issues is known as historical or origins science, and it differs from the operational science that gives us computers, inexpensive food, space exploration, electricity, and the like. Origins science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation, whereas operational science deals with how the world works in the here and now, which, of course, is open to repeatable experiments. Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views on dinosaurs.5 As has been said, “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”6

A paleontologist who believes the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God,7 will come to different conclusions than an atheist who rejects the Bible. Willful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disputes over historical science.
Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation. It is much more than this. The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well. It gives us an account of when time began, the main events of history, such as the entrance of sin and death into the world, the time when the whole surface of the globe was destroyed by water, the giving of different languages at the Tower of Babel, the account of the Son of God coming as a man, His death and Resurrection, and the new heavens and earth to come.

Ultimately, there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (including biology, history, and geology), resulting in a Christian worldview; or starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview.
Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way. They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 4:20–24).
The Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).
If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. Thus, we have the evolutionary explanation for dinosaurs above.
But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence. Thus, we have the biblical explanation given above.
Dinosaur History
Fossil bones of dinosaurs are found around the world. Many of these finds consist of just fragments of bones, but some nearly complete skeletons have been found. Scientists have been able to describe many different types of dinosaurs based on distinctive characteristics, such as the structure of the skull and limbs.8
Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?
The Bible tells us that God created different kinds of land animals on Day 6 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:24–25). Because dinosaurs were land animals, this must have included the dinosaur kinds.9

Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved from some reptile that had originally evolved from amphibians. But they cannot point to any clear transitional (in-between) forms to substantiate their argument. Dinosaur family trees in evolutionary books show many distinct types of dinosaurs, but only hypothetical lines join them up to some common ancestor. The lines are dotted because there is no fossil evidence. Evolutionists simply cannot prove their belief in a nondinosaur ancestor for dinosaurs.
What Did Dinosaurs Look Like?
Scientists generally do not dig up a dinosaur with all its flesh intact. Even if they found all the bones, they still would have less than 40 percent of the animal to work out what it originally looked like. The bones do not tell the color of the animal, for example, although some fossils of skin impressions have been found, indicating the skin texture. As there is some diversity of color among reptiles living today, dinosaurs may have varied greatly in color, skin texture, and so on.
When reconstructing dinosaurs from bony remains, scientists make all kinds of guesses and often disagree. For example, debate has raged about whether dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. It is even difficult to tell whether a dinosaur was male or female from its bones. There is much speculation about such things.
Sometimes scientists make mistakes in their reconstructions, which need correction when more bones are found. For instance, the famous Brontosaurus is not in newer dinosaur dictionaries. The original “discoverer” put the wrong head on a skeleton of a dinosaur that had already been named Apatosaurus.10
Who Discovered Dinosaurs?
Secular books would tell you that the first discovery of what later were called dinosaurs was in 1677 when Dr. Robert Plot found bones so big they were thought to belong to a giant elephant or a giant human.11
In 1822, Mary Anne Mantell went for a walk along a country road in Sussex, England. According to tradition, she found a stone that glittered in the sunlight and showed it to her fossil-collecting husband. Dr. Mantell, a physician, noticed that the stone contained a tooth similar to, but much larger than, that of modern reptiles. He concluded that it belonged to some extinct giant plant-eating reptile with teeth like an iguana. In 1825 he named the owner of the tooth Iguanodon (iguana tooth). It was Dr. Mantell who began to popularize the “age of reptiles.”12

From a biblical perspective, however, the time of the above discoveries was actually the time when dinosaurs were rediscovered. Adam discovered dinosaurs when he first observed them.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date. Evolutionists obtain their dates by indirect dating methods that other scientists question, and there is much evidence against the millions of years.13
Does God tell us when He made Tyrannosaurus rex? Many would say no. But the Bible states that God made all things in six normal days. He made the land animals, including dinosaurs, on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24–25), so they date from around 6,000 years ago—the approximate date of creation obtained by adding up the years in the Bible.14 So, since T. rex was a land animal and God made all the land animals on Day 6, then God made T. rex on Day 6.

Furthermore, from the Bible we see that there was no death, bloodshed, disease, or suffering before sin.15 If one approaches Genesis to Revelation consistently, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, then death and bloodshed of man and animals came into the world only after Adam sinned. The first death of an animal occurred when God shed an animal’s blood in the Garden of Eden and clothed Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). This was also a picture of the Atonement—foreshadowing Christ’s blood that was to be shed for us. Thus, there could not have been bones of dead animals before sin—this would undermine the gospel.
This means that the dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before. Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.
Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs?
If people saw dinosaurs, you would think that ancient historical writings, such as the Bible, should mention them. The King James Version was first translated in 1611.16 Some people think that because the word “dinosaur” is not found in this or other translations, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs.

It was not until 1841, however, that the word “dinosaur” was invented.17 Sir Richard Owen, a famous British anatomist and first superintendent of the British Museum (and a staunch anti-Darwinist), on viewing the bones of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, realized these represented a unique group of reptiles that had not yet been classified. He coined the term “dinosaur” from Greek words meaning “terrible lizard.”18

Thus, one would not expect to find the word “dinosaur” in the King James Bible—the word did not exist when the translation was done.
Is there another word for “dinosaur”? There are dragon legends from around the world. Many dragon descriptions fit the characteristics of specific dinosaurs. Could these actually be accounts of encounters with what we now call dinosaurs?
Just as Flood legends are based on a real global Flood (Flood of Noah)— dragon legends are possibly based on actual encounters with real animals that today we call dinosaurs. Many of these land-dragon descriptions do fit with what we know about dinosaurs.
In Genesis 1:21, the Bible says, “And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind.” The Hebrew word here for “sea monsters” (“whales” in KJV) is the word translated elsewhere as “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin). So, in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God may be describing the great sea dragons (sea-dwelling, dinosaur-type animals) that He created.
There are other Bible passages about dragons that lived in the sea: “the dragons in the waters” (Psalm 74:13), “and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1). Though the word “dinosaur” strictly refers to animals that lived on the land, the sea reptiles and flying reptiles are often grouped with the dinosaurs. The sea dragons could have included dinosaur-type animals such as the Mosasaurus.19
Job 41 describes a great animal that lived in the sea, Leviathan, that even breathed fire. This “dragon” may have been something like the mighty 40 ft. (12 m) Sarcosuchus imperator (Super Croc),20 or the 82 ft. (25 m) Liopleurodon.
There is also mention of a flying serpent in the Bible: the “fiery flying serpent” (Isaiah 30:6). This could be a reference to one of the pterodactyls, which are popularly thought of as flying dinosaurs, such as the Pteranodon, Rhamphorhynchus, or Ornithocheirus.21
Not long after the Flood, God was showing a man called Job how great He was as Creator, by reminding Job of the largest land animal He had made:
Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword (Job 40:15–19).
The phrase “first of the ways of God” suggests this was the largest land animal God had made. So what kind of animal was “behemoth”?
Bible translators, not being sure what this beast was, often transliterated the Hebrew, and thus the word behemoth (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). However, in many Bible commentaries and Bible footnotes, “behemoth” is said to be “possibly the hippopotamus or elephant.”22 Some Bible versions actually translate “behemoth” this way.23 Besides the fact that the elephant and hippo were not the largest land animals God made (some of the dinosaurs far eclipsed these), this description does not make sense, since the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree (Job 40:17).
Now an elephant’s tiny tail (or a hippo’s tail that looks like a flap of skin) is quite unlike a cedar tree. Clearly, the elephant and the hippo could not possibly be “behemoth.”
No living creature comes close to this description. However, behemoth is very much like Brachiosaurus, one of the large dinosaurs.

Are There Other Ancient Records of Dinosaurs?
In the film The Great Dinosaur Mystery,24 a number of dragon accounts are presented:
• A Sumerian story dating back to 2000 BC or earlier tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon that he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.
• When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.
• China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings.
• England and several other cultures retain the story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
• There is the story of a tenth-century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.
• In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several living animals that we would call dinosaurs. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.
Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaurlike creatures have also been found.25
In summary, people down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons. The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs. The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air. There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.
What Do the Bones Say?
There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.26 Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old.27 A report by these scientists stated the following:
A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”28
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska.29 Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska.30 Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an “age of dinosaurs” millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible.
What Did Dinosaurs Eat and How Did They Behave?
Movies like Jurassic Park and The Lost World portray most dinosaurs as aggressive meat-eaters. But the mere presence of sharp teeth does not tell you how an animal behaved or necessarily what food it ate—only what kind of teeth it had (for ripping food and the like). However, by studying fossil dinosaur dung (coprolite), scientists have been able to determine the diet of some dinosaurs.31
Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.”
This means that even T. rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big, sharp teeth!32
Many animals today have sharp teeth but are basically vegetarian. The giant panda has sharp teeth like a meat-eater’s, but it eats bamboo. Perhaps the panda’s teeth were beautifully designed to eat bamboo. To explain why a giant panda has teeth like a meat-eaters today, yet eats bamboo, evolutionists have to say that the giant panda evolved as a meat eater, and then switched to bamboo.33
Different species of bats variously eat fruit, nectar, insects, small animals, and blood, but their teeth do not clearly indicate what they eat.34 Bears have teeth with carnivore features, but some bears are vegetarian, and many, if not most, are mainly vegetarian.
Before sin, God described the world as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Some cannot accept this concept of perfect harmony because of the food chain that they observe in today’s world. However, one cannot look at the sin-cursed world and the resultant death and struggle, and use this to reject the Genesis account of history. Everything has changed because of sin. That’s why Paul describes the present creation as “groaning” (Romans 8:22). One must look through the Bible’s “eyes” to understand the world.35
Some argue that people or animals would have been hurt even in an ideal world. They contend that even before sin, Adam or an animal could have stood on small creatures or scratched himself on a branch. Now these sorts of situations are true of today’s fallen world—the present world is not perfect; it is suffering from the effects of the Curse (Romans 8:22). One cannot look at the Bible through the world’s eyes and insist that the world before sin was just like the world we see today. We do not know what a perfect world, continually restored and totally upheld by God’s power (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3), would have been like—we have never experienced perfection (only Adam and Eve did before sin).
We do get little glimpses from Scripture, however; in Deuteronomy 8:4, 29:5 and Nehemiah 9:21, we are told that when the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years, their clothes and shoes did not wear out, nor did their feet swell. When God upholds things perfectly, wearing out or being hurt in any way is not even an option.
Think of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3:26–27). They came out of the fire without even the smell of smoke on them. Again, when the Lord upholds perfectly, being hurt is not possible. In a perfect world, before sin and the Curse, God would have upheld everything, but in this cursed world, things run down. Many commentators believe the description in Isaiah 11:6–9 of the wolf and lamb, and the lion that eats straw like an ox, is a picture of the new earth in the future restoration (Acts 3:21) when there will be no more curse or death (Revelation 21:1, 22:3). The animals described are living peacefully as vegetarians (this is also the description of the animal world before sin—Genesis 1:30). Today’s world has been changed dramatically because of sin and the Curse. The present food chain and animal behavior (which also changed after the Flood—Genesis 9:2–3) cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the Bible—the Bible explains why the world is the way it is.
In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the animals: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:28). Looking at today’s world, we are reminded of Hebrews 2:8: “For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.” Man’s relationship with all things changed because of sin—they are not “under him” as they were originally.
Most people, including most Christians, tend to observe the world as it is today, with all its death and suffering, and then take that observation to the Bible and interpret it in that light. But we are sinful, fallible human beings, observing a sin-cursed world (Romans 8:22); and thus, we need to start with divine revelation, the Bible, to begin to understand.
So how did fangs and claws come about? Dr. Henry Morris, a founding figure in the modern creation movement, states:
Whether such structures as fangs and claws were part of their original equipment, or were recessive features which only became dominant due to selection processes later, or were mutational features following the Curse, or exactly what, must await further research.36
After sin entered the world, everything changed. Maybe some animals started eating each other at this stage. By the time of Noah, God described what had happened this way: “So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (Genesis 6:12).
Also, after the Flood, God changed the behavior of animals. We read, “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand” (Genesis 9:2). Thus, man would find it much more difficult to carry out the dominion mandate given in Genesis 1:28.
Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?
Fossil formation requires a sudden burial. When an animal dies, it usually gets eaten or decays until there is nothing left. To form a fossil, unique conditions are required to preserve the animal and replace it with minerals, etc.
Evolutionists once claimed that the fossil record was formed slowly as animals died and were gradually covered by sediment. But they have acknowledged more recently that the fossil record must involve catastrophic processes.37 To form the billions of fossils worldwide, in layers sometimes kilometers thick, the organisms, by and large, must have been buried quickly. Many evolutionists now say the fossil record formed quickly, in spurts interspersed by millions of years.
According to the Bible, as time went on, earth became full of wickedness, so God determined that He would send a global Flood “to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life” (Genesis 6:17).
God commanded Noah to build a very large boat into which he would take his family and representatives of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal (that God Himself would choose and send to Noah, Genesis 6:20). This must have included two of each kind of dinosaur.
How Did Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?
Many people think of dinosaurs as large creatures that would never have fit into the Ark.
But the average size of a dinosaur, based on the skeletons found over the earth, is about the size of a sheep.38 Indeed, many dinosaurs were relatively small. For instance, Struthiomimus was the size of an ostrich, and Compsognathus was no bigger than a rooster. Only a few dinosaurs grew to extremely large sizes (e.g., Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus), but even they were not as large as the largest animal in the world today, the blue whale. (Reptiles have the potential to grow as long as they live. Thus, the large dinosaurs were probably very old ones.)
Dinosaurs laid eggs, and the biggest fossil dinosaur egg found is about the size of a football.39 Even the largest dinosaurs were very small when first hatched. Remember that the animals that came off the boat were to repopulate the earth. Thus, it would have been necessary to choose young adults, which would soon be in the prime of their reproductive life, to go on the Ark. Recent research suggests that dinosaurs underwent rapid adolescent growth spurts.40 So it is realistic to assume that God would have sent young adults to the Ark, not fully grown creatures.
Some might argue that the 600 or more named species of dinosaurs could not have fit on the Ark. But Genesis 6:20 states that representative kinds of land animals boarded the Ark. The question then is, what is a “kind” (Hebrew: min)? Biblical creationists have pointed out that there can be many species descended from a kind. For example, there are many types of cats in the world, but all cat species probably came from only a few kinds of cats originally.41 The cat varieties today have developed by natural and artificial selection acting on the original variation in the information (genes) of the original cats. This has produced different combinations and subsets of information, and thus different types of cats.
Mutations (errors in copying of the genes during reproduction) can also contribute to the variation, but the changes caused by mutations are “downhill,” causing loss of the original information.
Even speciation could occur through these processes. This speciation is not “evolution,” since it is based on the created information already present and is thus a limited, downhill process, not involving an upward increase in complexity. Thus, only a few feline pairs would have been needed on Noah’s Ark.
Dinosaur names have tended to proliferate, with new names being given to just a few pieces of bone, even if the skeleton looks similar to one that is a different size or found in a different country. There were probably fewer than 50 distinct groups or kinds of dinosaurs that had to be on the Ark.42
Also, it must be remembered that Noah’s Ark was extremely large and quite capable of carrying the number of animals needed, including dinosaurs.
The land animals that were not on the Ark, including dinosaurs, drowned. Many were preserved in the layers formed by the Flood—thus the millions of fossils. Presumably, many of the dinosaur fossils were buried at this time, around 4,500 years ago. Also, after the Flood, there would have been considerable catastrophism, including such events as the Ice Age, resulting in some post-Flood formation of fossils, too.
The contorted shapes of these animals preserved in the rocks, the massive numbers of them in fossil graveyards, their wide distribution, and some whole skeletons, all provide convincing evidence that they were buried rapidly, testifying to massive flooding.43
Why Don’t We See Dinosaurs Today?
At the end of the Flood, Noah, his family, and the animals came out of the Ark (Genesis 8:15–17). The dinosaurs thus began a new life in a new world. Along with the other animals, the dinosaurs came out to breed and repopulate the earth. They would have left the landing place of the Ark and spread over the earth’s surface. The descendants of these dinosaurs gave rise to the dragon legends.
But the world they came out to repopulate differed from the one they knew before Noah’s Flood. The Flood had devastated it. It was now a much more difficult world in which to survive.
After the Flood, God told Noah that from then on, the animals would fear man, and that animal flesh could be food for man (Genesis 9:1–7). Even for man, the world had become a harsher place. To survive, the once easily obtained plant nutrition would now have to be supplemented by animal sources.
Both animals and man would find their ability to survive tested to the utmost. We can see from the fossil record, from the written history of man, and from experience over recent centuries, that many forms of life on this planet have not survived that test.
We need to remember that many plants and air-breathing, land-dwelling animals have become extinct since the Flood—either due to man’s action or competition with other species, or because of the harsher post-Flood environment. Many groups are still becoming extinct. Dinosaurs seem to be numbered among the extinct groups.
Why then are people so intrigued about dinosaurs and have little interest in the extinction of the fern Cladophebius, for example? It’s the dinosaurs’ appeal as monsters that excites and fascinates people.
Evolutionists have capitalized on this fascination, and the world is awash with evolutionary propaganda centered on dinosaurs. As a result, evolutionary philosophy has permeated modern thinking, even among Christians.
If you were to ask the zoo why they have endangered species programs, you would probably get an answer something like this: “We’ve lost lots of animals from this earth. Animals are becoming extinct all the time. Look at all the animals that are gone forever. We need to act to save the animals.” If you then asked, “Why are animals becoming extinct?” you might get an answer like this: “It’s obvious! People killing them, lack of food, man destroying the environment, diseases, genetic problems, catastrophes like floods—there are lots of reasons.”
If you then asked, “Well, what happened to the dinosaurs?” the answer would probably be, “We don’t know! Scientists have suggested dozens of possible reasons, but it’s a mystery.”
Maybe one of the reasons dinosaurs are extinct is that we did not start our endangered species programs early enough. The factors that cause extinction today, which came about because of man’s sin—the Curse, the aftermath of the Flood (a judgment), etc.—are the same factors that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.
Are Dinosaurs Really Extinct?
One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the earth’s surface simultaneously. Experts have been embarrassed when, after having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well. For example, in the 1990s explorers found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.44
Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs. One scientist said, “It was like finding a ‘live dinosaur.’”45 When scientists find animals or plants that they thought were extinct long ago, they call them “living fossils.” There are hundreds of living fossils, a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions of years of earth history.
Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even in the twentieth century.46 These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.47
Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur.48 Scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dinosaurs.
It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if someone discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.
And no, we cannot clone a dinosaur, as in the movie Jurassic Park, even if we had dinosaur DNA. We would also need a living female dinosaur. Scientists have found that to clone an animal they need an egg of a living female, since “machinery” in the cytoplasm of her egg is necessary for the new creature to develop.49
Birdosaurs?
Many evolutionists do not really think dinosaurs are extinct anyway. In 1997, at the entrance to the bird exhibit at the zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, we read the following on a sign:
Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago—or did they? No, birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs.
In the mid-1960s, Dr. John Ostrom from Yale University began to popularize the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.50 However, not all evolutionists agree with this. “It’s just a fantasy of theirs,” says Alan Feduccia, an ornithologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a leading critic of the dino-to-bird theory. “They so much want to see living dinosaurs that now they think they can study them vicariously at the backyard bird feeder.”51
There have been many attempts to indoctrinate the public to believe that modern birds are really dinosaurs. Time magazine, on April 26, 1993, had a front page cover of a “birdosaur,” now called Mononykus, with feathers (a supposed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds) based on a fossil find that had no feathers.52 In the same month, Science News had an article suggesting this animal was a digging creature more like a mole.53
In 1996, newspapers reported a find in China of a reptile fossil that supposedly had feathers.54 Some of the media reports claimed that, if it were confirmed, it would be “irrefutable evidence that today’s birds evolved from dinosaurs.” One scientist stated, “You can’t come to any conclusion other than that they’re feathers.”55 However, in 1997 the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia sent four leading scientists to investigate this find. They concluded that they were not feathers. The media report stated, concerning one of the scientists, “He said he saw ‘hair-like’ structures—not hairs—that could have supported a frill, or crest, like those on iguanas.”56
No sooner had this report appeared than another media report claimed that 20 fragments of bones of a reptile found in South America showed that dinosaurs were related to birds.57
Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold-blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory. But Dr. Larry Martin, of the University of Kansas, opposes this idea:
Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was “characteristic of cold-blooded animals,” Martin said. “So we’re back to cold-blooded dinosaurs.”58
Sadly, the secular media have become so blatant in their anti-Christian stand and pro-evolutionary propaganda that they are bold enough to make such ridiculous statements as, “Parrots and hummingbirds are also dinosaurs.”59
Several more recent reports have fueled the bird/dinosaur debate among evolutionists. One concerns research on the embryonic origins of the “fingers” of birds and dinosaurs, showing that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.60 A study of the so-called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distinctly different from the avian lung.61 Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be “feathers” on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibers found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.62
There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.63 Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.
What if a dinosaur fossil was found with feathers on it? Would that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No, a duck has a duck bill and webbed feet, as does a platypus, but nobody believes that this proves that platypuses evolved from ducks. The belief that reptiles or dinosarus evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers. A dinosaur-like fossil with feathers would just be another curious mosaic, like the platypus, and part of the pattern of similarities placed in creatures to show the hand of the one true Creator God who made everything.64
Why Does It Matter?
Although dinosaurs are fascinating, some readers may say, “Why are dinosaurs such a big deal? Surely there are many more important issues to deal with in today’s world, such as abortion, family breakdown, racism, promiscuity, dishonesty, homosexual behavior, euthanasia, suicide, lawlessness, pornography, and so on. In fact, we should be telling people about the gospel of Jesus Christ, not worrying about side issues like dinosaurs.”
Actually, the evolutionary teachings on dinosaurs that pervade society do have a great bearing on why many will not listen to the gospel, and thus why social problems abound today. If they don’t believe the history in the Bible, why would anyone trust its moral aspects and message of salvation?
If we accept the evolutionary teachings on dinosaurs, then we must accept that the Bible’s account of history is false. If the Bible is wrong in this area, then it is not the Word of God and we can ignore everything else it says that we find inconvenient.
If everything made itself through natural processes—without God—then God does not own us and has no right to tell us how to live. In fact, God does not really exist in this way of thinking, so there is no absolute basis for morality. Without God, anything goes—concepts of right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. And without a basis for morality, there is no such thing as sin. And no sin means that there is no need to fear God’s judgment and there is no need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. The history in the Bible is vital for properly understanding why one needs to accept Jesus Christ.
Millions of Years and the Gospel
The teaching that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years before man directly attacks the foundations of the gospel in another way. The fossil record, of which dinosaurs form a part, documents death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record. Allowing for millions of years in the fossil layers means accepting death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin.
But the Bible makes it clear that death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a consequence of sin. As part of the Curse, God told Adam in Genesis 3:19 that he would return to the dust from which he was made, showing that the sentence of death was not only spiritual, but physical as well.
After Adam disobeyed God, the Lord clothed Adam and Eve with “coats of skins” (Genesis 3:21). To do this He must have killed and shed the blood of at least one animal. The reason for this can be summed up by Hebrews 9:22:
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
God required the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins. What happened in the Garden of Eden was a picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, who shed His blood on the Cross as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
If the shedding of blood occurred before sin, as would have happened if the garden was sitting on a fossil record of dead things millions of years old, then the foundation of the Atonement would be destroyed.
This big picture also fits with Romans 8, which says that the whole creation “groans” because of the effects of the Fall of Adam—it was not “groaning” with death and suffering before Adam sinned. Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Paul discusses this in detail in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.
Rev 21–22 make it clear that there will be a “new heaven and a new earth” one day where there will be “no more death” and “no more curse”—just as it was before sin changed everything. Obviously, if there are going to be animals in the new earth, they will not die or eat each other or eat the redeemed people.
Thus, the teaching of millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam sinned is a direct attack on the foundation of the message of the Cross.
Conclusion
If we accept God’s Word, beginning with Genesis, as being true and authoritative, then we can explain dinosaurs and make sense of the evidence we observe in the world around us. In doing this, we are helping people see that Genesis is absolutely trustworthy and logically defensible, and is what it claims to be—the true account of the history of the universe and mankind. And what one believes concerning the book of Genesis will ultimately determine what one believes about the rest of the Bible. This, in turn, will affect how a person views himself or herself, fellow human beings, and what life is all about, including their need for salvation.

[aromulus]

With all the respect due to individual views on the subject at hand, I am now officially bored to tears because I think that it is absolute.....
Rubbish............:omg:

My mind is in turmoil and questioning itself about the need of some people to believe in the oldest best seller ever written and not believing to the absolute proven certainty of slow and inexorable evolution.:doh

Next question, please....:Rasp:

[KeithD]

If evolution doesn't exist how do you explain the flu viruses evolving before your eye?

Domestic dog & cats didn't exist 4000 years ago, only wild cats & wolves.

Thoroughbred horses have only been around 300 years.

When people on here.....white British + brwon Filipina have a baby, you are mixing two distinct race of people, thereby evolving the human race into one race.

Even the Pope accepts evolution now, which is a partial decision that they have decided certain bits of the bible are now literal, when years ago they were fact!!! That is the church 'evolving'.

Also the Creationist scientific lab set up 2 years ago in the US at great expense, has so far proven nothing to support its case.

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/12/counter-creationism-resources.html

[Tawi2]

racism, promiscuity, dishonesty, homosexual behavior, euthanasia, suicide, lawlessness, pornography, and so on.:Erm:

You just described the worlds biggest business,the modern day church :icon_lol:

[KeithD]

The global flood of Noah created them. As I understand it fossils are created by sudden death happening on a wide scale caused by a large amount of water, volcanic activity and mudslides etc. Exactly what happened at the flood.
Just two very minor points......
Fossils are created individually at any time, and the amount of time depends on where they are, but it does need enough deposits to make enough weight to turn it into stone. Where would Billions of tons of deposits come from in one go, considering Noah's flood came from rain that would not shift enough debri.

But more importantly, their just is not enough water on this planet to do what it says in the Bible, only enough to flood, if all the ice meltded sea level would rise no more than 300ft, I'd still have to drive miles to get to the beach :doh .....but at least Manchester will be gone :D .....and Liverpool :omg: We'd still have Tranmere though :cwm24:

[bornatbirth]

So you believe everything you read online? This is what I find. The world is being brainwashed into believing as fact something which is NOT cast iron proof. So the world would rather believe in anything other than a God who they must give account to for their life.

nope but why do you?

you keep posting that link and now your posting stuff from that sight,i have to give it to you for trying to get us to read it but i cant lie,i didnt :D

[KeithD]

So you believe everything you read online?
Quite right, Darwin must have read it online somewhere :Erm:

[aromulus]

I put it all down to a sense of personal insecurity....:NoNo:

I respect the "Belief" thingy, but carrying it a bit too far, like in this instance, is rather blinkered....:Erm:

[John Chingford]

Just two very minor points......
Fossils are created individually at any time, and the amount of time depends on where they are, but it does need enough deposits to make enough weight to turn it into stone. Where would Billions of tons of deposits come from in one go, considering Noah's flood came from rain that would not shift enough debri.

But more importantly, their just is not enough water on this planet to do what it says in the Bible, only enough to flood, if all the ice meltded sea level would rise no more than 300ft, I'd still have to drive miles to get to the beach :doh .....but at least Manchester will be gone :D .....and Liverpool :omg: We'd still have Tranmere though :cwm24:

I saw a documentary on how quickly volcanic mountains can explode and rise up again eg Krakatoa (unsure of spelling). Apparently just a matter of a few years. At the time of the flood volcanic activity was vast opening up masses of rivers underground as well as floods from the heavens (not just rain) and probably the highest mountains remaining were not so high at that time. The landscape of the earth would have changed dramatically since the flood. It could be that the earth was much flatter at that time. Also, the ark rested on mount ararat - even now not the highest mountain, but it could have been much lower at that time. Valleys may have not been so deep etc. So it is plausible that the water could have flooded the whole earth

[KeithD]

.....and probably the highest mountains remaining were not so high at that time. The landscape of the earth would have changed dramatically since the flood. It could be that the earth was much flatter at that time. Also, the ark rested on mount ararat - even now not the highest mountain, but it could have been much lower at that time.......
Not much FACT in those comments then!! :doh

Whereas the highest point on the planet was more than 300ft 6000 years ago FACT, so rules out a flood as no extra water magically appeared and then vanished as no one has any proof, and none can be found.

[John Chingford]

Just two very minor points......
Fossils are created individually at any time, and the amount of time depends on where they are, but it does need enough deposits to make enough weight to turn it into stone. Where would Billions of tons of deposits come from in one go, considering Noah's flood came from rain that would not shift enough debri.

But more importantly, their just is not enough water on this planet to do what it says in the Bible, only enough to flood, if all the ice meltded sea level would rise no more than 300ft, I'd still have to drive miles to get to the beach :doh .....but at least Manchester will be gone :D .....and Liverpool :omg: We'd still have Tranmere though :cwm24:

Tranmere for the cup then!

[John Chingford]

Not much FACT in those comments then!! :doh

Whereas the highest point on the planet was more than 300ft 6000 years ago FACT, so rules out a flood as no extra water magically appeared and then vanished as no one has any proof, and none can be found.

You say FACT, how do you know it is fact - again it is just a theory that the mountains were higher than 300 feet. No living person was there to quantify that. I know mine is also a theory, but what I am saying and trying to point out in this thread is that NO-ONE should mislead the world into believing theories to be FACT. They are not, yet vast numbers of the world are brain washed into believing what the so called experts say. Therefore they believe it as facts when it is not. I am not stating that you should aimlessly believe what I am presenting but you should at least be aware that there are other possibilities to the origins of this world and check them out if you are people of reason. I check most things out.

[Tawi2]

Ummmm :Erm: John,one fact is that its NOT a boat or the remnants of an Ark on Mt Ararat,it has been scientifically examined by enough groups before the 1991 kidnappings to disprove the theory it is or ever was a boat,so at least thats Fact,its not a boat :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[John Chingford]

I saw a documentary on how quickly volcanic mountains can explode and rise up again eg Krakatoa (unsure of spelling). Apparently just a matter of a few years. At the time of the flood volcanic activity was vast opening up masses of rivers underground as well as floods from the heavens (not just rain) and probably the highest mountains remaining were not so high at that time. The landscape of the earth would have changed dramatically since the flood. It could be that the earth was much flatter at that time. Also, the ark rested on mount ararat - even now not the highest mountain, but it could have been much lower at that time. Valleys may have not been so deep etc. So it is plausible that the water could have flooded the whole earth

Just to add to my quote. I remember something else about the doc. I saw. I believe it was Krakatoa or some other volcano. They showed by film evidence that this mountain was flattened by the volcano causing the island to sink. However, within a matter of a few years the island rose again as the mountain rose again. If this happens in a short space of time, how can we be so dogmatic about stating that things take millions or billions of years to occur?

[Tawi2]

Your dogmatic about all things biblical John :icon_lol: Let it go,let your hair down and live a little :icon_lol: Thats the thing with religious types,they are blinkered,indocrinated,they have to believe,never understood it myself :icon_lol:

[John Chingford]

Ummmm :Erm: John,one fact is that its NOT a boat or the remnants of an Ark on Mt Ararat,it has been scientifically examined by enough groups before the 1991 kidnappings to disprove the theory it is or ever was a boat,so at least thats Fact,its not a boat :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Ok Tawi2 I concede that the object on Mount Ararat is probably not the ark, however, I cannot trust what the Iraqis say. They stated they were winning the gulf war! Remember Comedy ali? lol! Whether it was ark or not does not matter.

[KeithD]

You say FACT, how do you know it is fact - again it is just a theory that the mountains were higher than 300 feet. No living person was there to quantify that. I know mine is also a theory, but what I am saying and trying to point out in this thread is that NO-ONE should mislead the world into believing theories to be FACT. They are not, yet vast numbers of the world are brain washed into believing what the so called experts say. Therefore they believe it as facts when it is not. I am not stating that you should aimlessly believe what I am presenting but you should at least be aware that there are other possibilities to the origins of this world and check them out if you are people of reason. I check most things out.
It is the religious folk who are brainwashed into believing something written in a story book 2000 years ago.....how do you explain the writers knew what they wrote was fact? They were around 6000 years ago to see? :doh

Rock formations such as mountains are FACT as we see them moving even today (earthquakes), and it is again simple maths to work out the timeframe. The Tibetan Plateau is still moving up and still will be in another 6000 years.

[Tawi2]

John,it wasnt the iraqis who examined it,its been western archaeologists,its an unusual stone formation,no more,no less,the "Ararat anomaly" as its now known.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[John Chingford]

It IS a serious matter. Consider, if I am right, it affects your eternal destination. I write these things seriously because of compassion in my heart for you all. It is NOT God's will that any should perish, therefore I have a mandate from God to present these things with the hope that some WILL take these things seriously. I desire that ALL should know Jesus like I know Him. He is amazing and His love is so wonderful. I know He is alive and He has changed my life. He has put light into my soul. It is like the brightness of the sun. Because I know Him everything becomes so much clearer. Regarding letting my hair down, ask my wife. She finds me hilarious as I have a real sense of humour.

[Tawi2]

Thanks for caring for my soul John,much appreciated :Erm: I would rather go to hell once I snuff it to be honest,thats where the interesting people will end up I guess?Imagine the parties:icon_lol:(No karaoke allowed,thats for those in heaven:icon_lol:)all that bondage gear,whippings and Dominatrix :icon_lol: John,you should go to the Barrio Fiesta sa London next month,you would be a howl once you got a few san migs down your neck :Cuckoo::icon_lol:

[John Chingford]

John,it wasnt the iraqis who examined it,its been western archaeologists,its an unusual stone formation,no more,no less,the "Ararat anomaly" as its now known.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

Thanks Tawi2. Sorry, I stand corrected!

[John Chingford]

Thanks again guys. I have to go now

[aromulus]

I write these things seriously because of compassion in my heart for you all.

Duly noted and aknowledged..... :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Thanks for the thought....:xxgrinning--00xx3:

Still........:NoNo:

[Tawi2]

We love you john :cwm38:Not in a homo way or anything :icon_lol: But as a genuine nice guy :xxgrinning--00xx3:Group hugs all around :cwm38::cwm38:

[Pepe n Pilar]

We love you John and thank you from the bottom of our hearts....:D:Hellooo::icon_win:

[Bluebirdjones]

it affects your eternal destination
My initial destination is either Bohol or Guimares, and when the eternal bit
arrives, I'm gonna swim off the nearest beach ... and keep on swimming

It is NOT God's will that any should perish
We all die in time ...... FACT.

...because of compassion in my heart for you all.
I neither know you, nor want to ..... so cross me off your list

I have a mandate from God
Did it arrive in the post ? .... or was it the same type of mandate that Gordon
Brown alludes to (ie the non-elected one ?)


“The trouble with born again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain
the second time around”

[Sophie]

“The trouble with born again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain
the second time around”

Ouch, that's quite a strong statement........
It would be hypocrisy to say i'm not offended by it,
but then again, that's your personal opinion and you are entitled to one, and i respect that...
I hope you do thesame........

[Jay&Zobel]

Duly noted and aknowledged..... :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Thanks for the thought....:xxgrinning--00xx3:




We love you john :cwm38:Not in a homo way or anything :icon_lol: But as a genuine nice guy :xxgrinning--00xx3:Group hugs all around :cwm38::cwm38:


We love you John and thank you from the bottom of our hearts....:D:Hellooo::icon_win:


Very gentlemen of you!!!! :xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Jay&Zobel]

[COLOR="Magenta"]...because of compassion in my heart for you all.
I neither know you, nor want to ..... so cross me off your list

“The trouble with born again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain
the second time around”


Ouch, that's quite a strong statement........
It would be hypocrisy to say i'm not offended by it,
but then again, that's your personal opinion and you are entitled to one, and i respect that...
I hope you do thesame........


I'd rather have a God that teaches me to love thy neighbour, than having none and be a heartless person...

[bornatbirth]

I'd rather have a God that teaches me to love thy neighbour, than having none and be a heartless person...

why are you considered heartless unless we believe the same as you? :NoNo:

i could say your heartless for no other reason than i can write it!

[John Chingford]

why are you considered heartless unless we believe the same as you? :NoNo:

i could say your heartless for no other reason than i can write it!

I think Jay and Zobel was referring to the heartless comment made by BlueBirdJones. I agree that many unbelievers are NOT heartless. Point is being made that "true" believers practice love because they have Jesus in their hearts and that is better than the alternative. How can this be a painful thing? Actually often the highly critical people do not express love. All they do is insult maybe because of bad experiences.

BlueBirdJones is entitled to think that way. However, that attitude will not win many friends. Maybe he has an experience of some "so-called" christians who have hurt him? Anyway, I will try to be understanding and not return the same animosity. BBJ I forgive you for the comment. I have faced FAR worse. I can cope with those comments!

[John Chingford]

Thank you Aromulus, Tawi2 and Pepe N Pilar for your very kind comments. Yes hugs all round in a male bonding way - not homo way! Cheers!

[Tawi2]

Thank you Aromulus, Tawi2 and Pepe N Pilar for your very kind comments. Yes hugs all round in a male bonding way - not homo way! Cheers!

Thanks John,when I said I loved you it was as a geezer because you come across as a decent guy to be honest :icon_lol::xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Jay&Zobel]

I think Jay and Zobel was referring to the heartless comment made by BlueBirdJones. I agree that many unbelievers are NOT heartless. Point is being made that "true" believers practice love because they have Jesus in their hearts and that is better than the alternative. How can this be a painful thing? Actually often the highly critical people do not express love. All they do is insult maybe because of bad experiences.

BlueBirdJones is entitled to think that way. However, that attitude will not win many friends. Maybe he has an experience of some "so-called" christians who have hurt him? Anyway, I will try to be understanding and not return the same animosity. BBJ I forgive you for the comment. I have faced FAR worse. I can cope with those comments!


Yep, that's what I meant... Cheers:xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Scouse]

What I do not like is that those who teach evolution and put dates on the age of the earth do not state it is theory but teach it as if it is fact.

Is that why it is called Darwins THEORY of evolution?

It's the religious nutters who present their fairy stories as fact. They have an agenda to control everybody but are just a bunch of hypocrites. They quote their religious text and do the opposite.

An example of this is that people should help others who are worse off than themselves but the the churches are some of the richest organisations in the world and still ask for more from the brainwashed often poor who attend.

When was the last time you saw a priest living in permanent poverty? Never because the church looks after it's own. They may go somewher in the developing world for a few years but that is just to brainwash even more people to create more wealth for themselves.

Look at the child abuse scandal and cover up in Ireland, who was behind it? the church.

If it wasn't so serious you would make me laugh. I don't love or respect you and don't need your love or respect.

I was brought up to believe in a god and rejected religion when I saw the hypocrisy.

[Fitzy]

I once had a debate with a west african who told me that scientists had buried T-rex fossils to fool the masses :icon_lol: I have also been to the tomb of jesus christ in kashmir in India :Erm:Incestuous lot if we are all descended from a single couple,surprised we havent got more inbred defects :icon_lol: Anyone play Duelling-banjoes like Billy Redden?:Erm:

Squeel lik a Pig, Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Hahahahahahahha


Nice 1 mate:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Tawi2]

I always found that "Deliverance" scene uncomfortable to watch Fitzy,I have met a few guys like those hillbilly rednecks :icon_lol::ARsurrender:

[Bluebirdjones]

My attitude is not designed to win friends …. I’m happy as I am.

.. and what is a “so-called” Christian ? …. someone like you who spouts total nonsence about the theory of evolution ? ….. someone like Martin Luther who broke away from the “established” church ? … someone who does not believe in the literal interpretation of the bible ? …. someone who attends a different Happy-Clappy church to you ? … someone like Tony Blair who believed it was “god’s will” that he should support the invasion of Iraq ? …. someone like Pope Urban II who’s rhetoric unleashed Crusader mobs throughout Europe, who massacred thousands of Jews, and eventually the wholesale slaughter of the Muslim & Jewish populations of Jerusalem ? ….someone like Jerry Falwell who famously said "Labor unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are better workers." ? … need more ?????

And my “experience” ?..... by the time I’d finished University, I’d lost my mother, my father, and my brother ……. all my family bar a grandmother (who I then looked after).
… and I hear… “It’s God’s Will” …. NEVER, EVER, WILL I BELIEVE OR ACCEPT THAT.

Forgiveness …… I neither require it, nor want it. …… or need it !
Nor your sympathy.


As an aside, I’ve no problem with ANYONE’s views on religion or politics …. but you seem to be on some personal crusade to “convert” people, to force your thoughts upon others. That, I cannot agree with.
This website is a great source of info for those with a (prospective) Filipino/a wife/husband, a source of knowledge about visas, travel arrangements, legal procedures, shipping, etc etc ….. and even you have contributed/started a number of these informative threads.
So, lets leave the religion, the politics to one side….. and get back to what this site is TRULY about.

[aromulus]

As an aside, I’ve no problem with ANYONE’s views on religion or politics …. but you seem to be on some personal crusade to “convert” people, to force your thoughts upon others. That, I cannot agree with.
This website is a great source of info for those with a (prospective) Filipino/a wife/husband, a source of knowledge about visas, travel arrangements, legal procedures, shipping, etc etc ….. and even you have contributed/started a number of these informative threads.
So, lets leave the religion, the politics to one side….. and get back to what this site is TRULY about.


Amen to that.........:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[aposhark]

Regarding incest. Sin is only sin if God forbids it. If He created everything He has the right to say what is right or wrong. He set the rules for our own good. At the beginning He stated that the first couple should be responsible for filling the Earth with people. God called it incest and a sin much later at the time of Moses (about 2000 years later).

God created the first couple perfect and to live for eternity but stated that if they sinned their bodies would start to decay "on the day you eat of it you will die". Ever since that time death and corruption has entered the human race, but it took 2000 years for the full impact of that corruption to reduce our life span to about 80ish years. By the time of Moses, incest was called incest because it had now become harmful to continue the practice

God? He? NOT AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!PROOF?

[aromulus]

God? He? NOT AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!PROOF?

:doh

:doh

I was waiting for that.....:NoNo:

:Brick:

[aposhark]

Theres approx 4600 different species of mammal on the face of the planet John,how big was Noahs boat?:Erm:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/aposhark/muttley.gif

[aposhark]

It IS a serious matter. Consider, if I am right, it affects your eternal destination.

I write these things seriously because of compassion in my heart for you all. It is NOT God's will that any should perish, therefore I have a mandate from God to present these things with the hope that some WILL take these things seriously. I desire that ALL should know Jesus like I know Him. He is amazing and His love is so wonderful. I know He is alive and He has changed my life. He has put light into my soul. It is like the brightness of the sun. Because I know Him everything becomes so much clearer. Regarding letting my hair down, ask my wife. She finds me hilarious as I have a real sense of humour.

What destination John? There is no destination.
There is no God, no Jesus. Where is your proof?
If you know Jesus, where did you meet him?
Did he pop in for a cuppa?
We have been through this before and we will do again.
STOP trying to convert people who DO NOT WANT TO BE CONVERTED...

[aposhark]

Your dogmatic about all things biblical John :icon_lol: Let it go,let your hair down and live a little :icon_lol: Thats the thing with religious types,they are blinkered,indocrinated,they have to believe,never understood it myself :icon_lol:

Religious people in my mind don't seem to enjoy the present, they're are all waiting for the next life to have fun......What a waste.

[aposhark]

Is that why it is called Darwins THEORY of evolution?

It's the religious nutters who present their fairy stories as fact. They have an agenda to control everybody but are just a bunch of hypocrites. They quote their religious text and do the opposite.

An example of this is that people should help others who are worse off than themselves but the the churches are some of the richest organisations in the world and still ask for more from the brainwashed often poor who attend.

When was the last time you saw a priest living in permanent poverty? Never because the church looks after it's own. They may go somewher in the developing world for a few years but that is just to brainwash even more people to create more wealth for themselves.

Look at the child abuse scandal and cover up in Ireland, who was behind it? the church.

If it wasn't so serious you would make me laugh. I don't love or respect you and don't need your love or respect.

I was brought up to believe in a god and rejected religion when I saw the hypocrisy.

My type of bloke (or blokess!) - someone I could share a beer with.

[aposhark]

I always found that "Deliverance" scene uncomfortable to watch Fitzy,I have met a few guys like those hillbilly rednecks :icon_lol::ARsurrender:

There's no better love than one's love for their fellow man.......but don't tell my wife I wrote that :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

[aposhark]

:doh

:doh

I was waiting for that.....:NoNo:

:Brick:

Don't want to disappoint you, Dom :-)

[KeithD]

Apollo is a real God, I seen it land on the Moon! :Erm:

[aposhark]

Apollo is a real God, I seen it land on the Moon! :Erm:

You have better eyes than me then!

[KeithD]

You have better eyes than me then!
It's the big round white thing in the night sky.....appears a lot more than the big orange thingy during the day :icon_lol:

[Scouse]

My type of bloke (or blokess!) - someone I could share a beer with.

Definitely a bloke and I enjoy a few beers now and again!

he seems to have gone quiet since we pointed out a few holes in his argument.

[KeithD]

Proof: Scousers have evolved quicker at car theft than Mancs :xxgrinning--00xx3: :D

[Mrs.JMajor]

Definitely a bloke and I enjoy a few beers now and again!

he seems to have gone quiet since we pointed out a few holes in his argument.

Because you gang him up, lol wait for other believer to depend him:peepwall:

[aromulus]

Proof: Socusers have evolved quicker at car theft than Mancs :xxgrinning--00xx3: :D


:Erm:

[Mrs.JMajor]

Proof: Socusers have evolved quicker at car theft than Mancs :xxgrinning--00xx3: :D


:Erm:

Lol Mod, edit it :icon_lol: sige ka:Cuckoo:

[aromulus]

Because you gang him up, lol wait for other believer to depend him:peepwall:
:Erm::Erm::Erm:

Edit to what...???

[somebody]

Apollo is a real God, I seen it land on the Moon! :Erm:

Didnt he appear in Rocky:Erm:

[bornatbirth]

isnt the moon rocky?

[somebody]

isnt the moon rocky?


Made of cheese or was it a button:Erm:

[John Chingford]

Hi Scouse, Tawi2 and everybody else. Greetings!

I am sorry I have not given my answers yet. I have been very busy. It is difficult to find enough time to respond to all the questions and criticisms. I would love to have the time. However, I do feel a bit overwhelmed by the response.

I do NOT believe that strong enough holes have been made to my argument. The answers are purely based on scientific theories and not proof, anyway.

The reason I began the thread in the first place was because I am tired of the way evolution and scientific theories are presented. As it is 200 years anniversary of Darwin I wanted to readdress the issue.

I was brought up believing that these theories were fact because this is the way it was presented. Even now (maybe much more) it is presented as if fact. For example the experiment to “recreate the conditions before the big bang”. Why didn’t they say something like “we want to experiment with the theory of the big bang” . Why do they say “a billion years ago this happened” They should be saying “it is our theory that a billion years ago this happened”. This is deliberately misleading people and is nothing less than deception ie not the whole truth. Quite honestly, if you accept the THEORY of evolution as fact why shouldn’t the creation viewpoint be equally valid and equally reasonable?

I would love to (when I have time) respond to all your questions because I do have answers, but I am actually wondering if I should respond, any more. It seems to me that my replies and material are not given serious consideration or thought. But instead the replies I get just mock us Christians spouting the teaching received from a godless society who want a reason and excuse not to believe in God.

However, I will answer one of the questions now.

How do I prove that God exists to those who choose to live lives in the dark? Well ….. It is like trying to prove to a person born blind and deaf that the sun is bright? I cannot, although he may sense things about the sun, eg the warmth but he cannot know for sure that it is bright and may even doubt that it exists but if his eyes were suddenly opened he would know for himself that the sun was bright and would know for sure it existed. That is what it is like. There is masses of evidence for those who truly want to know. I cannot prove to you that God exists if you refuse to know, but for those who seek Him with ALL their heart, they will find Him.

This is My testimony and why I know that He exists. I like most of you did not know whether God existed or not and certainly did not believe that the bible was trustworthy.

There came a day after seeking God, that Jesus showed me how much He loved me. He gave me a revelation of the cross and why He had to die for MY sins. He showed me that He suffered willingly for MY sins because He loved me. He poured His love into my heart. My hardened selfish/unloving heart was melted by His love. From that moment on my eyes were opened and I could hear clearly. He changed me from the inside. It was like a river washing my soul. I felt clean. From that moment I knew the bible was trustworthy.

Since that time I have been taught by His Holy Spirit (within). I just knew that God existed and that (because Jesus was alive) He spoke to men of old, inspiring them to speak and write His words accurately. Therefore, what may seem to be contradictions or errors cannot be but MUST have some explanation somewhere. As time has gone by I have found virtually all of these so-called errors to not be errors at all, as archaeology or understanding the culture etc or understanding the context in which things are written, become clearer the more I read the bible. Also when we see all the prophecies of the bible being fulfilled precisely, it is further evidence that the bible is trustworthy. For those who are truly interested I could say much about why the bible is trustworthy..

However, I did previously say that I would not respond to questions unless the criticisms or questions showed evidence that you had read my material or the material on http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers web page. In fact all the criticisms can be answered on that site. They base their teaching and experiments based on scientific discoveries made in our day, which prove that fossils etc can be produced much quicker than imagined. This is not just theory, they have examined the evidence of things happening before our very eyes. This is REAL science, actual proof as it happens, rather than theorising on something which may or may not have happened a long time ago (before any of us were alive). I am yet to read any replies solid enough to criticise what AIG have said. Why give criticisms until the material I send is digested first?

[aposhark]

John Chingford quoted ......How do I prove that God exists to those who choose to live lives in the dark?

It is light in my room here right now, thank you!

John Chingford quoted....masses of evidence for those who truly want to know.

As I said before, we don't WANT to know at ANY time, why do you persist in trying to tell some people things they have absolutely no wish to waste time on?

John Chingford quoted....I cannot prove to you that God exists if you refuse to know, but for those who seek Him with ALL their heart, they will find Him.

So, why bother? We do not "refuse", we have BETTER things to spend our time on.

John Chingford quoted....This is My testimony and why I know that He exists.

Exists? Where, when, how? And why "He" ???

John Chingford quoted....I like most of you did not know whether God existed or not and certainly did not believe that the bible was trustworthy.

Lots of us never bother reading it, we are TOO BUSY

John Chingford quoted....Since that time I have been taught by His Holy Spirit (within). I just knew that God existed and that (because Jesus was alive)

Where? Is he on his second cuppa now? LOL
Now, you do know the meaning of the word "Alive" don't you John?
So post a photo of him then, or at least tell everyone where "he" is having "his" breakfast today...

John Chingford quoted....For those who are truly interested I could say much about why the bible is trustworthy..

WHY DON'T YOU GET IT JOHN, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED, NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST?
THERE IS NO GOD, NO JESUS.
WHEN WE DIE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
END OF STORY.
I AND MANY OTHERS ARE HAPPY WITH THESE STATEMENTS

[KeithD]

The majority of Geology is FACT.

Visit the Grand Canyon and take a look at 2 billion years worth.....and don't say it was made by a flood in the last 6,000 years....even to a simpleton, that just wouldn't add up as we know the rate a river cuts through rock.

Also you questioned carbon dating, that is FACT. Proof is simple. I guess you know what an atomic clock is? It works by by measuring the frequency of the microwave levels given off by caesium atoms, and is accurate to around 10(-10)...(add on 10 zero's). We measure that easily, and you can see how accurate it is yourself by looking not only at the time of atomic clocks, the most reliable on the planet, but also GPS, your TV frequencies, etc

What does that have to do with radiocarbon dating? Well it is MUCH easier to measure decay of carbon-14, than the frequency of caesium atoms at a unit of 10,000,000,000 :cwm24:

All this is FACT otherwise atomic clocks would be incorrect, unreliable, GPS would not work, and you'd have no pictures on your TV....you can see it working with your own eyes.

Even the creationist scientists have given up trying to disprove it, and they'd been working on it since 1997!!!

[David House]

Having just stumbled upon this "debate" I confess I have not had time to read every post, but enough to get the flavour. It has started my day with a laugh. Those who seriously propose a creationist theory deserve the ridicule handed out here. This is one of those "self evident" matters. Evolution makes sense. All the evidence supports that sense. The story of creation was written by primative men to try to explain where everything came from at a time when they did not have our knowledge. That there are those who wish to try to make facts out of such out dated theories says much more about them than it does about the therories they propose, which are clear nonesense to most of us. What is sad is that accepting evolution as a fact, and accepting that the Bible is a work of fiction rather than the word of "God", does not actually make the slightest difference to whether you can believe in a higher being or not. It just changes the basis for that belief and modernises it in the light of our ever growing knowledge. I feel a little sorry for those who are so wrapped up in their own pet therories that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

[Bluebirdjones]

John,

I took your advice and clicked on the link….

… but I decided to delve a little deeper into the people behind this sham.

I see that the Australian Ken Ham is the president and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S.

Some “history” of him ……
In 1979, Ham co-founded what was to be later known as the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) in Queensland, Australia with John Mackay. Controversy arose when Mackay "was excommunicated in the 1980s after making allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia against a fellow member of the ministry".

In 1994, with the assistance of what is now Creation Ministries Int’l (Australia), he set up Answers in Genesis …….. in May 2007, (CMI) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking damages and accusing him of deceptive conduct in his dealings with the Australian organization. Members of the ministry were "concern[ed] over Mr Ham's domination of the ministries, the amount of money being spent on his fellow executives and a shift away from delivering the creationist message to raising donations."


Some statements from Ken Ham…
"If you disagree with what I'm going to say, please do not give me your opinion, because I'm not interested...

"Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it."

Since 1989, Ham has frequently made the comment, "Were you there?" regarding the origins of life and evolution, seeming to imply that knowledge of unwitnessed events is inferential and not observational.

Other’s views
Ham's beliefs and tactics have also been criticized by other Christians and creationists. Answers in Creation web site, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.

The Creation Museum has been the subject of controversy ever since it was proposed, because the exhibits are based on a young Earth creationist view of the origins of the universe and life. Local opposition caused the construction approval process to take several years. During construction Professor Lord Robert Winston Medical doctor, scientist) visited the site of the museum and remarked, “I admit I was dismayed by what I saw at the Ken Ham museum. It was alarming to see so much time, money and effort being spent on making a mockery of hard won scientific knowledge. And the fact that it was being done with such obvious sincerity, somehow made it all the worse”.

… additionally….. Educators criticizing the museum include the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucy, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement: "We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

…..just got back from Leicester listening to Ken Ham talk about creationism this Thursday evening…. but it became clear during the talk that Ken Ham’s version is smoke and mirrors…...All the videos depended on the audience going “Wow, how amazing, so complex, there had to be a God”…… the leaps being made within seconds of one association over the other were breathtaking and liquid refreshment was needed to get over the nerve of someone that was prepared to say that they loved science and yet could pretend that the facts supported that the earth was thousands of years old and their view of Christianity.

I’ll let other decide who’s being "duped".

[John Chingford]

I continue this thread because I have been challenged by BlueBirdJones. I cannot leave the debate the way it is without responding.

Thankyou BlueBirdJones for at least taking some time to check out the site. I respect you for that! As you took the time to do this, I will reply to you.

Did you read and listen to just bits and pieces or the whole articles to get it in full context. Did you go to AIG with an open mind or did you go there simply to: find reasons to criticise it, check out the organisation, find out what anti creationists have to say about it?

It is easy to quote from a consensus of people who are anti. I could also choose a selection of pro comments if I wanted to. Just giving one side of the argument is unbalanced reporting. Your quotes are from people who are biased in what they say. Biased people tend to exaggerate or not always tell the truth and misrepresent what a person or organisation says or does. Surely you know what the media is like? If you want to know what an organisation is actually saying you should examine what THEY are saying, thoroughly – not just a few excerpts.

Quite honestly the quotes are mere opinion and conjecture, based on those who have been duped from childhood to believe what they have been told. These opinions are based on a collection of biased pieces of evidence, whilst choosing to reject any other evidence to support a God who created everything.. They reject these evidences because it does not fit in with the theories they want to uphold. I guess we can ALL do that.

You also state that over 800 signatures were taken opposing AIG. Come on! Just because 800 anti-creationist people signed a petition is NO proof that AIG are wrong. It just means that they are opposed. They could be completely biased.

It is feasible that I could get millions of signatures from Christians (of course equally biased) who would be supportive of AIG. Even if the majority believed something it does not prove it is right. By the way, atheists are easily the minority group in the world, but maybe in the highest percentage amongst British people. The rest of the world hates Britain (check out the political voting at Eurovision song contest for example) because of our arrogant attitude. Our attitude tends to be: “If the majority of BRITAIN believes it, IT must be right because WE are more educated therefore know more than the rest of the world”.

[Bluebirdjones]

The rest of the world hates Britain (check out the political voting at Eurovision song contest for example)
I cannot believe you’ve written this !

If this “theory” is to be believed, (like the other nonsence theories u believe in) then the fact that Germany has only won on one occasion (1982), is something to do with Europeans still punishing them for their Nazi past ?

…. And all of European hates Portugal (who’ve never won) ?

… and Ireland won on those many occasions as a punishment for Britain “occupying” Northern Ireland ? … mmmm ….
(Oh yes, I remember the headlines at the time … “Eurovision juries boycott Britain’s entry to force British troops out of Ulster”).

Actually John, I think it’s more to do with the crap songs (… as if anyone in Britain really cares)

I’ll reply to the rest when I’ve stopped laughing and managed to strap myself back into my chair.

[aposhark]

....Our attitude tends to be: “If the majority of BRITAIN believes it, IT must be right because WE are more educated therefore know more than the rest of the world”.

Get a life, you do not speak for the rest of us.........What is this forum becoming?

[KeithD]

.........What is this forum becoming?
Heavenly :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Bluebirdjones]

Recovered a little so ......

Your quotes are from people who are biased in what they say. Biased people tend to exaggerate
So …. if it’s written or spouted by Ken Ham, it’s TRUE…. whereas all other views are biased and UNTRUE.


the quotes are mere opinion and conjecture, based on those who have been duped from childhood…
such as Lord Professor Lord Robert Winston who graduated from The London Hospital Medical College, University of London, in 1964 with a degree in medicine and achieved prominence as an expert in human fertility. On returning to academic medicine, he developed tubal microsurgery and various techniques in reproductive surgery, including sterilization reversal. He was a scientific advisor to the World Health Organisation's programme in human reproduction from 1975 to 1977. Together with Carol Readhead from the California Institute of Technology he is currently researching male germ cell stem cells and methods for their genetic modification, and he has published over 300 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals ?????
It makes the mind boggle to think on what he could have actually achieved if he hadn’t been duped all those years ago !

….. whereas your mate, your mucka, your mentor, Ken Ham has a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and for his contributions to evangelism, he has been granted two honorary degrees (by Temple Baptist College in 1997 and by Liberty University in 2004.


Finally…
Just because 800 anti-creationist people signed a petition is NO proof that AIG are wrong. It just means that they are opposed. They could be completely biased.
If you’d actually read it, it says …” We, the (800) undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana”.
So… 800 scientists who teach, lecture, research in 3 US States are biased, deluded, wrong ?


By the way, I see that AIG’s income/revenues for yr-ending 2007 was US$17.2mln.
Can u give us a breakdown of what this figure was spent on ?

[JudyHon]

It is feasible that I could get millions of signatures from Christians (of course equally biased) who would be supportive of AIG. Even if the majority believed something it does not prove it is right. By the way, atheists are easily the minority group in the world, but maybe in the highest percentage amongst British people. The rest of the world hates Britain (check out the political voting at Eurovision song contest for example) because of our arrogant attitude. Our attitude tends to be: “If the majority of BRITAIN believes it, IT must be right because WE are more educated therefore know more than the rest of the world”.

I think if you are talking a numbers game, then Christians are also in a minority group, but as you say that does not mean you must cede to Islam.

I am not sure the rest of the world hates Britain, but the resentment that is clearly there in many countries has more to do with our Imperial past and misguided recent military venture into Iraq with the US (especially in terms of our European neighbours) than an inherent arrogant attitude. Most nationalities think they are best – it is a natural attitude and often stoked by governments – like in the US and Russia.

Non-believers such as myself think that believers are deluding themselves, just as you see us as ‘being in the dark’. But mostly we don’t trumpet our opinion, and only make it known when we get irritated by the constant infringement of organised religion and their adherents broadcasting their views and making judgements upon others at every opportunity. I find non-believers generally more open-minded than the religious – our doubt allows for it, whereas the certainty of faith often does not.

I think there is something to say about the British as a nation being better informed than many parts of the world. I think it is not down to arrogance but to advantages in terms of access to information and education, and a relatively free press that is not available to the masses in some countries. If you are insinuating that the rest of the world hates us because we are secular, I think you are completely mistaken.:NoNo:

A Swedish consultant I work with once alluded to this ‘arrogance’. He told me with a grin. ‘People in every country in Europe think that they are the best. Except the British who know they are’. :D

[David House]

We are all dignifying this "debate" by contributing to it. I cannot believe that there can be many others who agree with him but if they do then they must all be very impressionable and probably in need of some form of counselling. It is not often that you can say with total certainty that something is wrong, but this has to be one of them. A more interesting discussion is not whether this "therory" has any merit, as it is nonsense, but why the creationists, and their type, manage to have the influence they do in the USA. I am constantly amazed that a country as developed economically remains so backward in other ways. I spent quite a lot of time with several American guys whilst I was over wintering in Cebu this year and they were perfectly good company on a social level but as soon as the conversation got around to politics, world poverty, religion or similar subjects they displayed breathtaking ignorance and arrogance whilst maintaining a superior attitude that we Brits knew nothing any more.

[KeithD]

We haven't even proven that we actually exist yet. You may think you observe yourself in a mirror and other things around you but how do you prove they actaully exist?

Saying because you see them doesn't wash, as you may think you see them, same for touch, you may think you touch something, but this is only your senses telling you, no outside proof is telling you, and if you think it is, maybe it is only your thinking that makes you think that is proof.

[Sconnie]

We haven't even proven that we actually exist yet. You may think you observe yourself in a mirror and other things around you but how do you prove they actaully exist?

Saying because you see them doesn't wash, as you may think you see them, same for touch, you may think you touch something, but this is only your senses telling you, no outside proof is telling you, and if you think it is, maybe it is only your thinking that makes you think that is proof.

Pleased I read this, or maybe I haven't read it :omg:

Can anyone else see this.

:Cuckoo:
:D

[David House]

Pleased I read this, or maybe I haven't read it :omg:

Can anyone else see this.

:Cuckoo:
:D

I thought I could but now I have my doubts and I haven't even been to the pub yet! By 11.30 I am sure I won't know. Does beer exist? This is getting serious. Better go now.

[aromulus]

Enough of winding each other up, I reckon....:xxgrinning--00xx3:

We all like to disagree, because we are all individuals with powers of reason, and all of us have different opinions on all kind of subjects.

Now that we know where we stand, just lets drop it and keep on being friends.

We solemnly promise not to try to convert each other to this and that, or I am going to see my :butthead:.....

Handbags at dawn........:xxgrinning--00xx3:

Carry on the good work.....:omg:

[Sconnie]

Enough of winding each other up, I reckon....:xxgrinning--00xx3:

We all like to disagree, because we are all individuals with powers of reason, and all of us have different opinions on all kind of subjects.

Now that we know where we stand, just lets drop it and keep on being friends.

We solemnly promise not to try to convert each other to this and that, or I am going to see my :butthead:.....

Handbags at dawn........:xxgrinning--00xx3:

Carry on the good work.....:omg:

Well said Dom :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Piamed]

There are those who communicate what defines or is important to them intelligently, calmly, respectfully and in a constructive manner (both believers and non-believers) and there are those that don't and are thereby distinctly characterised.

I, like many on here, aspire to be what I deem a good Christian. Being a Christian defines me. That is my reality. It means that aspects of my practices, belief and moral coding will be apparent to those around me. Some will be subtle, others will be more pronounced. It is not because I wish to impress anything upon another but rather because it is now in my make up. I can no more suppress it than I can blinking if something flies into my eye. Indeed, nor will I attempt to, as it is not done to challenge others, criticise their own practices, activities, etc.

It is inaccurate to say that because a Christian mentions his faith or anything associated, he is trying to convert another. I have no aspiration to convert anyone on here and believe it is not my role to - If He wants to He will disclose to you what He has to me and others. If not, sobeit. Being a Christian is not a cultural thing for me or for many others on here. Many of us made a conscious decision to form a relationsip with God because we wanted to and beyong it just being all we've ever known or grown up with.

At the end of the day, all are entitled to our own views, even those that are sometimes presented rudely and with an occasionally ambiguous purpose.

I've now said my piece. I've attempted to present my own views and thoughts constructively and robustly on various threads, as have I believe, individuals such as Mr Chingford. I will continue manifesting who I am and if in being ME, I utter something about my faith, the choice of how you react to that is entirely up to you, as we all have this wonderful gift of choice.

Peace to all on here as always. I am now going to be focussed on my new ventures which hopefully you will hear about in due course.

God bless you, all that want to be so blessed and best wishes to everyone else!

[aromulus]

Well said Dom :xxgrinning--00xx3:

The whole debacle keeps reminding me of that famous quote by Clint eastwood, in the "Dead Pool" movie.....:Erm:

""""Opinions are like :butthead:holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."""

:icon_lol::icon_lol:

So in real terms, I am no different from anybody else.....:doh

[aposhark]

....God bless you, all that want to be so blessed and best wishes to everyone else!

Hi Piamed,

This is still, to me, part of the problem.
You see, we don't want to be "blessed" (as there is no such thing as a "God") and religious people's continued attempts to brainwash non-believers can only fairly be met by our comments to leave religion out of this forum because it is not appreciated by many here.

Whilst there are members here that continue to spout off about religious mumbo-jumbo, there will always be others who will react to their attempts to stand on soap boxes.

Once again, I do not knock on anyone's door to try to convince them to be atheists so why don't religious types stay away from my door, and also leave religion out of this forum?

If non-believers do not dispute things, religious people will have the floor and I for one will never let this happen.

If you think that non-believers are rude and ambiguous, don't mention religion and there is no further problem. I think religious people who knock on people's doors for example are far worse than rude :cwm23:
Do we knock on their doors? You know the answer to this :D.

I could easily sit back quietly as an atheist and never start a thread about religion. That would be grand.

It is religious people's choice to keep their thoughts here.
Do it in church where it will be welcomed.

It will be so easy for us atheists to remain quiet here, when religion stays out of this forum.

It's your call :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[KeithD]

I believe that non-believers believe only what other non-believers beliefs believe. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[bornatbirth]

i dont see a problem with anyone posting there views on this forum,is it compuslary to reply to a thread?

as im married to my filipina wife who as christian faith i dont have a problem going to church with her and making sure she is looked after!

so i find it strange that others knock those with faith and belief in god.

[pennybarry]

I'm a human being and not from monkey ancestors:D:action-smiley-081:

[bornatbirth]

i've seen you climbing those trees :Erm: :action-smiley-081:

[vbkelly]

i believed in GOD creation

[vbkelly]

:Erm: So Jurrassic park isnt real then :Erm:

from cover to cover of the bible jurrasic is never mention on it.

[pennybarry]

i've seen you climbing those trees :Erm: :action-smiley-081:

me? I just lay down open my mouth waiting for fruits to fall into my mouth. I don't climb:icon_lol::icon_lol:

[bornatbirth]

me? I just lay down open my mouth :icon_lol::icon_lol:

i wondered what you was going to say then??? :icon_lol:

[pennybarry]

i wondered what you was going to say then??? :icon_lol:

here I am born@birth

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


http://cid-39a8f52365e8e496.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/me%20and%20me?nl=1&uc=1&isFromRichUpload=1

[Jay&Zobel]

There are those who communicate what defines or is important to them intelligently, calmly, respectfully and in a constructive manner (both believers and non-believers) and there are those that don't and are thereby distinctly characterised.

I, like many on here, aspire to be what I deem a good Christian. Being a Christian defines me. That is my reality. It means that aspects of my practices, belief and moral coding will be apparent to those around me. Some will be subtle, others will be more pronounced. It is not because I wish to impress anything upon another but rather because it is now in my make up. I can no more suppress it than I can blinking if something flies into my eye. Indeed, nor will I attempt to, as it is not done to challenge others, criticise their own practices, activities, etc.

It is inaccurate to say that because a Christian mentions his faith or anything associated, he is trying to convert another. I have no aspiration to convert anyone on here and believe it is not my role to - If He wants to He will disclose to you what He has to me and others. If not, sobeit. Being a Christian is not a cultural thing for me or for many others on here. Many of us made a conscious decision to form a relationsip with God because we wanted to and beyong it just being all we've ever known or grown up with.
At the end of the day, all are entitled to our own views, even those that are sometimes presented rudely and with an occasionally ambiguous purpose.

I've now said my piece. I've attempted to present my own views and thoughts constructively and robustly on various threads, as have I believe, individuals such as Mr Chingford. I will continue manifesting who I am and if in being ME, I utter something about my faith, the choice of how you react to that is entirely up to you, as we all have this wonderful gift of choice.

Peace to all on here as always. I am now going to be focussed on my new ventures which hopefully you will hear about in due course.

God bless you, all that want to be so blessed and best wishes to everyone else!


Oh believe me, I have waited for this!!! :xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3:

God bless you too Amigo & family!!! :xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3::xxgrinning--00xx3:

[somebody]

i believed in GOD creation


Why did someone create God:Erm::D


I now have a vision of a Production line creating Gods for all the different religions.

[David House]

There are those who communicate what defines or is important to them intelligently, calmly, respectfully and in a constructive manner (both believers and non-believers) and there are those that don't and are thereby distinctly characterised.

I, like many on here, aspire to be what I deem a good Christian. Being a Christian defines me. That is my reality. It means that aspects of my practices, belief and moral coding will be apparent to those around me. Some will be subtle, others will be more pronounced. It is not because I wish to impress anything upon another but rather because it is now in my make up. I can no more suppress it than I can blinking if something flies into my eye. Indeed, nor will I attempt to, as it is not done to challenge others, criticise their own practices, activities, etc.

It is inaccurate to say that because a Christian mentions his faith or anything associated, he is trying to convert another. I have no aspiration to convert anyone on here and believe it is not my role to - If He wants to He will disclose to you what He has to me and others. If not, sobeit. Being a Christian is not a cultural thing for me or for many others on here. Many of us made a conscious decision to form a relationsip with God because we wanted to and beyong it just being all we've ever known or grown up with.

At the end of the day, all are entitled to our own views, even those that are sometimes presented rudely and with an occasionally ambiguous purpose.

I've now said my piece. I've attempted to present my own views and thoughts constructively and robustly on various threads, as have I believe, individuals such as Mr Chingford. I will continue manifesting who I am and if in being ME, I utter something about my faith, the choice of how you react to that is entirely up to you, as we all have this wonderful gift of choice.

Peace to all on here as always. I am now going to be focussed on my new ventures which hopefully you will hear about in due course.

God bless you, all that want to be so blessed and best wishes to everyone else!

My view is that personal beliefs should be kept just that, personal. The only place to discuss them is when in the exclusive company of fellow believers. By all means let the guiding principals of your life be seen through your behaviour, but please don't mention from where you get those principals. It annoys the non-believers like me who also have found a way to live without relying upon another's rule book. I have my own "beliefs" and therories for how we got here, where the bible came from and where Jesus came from. No one gave them to me and I am not going to share them with you. Although you say you don't seek to convert by even mentioning the Christian element in your message you automatically are, whether intentionally or not. Please stop it.

[Tawi2]

from cover to cover of the bible jurrasic is never mention on it.


What a Bummer :NoNo::bigcry:

[Ji&Ma]

My view is that personal beliefs should be kept just that, personal. The only place to discuss them is when in the exclusive company of fellow believers. By all means let the guiding principals of your life be seen through your behaviour, but please don't mention from where you get those principals. It annoys the non-believers like me who also have found a way to live without relying upon another's rule book. I have my own "beliefs" and therories for how we got here, where the bible came from and where Jesus came from. No one gave them to me and I am not going to share them with you. Although you say you don't seek to convert by even mentioning the Christian element in your message you automatically are, whether intentionally or not. Please stop it.
Very well said David. I share the same view on the matter:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[aposhark]

My view is that personal beliefs should be kept just that, personal. The only place to discuss them is when in the exclusive company of fellow believers. By all means let the guiding principals of your life be seen through your behaviour, but please don't mention from where you get those principals. It annoys the non-believers like me who also have found a way to live without relying upon another's rule book. I have my own "beliefs" and therories for how we got here, where the bible came from and where Jesus came from. No one gave them to me and I am not going to share them with you. Although you say you don't seek to convert by even mentioning the Christian element in your message you automatically are, whether intentionally or not. Please stop it.

Well thought out comments David House.

[aposhark]

i dont see a problem with anyone posting there views on this forum,is it compuslary to reply to a thread?

as im married to my filipina wife who as christian faith i dont have a problem going to church with her and making sure she is looked after!

so i find it strange that others knock those with faith and belief in god.

On the contrary, some of us non-believers find it offensive that people have to keep banging on about religion. It is so tiresome and there is never ever evidence of proof. Never.
I don't know why you find it strange that we knock "god" - it is far stranger to keep mentioning fairy stories.

[Alec&Davina]

Religion will always be a never ending discussion..

[KeithD]

Religion will always be a never ending discussion..
Not if I close the thread it won't be :icon_lol:

[somebody]

Not if I close the thread it won't be :icon_lol:

But God will strike you down:omg:


Oh he hasn't:D

[Piamed]

Hi Piamed,

This is still, to me, part of the problem.
You see, we don't want to be "blessed" (as there is no such thing as a "God") and religious people's continued attempts to brainwash non-believers can only fairly be met by our comments to leave religion out of this forum because it is not appreciated by many here.

Whilst there are members here that continue to spout off about religious mumbo-jumbo, there will always be others who will react to their attempts to stand on soap boxes.

Once again, I do not knock on anyone's door to try to convince them to be atheists so why don't religious types stay away from my door, and also leave religion out of this forum?

If non-believers do not dispute things, religious people will have the floor and I for one will never let this happen.

If you think that non-believers are rude and ambiguous, don't mention religion and there is no further problem. I think religious people who knock on people's doors for example are far worse than rude :cwm23:
Do we knock on their doors? You know the answer to this :D.

I could easily sit back quietly as an atheist and never start a thread about religion. That would be grand.

It is religious people's choice to keep their thoughts here.
Do it in church where it will be welcomed.

It will be so easy for us atheists to remain quiet here, when religion stays out of this forum.

It's your call :xxgrinning--00xx3:
It is absurd to suggest that any group of idividuals is rude per se. The rude and ignorant ones make themselves apparent on an individual basis throug what they say and how they say it.


My view is that personal beliefs should be kept just that, personal. The only place to discuss them is when in the exclusive company of fellow believers. By all means let the guiding principals of your life be seen through your behaviour, but please don't mention from where you get those principals. It annoys the non-believers like me who also have found a way to live without relying upon another's rule book. I have my own "beliefs" and therories for how we got here, where the bible came from and where Jesus came from. No one gave them to me and I am not going to share them with you. Although you say you don't seek to convert by even mentioning the Christian element in your message you automatically are, whether intentionally or not. Please stop it.
As long as my conscience is clear I will continue to be me. If that spurs you to action in any way that is your choice. You have espoused your views in opposition to mine. That is fine. My own views are not based upin your own and indeed do not even acknowledge you. It appears that your personal views cause a reaction to things that do not even involve you. Again tat is your choice.

[John Chingford]

Hey guys. I started a thread NOT to preach at any of you, but simply to inform those who may be interested. The topic is loose talk & chat. Surely it can include any subject that may or may not be interesting. Is it ONLY christians who are not allowed to contribute their thoughts and HAVE to remain silent whilst the rest can say whatever they like whilst we remain gagged? I thought this was a free country.

I wrote the thread because I AM fed up with being subtly preached at or mocked by atheists on TV, radio, newspapers etc about billions of years as if it is fact. I just wanted to give my pennyworth seeings they are allowed to say what they want to whether I like it or not (I have to put up with it and I do willingly because of their entitlement to do so). However, it is only fair that I also be allowed to respond, when I hear things stated as fact when they are theory - I just wanted to point it out, so that those who thought is was fact may be enlightened. There may actually be many who appreciate the things I have written (even those who are not members may appreciate it).

Come on ...... if the topic annoys you, don't read it. You don't have to read everything that people post and you dont have to reply. If you feel you need to contribute - that's good, but if you say something we feel is inaccurate or if we can give you evidence to respond to your accusations or criticisms, it is only fair for us to do so.

[John Chingford]

Hi BlueBirdJones. Again respect to you! By the way, Ken Ham is the CEO of AIG. This means that he is in charge. I know that he is not so qualified as you would like him to be, but he doesn't need to be that qualified as virtually all the articles are written by those he trusts (who are highly qualified) and even what he does write is information he gathers from his experts. The articles are written by VERY qualified people. I checked out the credentials of one of his experts. If you are interested I could post you his name and you could check him out yourself. Regarding Ken's comment that he doesn't want peoples opinions. I think that may be misquoted. As I do not know him I cannot know what he meant, but I would guess he actually said "I am not interested in your opinions (theories) but your factual evidences". If that is what he said, I think that would be a fair comment.

For everybody else who have posted to this thread: a number of statements or criticisms have been made that I cannot remain silent about. There may be innocent people (members or non members) who read the things said and may be influenced by inaccurate information. I need to respond to all these criticisms, for the sake of the innocent ones who have received incomplete information. It is only right because many of you are trying to make a laughing stock out of christianity with your mocking replies.

According to the scriptures Christians are encouraged to contend for the faith if our faith is put on trial. It seems that many of you are putting us on trial. Therefore, I have spent quite a lot of time over the last few days finding articles which (with respect) give strong arguments against the claims you have made. I have put these together and intend to post them soon. Now you don't have to read them if you dont want to, but for the sake of those who are interested I will post it. I think they will find it very informative.

[John Chingford]

Before I send those articles I would like to contribute to one comment made. Hand on heart, can you really state that scientists have really made great discoveries for our good?

Let's look at the evidence: the nuclear threat, global warming, increased famine, greater man-made disasters, economical breakdown, greater stress, increased numbers receiving pyshiatric treatment, greater pressures in life. Computers controlling our time (from breakdowns, virus's, spyware etc). The pace of life is creating an increase in mental and nervous breakdowns etc etc.

I read that some of the tsunami's have been caused by nuclear testing underground in Australia (is that true?).

So have we really advanced so much? and if we have advanced is is it REALLY for the benefit of mankind? Again I don't mind if you mock, I am no expert, but it seems to me that mankind has actually (in real terms) gone backwards. Did you know that previous civilisations were actually far more brilliant than us. Most of our technologies are based on their abilities to think, invent etc. We are simply applying to new technologies what they have provided. Why are we so arrogant to think we are more advanced than they were? Again, just raising the question.

[John Chingford]

As mentioned above I have sent the posts in answer to the criticisms. So that it does not tie up this thread and so that you do not read it if you don't want to, I have placed the answers under a new thread entitled:

Great Evolution Deception Thread Replies To Criticisms

If you want to read it, please read it there. If it upsets you, just ignore it!

I cover the topics on:

new evidence found by scientists concluding dinosaurs did not evolve into birds

evidence and reasons why carbon dating supports a young earth

the grand canyon evidence supports a young earth giving evidence of a noahic global flood

why the bible is trustworthy

[John Chingford]

I sent 2 posts at the end of page 6. However, as we are now on page 7, you may not notice my answers. Therefore, I post it again here, just in case you didn't see it:

1) Hey guys. I started a thread NOT to preach at any of you, but simply to inform those who may be interested. The topic is loose talk & chat. Surely it can include any subject that may or may not be interesting. Is it ONLY christians who are not allowed to contribute their thoughts and HAVE to remain silent whilst the rest can say whatever they like whilst we remain gagged? I thought this was a free country.

I wrote the thread because I AM fed up with being subtly preached at or mocked by atheists on TV, radio, newspapers etc about billions of years as if it is fact. I just wanted to give my pennyworth seeings they are allowed to say what they want to whether I like it or not (I have to put up with it and I do willingly because of their entitlement to do so). However, it is only fair that I also be allowed to respond, when I hear things stated as fact when they are theory - I just wanted to point it out, so that those who thought is was fact may be enlightened. There may actually be many who appreciate the things I have written (even those who are not members may appreciate it).

Come on ...... if the topic annoys you, don't read it. You don't have to read everything that people post and you dont have to reply. If you feel you need to contribute - that's good, but if you say something we feel is inaccurate or if we can give you evidence to respond to your accusations or criticisms, it is only fair for us to do so.

2) Hi BlueBirdJones. Again respect to you! By the way, Ken Ham is the CEO of AIG. This means that he is in charge. I know that he is not so qualified as you would like him to be, but he doesn't need to be that qualified as virtually all the articles are written by those he trusts (who are highly qualified) and even what he does write is information he gathers from his experts. The articles are written by VERY qualified people. I checked out the credentials of one of his experts. If you are interested I could post you his name and you could check him out yourself. Regarding Ken's comment that he doesn't want peoples opinions. I think that may be misquoted. As I do not know him I cannot know what he meant, but I would guess he actually said "I am not interested in your opinions (theories) but your factual evidences". If that is what he said, I think that would be a fair comment.

For everybody else who have posted to this thread: a number of statements or criticisms have been made that I cannot remain silent about. There may be innocent people (members or non members) who read the things said and may be influenced by inaccurate information. I need to respond to all these criticisms, for the sake of the innocent ones who have received incomplete information. It is only right because many of you are trying to make a laughing stock out of christianity with your mocking replies.

According to the scriptures Christians are encouraged to contend for the faith if our faith is put on trial. It seems that many of you are putting us on trial. Therefore, I have spent quite a lot of time over the last few days finding articles which (with respect) give strong arguments against the claims you have made. I have put these together and intend to post them soon. Now you don't have to read them if you dont want to, but for the sake of those who are interested I will post it. I think they will find it very informative.

[KeithD]

Wow.....has this thread

EVOLVED!!!!

[aposhark]

John,

You are swamping this forum with your christian ideology which, for many of us, is a pain in the :action-smiley-081:

Please do this in religious forums where it will be welcomed.

I do not read your threads anymore, you are coming across as a nutter now.

[aromulus]

John,
I do not read your threads anymore, you are coming across as a nutter now.


Calm down, calm down.... :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[aposhark]

Wow.....has this thread

EVOLVED!!!!

Come on Mr. Minging Dictator, you should have been brainwashed into thinking that evolution does not exist.

Get with the plan, man.

[aromulus]

:rolleyes:Everton vs Lillipud.......:rolleyes:

Where's the popcorn:Erm:????

[Jamesey]

Before I send those articles I would like to contribute to one comment made. Hand on heart, can you really state that scientists have really made great discoveries for our good?

Let's look at the evidence: the nuclear threat, global warming, increased famine, greater man-made disasters, economical breakdown, greater stress, increased numbers receiving pyshiatric treatment, greater pressures in life. Computers controlling our time (from breakdowns, virus's, spyware etc). The pace of life is creating an increase in mental and nervous breakdowns etc etc.

I read that some of the tsunami's have been caused by nuclear testing underground in Australia (is that true?).

So have we really advanced so much? and if we have advanced is is it REALLY for the benefit of mankind? Again I don't mind if you mock, I am no expert, but it seems to me that mankind has actually (in real terms) gone backwards. Did you know that previous civilisations were actually far more brilliant than us. Most of our technologies are based on their abilities to think, invent etc. We are simply applying to new technologies what they have provided. Why are we so arrogant to think we are more advanced than they were? Again, just raising the question.

John, this is probably your most ridiculous post yet, and confirms your anti-science stance. But this doesn't really surprise me, because dimissing all modern science is the only way of justifying your theories on the age of the earth, etc.

So the answer to your question is emphatically YES! Science has given immense benefit to mankind. Where would you like me to start? Anti-biotics. Sewerage systems. Clean water. Agricultural systems capable of feeding billions. An understanding of the laws of nature. The capability to travel the world and communicate with people thousands of miles away. A huge wealth of information available at the touch of a button. I could go on.....

What has religion given us? Very little, when compared to the above.

[aposhark]

:rolleyes:Everton vs Lillipud.......:rolleyes:

Where's the popcorn:Erm:????

You know Dom, I was brought up in Liverpool and spent most of my young life there playing football.
We always had friendly banter as half the kids wore Everton shirts, the other Liverpool shirts.
It was fun in those days, OK, we gave each other some stick (Us blues had to take more stick than them, believe me) but we never lost friends because of it.
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I am enjoying how we are moving up the table year on year, we don't have the money they have from their success over the years (maybe this money is going to be harder for them to spend if you believe what the papers print) but it will be always be friendly for me, just a bit sad to see so many younger fans on both sides hating each other these days.
Maybe it's because "they" are all from out of town! ( sorry Keith :-) )

[John Chingford]

John, this is probably your most ridiculous post yet, and confirms your anti-science stance. But this doesn't really surprise me, because dimissing all modern science is the only way of justifying your theories on the age of the earth, etc.

So the answer to your question is emphatically YES! Science has given immense benefit to mankind. Where would you like me to start? Anti-biotics. Sewerage systems. Clean water. Agricultural systems capable of feeding billions. An understanding of the laws of nature. The capability to travel the world and communicate with people thousands of miles away. A huge wealth of information available at the touch of a button. I could go on.....

What has religion given us? Very little, when compared to the above.

You miss my point. I do not deny that technology has produced amazing results. My point is: AT WHAT COST". The speed and pressures of life put upon us by these breakthroughs are actually creating a society of stressed people. I think computers are great (when they are working properly). However, technology is also enabling a big brother society.

Ok, I know it is good against crime, but it is also misused. Our right to privacy is invaded much more. I pointed out that many more people are becoming stressed and pychologically ill because of todays society. Since the 1960's (the cold war)(and now because of radical Islam many are in fear of the nuclear threat and WMD, making a less stable world.

So I am not saying that there are not advantages but I wonder if they are worth it in the full scheme of things. However, I am thankful that I have the opportunity through technology to submit my thoughts.

[John Chingford]

And most important of all, technology can only prolong life but cannot prevent death. Actually maybe the result of technology produces MORE deaths than it saves?

Christianity offers eternal life. A hope for a better day. Christianity (throughout history because of caring individuals practicing their faith) was in the forefront of abolishing slave trade, introducing hospitals (still are), medicine, child welfare (shaftesbury society, barnardos etc) shall I go on ......... lol

[Alan]

This is the only contribution I am going to make on this thread.

PLEASE can you all 'kiss and make up.'

I was on a forum when I was in Dumaguete and I left because of all the 'In-house bickering and non-conclusive arguments.'

I appreciate 100% that 'free speech' forums are wholly democratic etc...etc... but, can we please all remain 'friends and family' and remember that this is 'filipinouk.'

Also, I admit to my hypocracy because I quite often ramble on about anything BUT 'filipinouk' in most of my postings. However, I try very hard never to get involved in religion, politics (BLOODY LABOUR PARTY) or sex (Yes please:D.)

Please, I do not want to lose favour with anyone - it is the LAST thing I want to do - but, if differences of opinion arise with, shall I say, SERIOUS and CONTROVERSIAL subjects, that are not wholly popular with the masses on Filipinouk, then could perhaps those 'discussions' take place in PMs?

Maybe I am out of order here, but I enjoy being a member here because of all the pleasure I get from reading and posting. Lately, I have not gained any pleasure from the religious postings here.

Just my point of view guys, criticise if you will - but peace and love eh?

Al.:)

[Tawi2]

I think I might know the Dumaguete forum your referring to Alan :icon_lol:

[KeithD]

In the name of God the church used to murder people who did not accept that the Earth was the center of everything, now with basic scientific physics of motion the church accepts it is not.

Evidence of the EVOLUTION of the church. :rolleyes:

[Alan]

I think I might know the Dumaguete forum your referring to Alan :icon_lol:

Ah, really? There was far too much arguing and offensive language - maybe I had better not expand on this. One never knows who is reading.

Al.:)

[jimeve]

I think I might know the Dumaguete forum your referring to Alan :icon_lol:

never heard of it. :rolleyes:

[Tawi2]

I am in Dumaguete every year :xxgrinning--00xx3: You ever pop into happy freds?There was always loads of arguing on that forum,I never joined,I just used to read it for the adverts,but the germans,americans,swedish etc always used to be bickering.

[jimeve]

I am in Dumaguete every year :xxgrinning--00xx3: You ever pop into happy freds?There was always loads of arguing on that forum,I never joined,I just used to read it for the adverts,but the germans,americans,swedish etc always used to be bickering.

I go there every year also tawi2, got property there, well at least my wife has.lol

[aromulus]

Lately, I have not gained any pleasure from the religious postings here.
.:)

You are not the only one, mate.:NoNo:

It is doing my head in.:doh

[Tawi2]

I go there every year also tawi2, got property there, well at least my wife has.lol

Small world Jim,I am normally just over the water on Siquijor,and pop over to Duma a few times a week to visit superlees on perdices for decent shopping. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[jimeve]

Small world Jim,I am normally just over the water on Siquijor,and pop over to Duma a few times a week to visit superlees on perdices for decent shopping. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Siquijor, beautiful island, I have day trips there, lovely sandy beaches.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Tawi2]

Yeah,some nice ones,Sandugan theres a great place called Paradise Beach owned by Brian,a guy from Leicester :xxgrinning--00xx3: Salagdoong is over-rated,when I first went there in the very early 1990's there were no vehicles apart from motorbikes on the enitre island,and the roads were upper-class dirt tracks,its all changed now :yikes:

[somebody]

In the name of God the church used to murder people who did not accept that the Earth was the center of everything, now with basic scientific physics of motion the church accepts it is not.

Evidence of the EVOLUTION of the church. :rolleyes:



Didn't the christian religion evolve from a cult into what it is today?

[jimeve]

I will stay over night next time and visit Paradise beach, (pushing the boat out now) lol

[somebody]

As mentioned above I have sent the posts in answer to the criticisms. So that it does not tie up this thread and so that you do not read it if you don't want to, I have placed the answers under a new thread entitled:

Great Evolution Deception Thread Replies To Criticisms

If you want to read it, please read it there. If it upsets you, just ignore it!

It does not upset me but many of us enjoy the freedom we have on this forum to debate if we think that someone posts need replying to. Or are we not allowed to hold differing views? Thankfully the church lost the power to stop people holding different views to it a good few years ago. If you post on a open forum expect for them to be questioned and debated by others in a polite manner.

I cover the topics on:

new evidence found by scientists concluding dinosaurs did not evolve into birds


evidence and reasons why carbon dating supports a young earth

the grand canyon evidence supports a young earth giving evidence of a noahic global flood

why the bible is trustworthy

:)

[jimeve]

thought we nearly high jacked the thread. :icon_lol:

[Tawi2]

Paradise is cheap,brians not actually there at the moment,he is back here due to ill health,but the cottages he has built on that beach are fantastic,also right next to them are Matts guest houses,Kaarlsons guest house,Matts is back in Sweden but they both have care takersmthe island has never really advertised itself for tourists,theres always the mananangal and barang stigma,but its all superstition,once people realise that the place will take off :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[somebody]

John, this is probably your most ridiculous post yet, and confirms your anti-science stance. But this doesn't really surprise me, because dimissing all modern science is the only way of justifying your theories on the age of the earth, etc.

So the answer to your question is emphatically YES! Science has given immense benefit to mankind. Where would you like me to start? Anti-biotics. Sewerage systems. Clean water. Agricultural systems capable of feeding billions. An understanding of the laws of nature. The capability to travel the world and communicate with people thousands of miles away. A huge wealth of information available at the touch of a button. I could go on.....

What has religion given us? Very little, when compared to the above.

Christainity didn't even give us Easter eggs or christmas it just evolved them from the religions and beliefs people had for thousands of years before Jesus:D

[aromulus]

new evidence found by scientists concluding dinosaurs did not evolve into birds

evidence and reasons why carbon dating supports a young earth

the grand canyon evidence supports a young earth giving evidence of a noahic global flood

why the bible is trustworthy

John, with all due respect.

You are entitled to your views and opinions, but now I feel that you are being delusional, and definitively reading the wrong sort of stuff.

I admire your blind belief, but I reckon it is now the time and age, to wake up and smell the coffee....:cwm24:

What you are preaching is worse than fundamentalism.
You do not seem to entertain other people's scientifically proven facts, but hide behind biblical texts and quotes.

Open your eyes and mind, science is an absolute.

[jimeve]

Paradise is cheap,brians not actually there at the moment,he is back here due to ill health,but the cottages he has built on that beach are fantastic,also right next to them are Matts guest houses,Kaarlsons guest house,Matts is back in Sweden but they both have care takersmthe island has never really advertised itself for tourists,theres always the mananangal and barang stigma,but its all superstition,once people realise that the place will take off :xxgrinning--00xx3:

As long as there's cold SMB , and lots of it, im not superstitious, wont go in Halloween thou. :8_1_215:

[somebody]

Hi BlueBirdJones. Again respect to you! By the way, Ken Ham is the CEO of AIG. This means that he is in charge. I know that he is not so qualified as you would like him to be, but he doesn't need to be that qualified as virtually all the articles are written by those he trusts (who are highly qualified) and even what he does write is information he gathers from his experts. The articles are written by VERY qualified people. I checked out the credentials of one of his experts. If you are interested I could post you his name and you could check him out yourself. Regarding Ken's comment that he doesn't want peoples opinions. I think that may be misquoted. As I do not know him I cannot know what he meant, but I would guess he actually said "I am not interested in your opinions (theories) but your factual evidences". If that is what he said, I think that would be a fair comment.

For everybody else who have posted to this thread: a number of statements or criticisms have been made that I cannot remain silent about. There may be innocent people (members or non members) who read the things said and may be influenced by inaccurate information. I need to respond to all these criticisms, for the sake of the innocent ones who have received incomplete information. It is only right because many of you are trying to make a laughing stock out of christianity with your mocking replies.

According to the scriptures Christians are encouraged to contend for the faith if our faith is put on trial. It seems that many of you are putting us on trial. Therefore, I have spent quite a lot of time over the last few days finding articles which (with respect) give strong arguments against the claims you have made. I have put these together and intend to post them soon. Now you don't have to read them if you dont want to, but for the sake of those who are interested I will post it. I think they will find it very informative.

Jeez the CEO of AIG i hope he is better at finding out the facts than insuring. £47 billion baill out and still in troubel even worse sponsering Man utd.

Doesn't some of the AIG model and what has happened seem to be anti christian i thought taking intrest from others money etc Jesus didn't like?

I mean they were insuring money lending weren't they:Erm: (well not very well it seems:D)

Heres a funny post seems some yank Christains think AIG are anti Christian:omg:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/12/16/96349.htm

[aposhark]

This is the only contribution I am going to make on this thread.

PLEASE can you all 'kiss and make up.'

I was on a forum when I was in Dumaguete and I left because of all the 'In-house bickering and non-conclusive arguments.'

I appreciate 100% that 'free speech' forums are wholly democratic etc...etc... but, can we please all remain 'friends and family' and remember that this is 'filipinouk.'

Also, I admit to my hypocracy because I quite often ramble on about anything BUT 'filipinouk' in most of my postings. However, I try very hard never to get involved in religion, politics (BLOODY LABOUR PARTY) or sex (Yes please:D.)

Please, I do not want to lose favour with anyone - it is the LAST thing I want to do - but, if differences of opinion arise with, shall I say, SERIOUS and CONTROVERSIAL subjects, that are not wholly popular with the masses on Filipinouk, then could perhaps those 'discussions' take place in PMs?

Maybe I am out of order here, but I enjoy being a member here because of all the pleasure I get from reading and posting. Lately, I have not gained any pleasure from the religious postings here.

Just my point of view guys, criticise if you will - but peace and love eh?

Al.:)

Hi Alan,

We have met and you seem like a nice person and your comments are always interesting and often funny.

I have mentioned many times that if religious people refrain from trying to brainwash the non-believers here, then this forum would be a lot healthier.
But you see Alan, they continue to try to spout off about this, that and the other.
They should not be allowed to continue without rebuttal as many others find it boring and often distasteful.
It is their call Alan, many of us have Filipina wives and girlfriends and many wish they would concentrate on non-religious subjects.
I don't think one atheist has ever started a thread about how religious people should be atheists.
Once again Alan, it is their call.....

[jimeve]

Iam not religious and not against any persons religious believes, but,

STOP PREACHING. I was a little religious thinking there might be a god,
but now I know, there's no such thing.

thanks to this thread. I no longer have any religious beliefs, thanks John.

[somebody]

This is the only contribution I am going to make on this thread.

PLEASE can you all 'kiss and make up.'

I was on a forum when I was in Dumaguete and I left because of all the 'In-house bickering and non-conclusive arguments.'

I appreciate 100% that 'free speech' forums are wholly democratic etc...etc... but, can we please all remain 'friends and family' and remember that this is 'filipinouk.'

Also, I admit to my hypocracy because I quite often ramble on about anything BUT 'filipinouk' in most of my postings. However, I try very hard never to get involved in religion, politics (BLOODY LABOUR PARTY) or sex (Yes please:D.)

Please, I do not want to lose favour with anyone - it is the LAST thing I want to do - but, if differences of opinion arise with, shall I say, SERIOUS and CONTROVERSIAL subjects, that are not wholly popular with the masses on Filipinouk, then could perhaps those 'discussions' take place in PMs?

Maybe I am out of order here, but I enjoy being a member here because of all the pleasure I get from reading and posting. Lately, I have not gained any pleasure from the religious postings here.

Just my point of view guys, criticise if you will - but peace and love eh?

Al.:)

Indeed peace love and jammy dodgers to all:D

But the posts which start of the 5 million pages are as aposhark mentions and many others the ones that try to preach to us.

If a lady or gentleman starts one wishing a happy easter or happy ramadan etc. Im all for wishing them a great day and will often ask how they celebrate it and as i wish to learn how others do.

[aromulus]

thanks to this thread. I no longer have any religious beliefs, thanks John.

See what you done now...???:Erm:

You burst his bubble.........:icon_lol:

[KeithD]

Didn't the christian religion evolve from a cult into what it is today?
That would have been 6001BC......not enough time so never happened :icon_lol:

[somebody]

That would have been 6001BC......not enough time so never happened :icon_lol:

so how come some stalagmites seem to be from calculations to have taken more than ten thousand years to form:Erm:


Did they possibly just hang there in space before the cave existed?

[Alec&Davina]

Iam not religious and not against any persons religious believes, but,

STOP PREACHING. I was a little religious thinking there might be a god,
but now I know, there's no such thing.

thanks to this thread. I no longer have any religious beliefs, thanks John.

same here.:bigcry::doh:rolleyes:

[KeithD]

Did they possibly just hang there in space before the cave existed?
Space didn't exist back then either!

So it was empty infiinity, but as we are here now, empty infinity obviously didn't exist either! :Erm: :bigcry:

[bornatbirth]

so how did it all start?

wheres that link john posted!

[somebody]

I hope John is not watching BBC 2 at the moment. They have found communities of people that lived over 14,000 years old they must have lived in empty infinty

[darren-b]

I hope John is not watching BBC 2 at the moment. They have found communities of people that lived over 14,000 years old they must have lived in empty infinty

He'll just say that you shouldn't believe everything you read online or on the TV as they are trying to brainwash you.

Which is a bit rich coming from someone who seems to believe without question the contents of the AIG website :Erm:

[KeithD]

How do we know how old the bible is? Because we can follow back the history lines....which could all be faked, the bible may only have been written just before we were all born! We have no proof it wasn't.

If you do accepts it was written 2000 years ago, then by using exactly the same timelines, with similar levels of proof, we go back 6000, 8000, 10000+ years :doh

If you are looking for an old table and you go into an antique shop, and the seller says "this one is 300 years old", how do you know? You have no proof, you just believe the 'expert', it could have been made in China the week before, in the same factory they 'wrote' the Bible in 1864! :rolleyes:

[aposhark]

I would always believe science with a few failings than religion with many failings.

Anyway, he is not spouting off anymore. All he has done is alienated some believers.

It is a lesson to be learnt, a painful one at that.

[Piamed]

Dude, I read some you your posting with an unbridled measure of incredulty and an astonishing level of naiety on my part, in spite of your previous postings. Quite how you accrete such a predigious mass of inauspicious inaccuracies almost defies belief.

Observe:


.....religious people refrain from trying to brainwash the non-believers here.....
Brainwash you into what? Please elucidate the regular materialisation of what you espouse above. To desire or even attempt to transform your attitude and beliefs totally, has not been sought by anyone to my knowledge.

The fundamental issue is that some have made statements which for what ever reason you have an issue with. You have adopted tactics including rudeness to challenge those who have said things you did not like. Fair enough that is your character.

In response, you have been presented with well thought out information which you seem unable to comprehend and challenge intelligently so you resort to saying that you are being preached to, the responses are boring and that a particular individual is a nutter. No matter what ones views are as far as religion is concerned, that is disrespectful and rude.

Just because someone attempts to discuss in a robust and well thought out manner does not mean someone is preaching. You asked for evidence and then when you get someone trying to present it to you you disregard it as mumbo-jumbo and use other derogatory terms to try to mask the fact that you cannot deal with anything that challenges you to measure your responses. You have asuggested that religious views are based upon nothing more than delusional emotions (although not put quite so eloquently :) yet seem determined to provoke emotion in an attempt to steer focus away from what you cannot contend with.

The folly that some of us made on here was to attempt to reason/debate an issue freely with an individual wo knows absolutely nothing about the subject he is waxing on about. Have you read the bible at all let alone thoroughly? I suspect not. Have you researched the extant academic literature on either side of the subject? Your failure to engage in an informed manner leads one to conclude that you have not. When someone knows so little about a subject area what good is debating with them! When some non-believers attempted to present their points well noone accused them of preaching or trying to brainwash. I for one acknowledged certain comments from JudyHon as being well put and was grateful that they were not made rudely.


Had you made it clear that the discourse was to be conducted on anything other than an informed basis many of us would have veered away from it. The signs were there however when you demonstrated your over simplistic view of the world through uninformed use of the terms religion, faith, Christianity, Catholicism, the Church as being synonomus and in a current context.

Even your signature is designed for one singular purpose - to cause offence. Why would anyone so deliberately want to do that - especially when it directly offends what their supposed loved one/wife believes in? I just don't get it. Have you been scarred in some way by someting we are unaware of. Why do you have so much anger within? Anyway, I do sincerely wish the best for you in spite of our differences.



......they continue to try to spout off about this, that and the other....it boring and often distasteful.Speaks for its itself.



....many of us have Filipina wives and girlfriends and many wish they would concentrate on non-religious subjects......Not the first time that you've related Filipina wives and girlfriends to religion. I'm surprised that you keep raising this given what you said previously about your own wife understanding how things are.


.....I don't think one atheist has ever started a thread about how religious people should be atheists......To my knowledge no so-called religious person has ever started a tread about how athiests, non-believers, agnostics, etc. (there are differences) should be believers.


STOP PREACHINGClearly, you are suggesting that anyone who is trying to convert another to their own beliefs whether believer or not should stop trying to do so. I share the same perspective.



If a lady or gentleman starts one wishing a happy easter or happy ramadan etc. Im all for wishing them a great day and will often ask how they celebrate it and as i wish to learn how others do.That is a fundamental difference between you and some others. I agree with you. This is how we all learn, demonstrate tolerance and respect for others and also see the real beauty that heterogeneity brings.

Some of my closest friends are non-believers. We never have any issues as they admire the differences between us, are well travelled, tolerant and demostrate love to all without rudeness.



I would always believe science with a few failings than religion with many failings......All he has done is alienated some believers.
You clearly think that science and religion are mutually exclusive! Hmmn! I am very evidently a scientist! Hmmn!!! And what research have you conducted to enable you make such an informed conclusion that some believers have been so alienated? Why do you make such unfounded statements as these? Anyways, no doubt your response which will ignore the specifics of wat I have said and fail to be constructive on any level and will also add to what we already know.


As has been explained ad infinitum we all have choices. Choices to read, choices to express our thoughts, etc.

I'm no longer going to respond to non-constructive or rude postings. I will however, continue to be me and stay true to my faith. If in doing so I inadvertantly use a loving term like God bless you in application to someone for whom the term is inappropriate or offensive please tell me politely and I will happily not use use the term in your context again.

God bless you to all that want to be so addressed and peace to all others! I think we are all one no matter which side of the same coin we think we are on.

Good fortune to everyone on here; I hope the sun is shining where you are - it is here. Pollen count is high also. Btw, does anyone get hayfever in da phils?

[aposhark]

Sorry Piamed,

I don't read your posts anymore, because they are full of fairy stories, and idealogy without any proof.
Give everyone here some proof, PLEASE......
Once again, "god" cannot bless me because "it" does not exist......

Spend your energies on this telling us other things.
Bible thumpers never learn..........

But, the rest of the UK population IS getting wiser because numbers at churches are lessening.

[John Chingford]

Jeez the CEO of AIG i hope he is better at finding out the facts than insuring. £47 billion baill out and still in troubel even worse sponsering Man utd.

Doesn't some of the AIG model and what has happened seem to be anti christian i thought taking intrest from others money etc Jesus didn't like?

I mean they were insuring money lending weren't they:Erm: (well not very well it seems:D)

Heres a funny post seems some yank Christains think AIG are anti Christian:omg:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/12/16/96349.htm

That website link you gave above is about American International Group (another AIG). The group I was talking about was Answers In Genesis .

[ukgangster]

Sorry Piamed,

I don't read your posts anymore, because they are full of fairy stories, and idealogy without any proof.
Give everyone here some proof, PLEASE......
Once again, "god" cannot bless me because "it" does not exist......

Spend your energies on this telling us other things.
Bible thumpers never learn..........

But, the rest of the UK population IS getting wiser because numbers at churches are lessening.

Right.

By now some of you probably know me as the former mod WalesRob, well now I am plain old ukgangster. So the truth is out.

One of the reasons I stopped being a mod on this forum was I was sick and tired of all this fighting about religion, and here you are all, at it again.

Why can't you all just get along and accept that some people DO believe in God,blah blah and some don't. I thought the UK was supposed be a tolerant society, but sadly not when it comes to religion.

Aposhark, you have shown again how bigoted and ignorant you are by rubbishing other peoples beliefs and I quote

"Sorry Piamed,

I don't read your posts anymore, because they are full of fairy stories, and idealogy without any proof."

Now, if Piamed wants to believe in God and the fairy stories, thats up to him, you have no right to tell him he's wrong and same vice versa.

[aromulus]

That website link you gave above is about American International Group (another AIG). The group I was talking about was Answers In Genesis .

John, about time we draw this thread to a close.
Not all people appreciate or agree with your theological meanderings.

It is creating divisions and jeopadizing virtual and actual friendships.

This site, it is my strong belief, was not created for debating religion but to help Phil-brit couples to be together.

Your input in this respect is very valuable, but forays into religious debates are not.

[ukgangster]

This is the only contribution I am going to make on this thread.

PLEASE can you all 'kiss and make up.'

I was on a forum when I was in Dumaguete and I left because of all the 'In-house bickering and non-conclusive arguments.'

I appreciate 100% that 'free speech' forums are wholly democratic etc...etc... but, can we please all remain 'friends and family' and remember that this is 'filipinouk.'

Also, I admit to my hypocracy because I quite often ramble on about anything BUT 'filipinouk' in most of my postings. However, I try very hard never to get involved in religion, politics (BLOODY LABOUR PARTY) or sex (Yes please:D.)

Please, I do not want to lose favour with anyone - it is the LAST thing I want to do - but, if differences of opinion arise with, shall I say, SERIOUS and CONTROVERSIAL subjects, that are not wholly popular with the masses on Filipinouk, then could perhaps those 'discussions' take place in PMs?

Maybe I am out of order here, but I enjoy being a member here because of all the pleasure I get from reading and posting. Lately, I have not gained any pleasure from the religious postings here.

Just my point of view guys, criticise if you will - but peace and love eh?

Al.:)

Thank you Alan, this is the only sensible post in this thread.

[aromulus]

And the wind-up merchant......:Erm:

Please keep off the grass.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[ukgangster]

John, about time we draw this thread to a close.
Not all people appreciate or agree with your theological meanderings.

It is creating divisions and jeopadizing virtual and actual friendships.

This site, it is my strong belief, was not created for debating religion but to help Phil-brit couples to be together.

Your input in this respect is very valuable, but forays into religious debates are not.

Dom, no offence mate, but you really should have locked this thread a long time ago, but then Keith would have unlocked it again, being the troublemaker he is.

[aromulus]

Dom, no offence mate, but you really should have locked this thread a long time ago, but then Keith would have unlocked it again, being the troublemaker he is.

Don't I know it by now.......:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[ukgangster]

Btw, does anyone get hayfever in da phils?

I normally get hay fever in June every year (got it now, but thanks to Loratadine its under control), however when I was in Tacloban in June 2004, I had no hay fever at all, same thing back in 1993 when I was working in Malta for the summer - no hay fever, so I can only assume its a problem in the UK.

[aromulus]

I normally get hay fever in June every year (got it now, but thanks to Loratadine its under control), however when I was in Tacloban in June 2004, I had no hay fever at all, same thing back in 1993 when I was working in Malta for the summer - no hay fever, so I can only assume its a problem in the UK.

Genetically Modified crops may be the answer....:Erm:

[David House]

Right.

By now some of you probably know me as the former mod WalesRob, well now I am plain old ukgangster. So the truth is out.

One of the reasons I stopped being a mod on this forum was I was sick and tired of all this fighting about religion, and here you are all, at it again.

Why can't you all just get along and accept that some people DO believe in God,blah blah and some don't. I thought the UK was supposed be a tolerant society, but sadly not when it comes to religion.

Aposhark, you have shown again how bigoted and ignorant you are by rubbishing other peoples beliefs and I quote

"Sorry Piamed,

I don't read your posts anymore, because they are full of fairy stories, and idealogy without any proof."

Now, if Piamed wants to believe in God and the fairy stories, thats up to him, you have no right to tell him he's wrong and same vice versa.

I don't think anyone objects to someone having their own beliefs. I certainly don't and can "tolerate" them without any problem. They can go to church and pray in private as often as they wish. My objection is when they introduce their beliefs into debates as matters of fact and without any real reason. There are plenty of religious forums where the converted can discuss these matters to their hearts content. I would rather see those with a religious conviction demonstrate their high morals in practical ways, through their behaviour rather than through words in a non religious forum.

[John Chingford]

Dude, I read some you your posting with an unbridled measure of incredulty and an astonishing level of naiety on my part, in spite of your previous postings. Quite how you accrete such a predigious mass of inauspicious inaccuracies almost defies belief.

Observe:


Brainwash you into what? Please elucidate the regular materialisation of what you espouse above. To desire or even attempt to transform your attitude and beliefs totally, has not been sought by anyone to my knowledge.

The fundamental issue is that some have made statements which for what ever reason you have an issue with. You have adopted tactics including rudeness to challenge those who have said things you did not like. Fair enough that is your character.

In response, you have been presented with well thought out information which you seem unable to comprehend and challenge intelligently so you resort to saying that you are being preached to, te responses are boring and that a particular individual is a nutter. No matter what ones views are as far as religion is concerned, that is disrespectful and rude.

Just because someone attempts to discuss in a robust and well thought out manner does not mean someone is preaching. You asked for evidence and then when you get someone trying to present it to you you disregard it as mumbo-jumbo and use other derogatory terms to try to mask the fact that you cannot deal with anything that challenges you to measure your responses. You have asuggested that religious views are based upon nothing more than delusional emotions (although not put quite so eloquently :) yet seem determined to provoke emotion in an attempt to steer them away from what you cannot contend with.

The folly that some of us made on here was to attempt to reason/debate an issue freely with an individual wo knows absolutely nothing about the subject he is waxing on about. Have you read the bible at all let alone thoroughly? I suspect not. Have you researched the extant academic literature on either side of the subject? Your failure to engage in an informed manner leads one to conclude that you have not. When someone knows so little about a subject area what good is debating with them! When some non-believers attempted to present their points well noone accused them of preaching or trying to brainwash. I for one acknowledged certain comments from JudyHon as being well put and was grateful that they were not made rudely.


Had you made it clear that the discourse was to be conducted on anything other than an informed basis many of us would have veered away from it. The signs were there however when you demonstrated your over simplistic view of the world through uninformed use of the terms religion, faith, Christianity, Catholicism, the Church as being synonomus and in a current context.

Even your signature is designed for one singular purpose - to cause offence. Why would anyone so deliberately want to do that - especially when it directly offends what their supposed loved one/wife believes in? I just don't get it. Have you been scarred in some way by someting we are unaware of. Why do you have so much anger within? Anyway, I do sincerely wish the best for you in spite of our differences.


Speaks for its itself.


Not the first time that you've related Filipina wives and girlfriends to religion. I'm surprised that you keep raising this given what you said previously about your own wife understanding how things are.

To my knowledge no so-called religious person has ever started a tread about how athiests, non-believers, agnostics, etc. (there are differences) should be believers.

Clearly, you are suggesting that anyone who is trying to convert another to their own beliefs whether believer or not should stop trying to do so. I share the same perspective.

That is a fundamental difference between you and some others. I agree with you. This is how we all learn, demonstrate tolerance and respect for others and also see the real beauty that heterogeneity brings.

Some of my closest friends are non-believers. We never have any issues as they admire the differences between us, are well travelled, tolerant and demostrate love to all without rudeness.

You clearly think that science and religion are mutually exclusive! Hmmn! And what research have you conducted to enable you make such an informed conclusion that some believers have been so alienated? What do you make such unfounded statements? Anyways, no doubt your response which will ignore what i have said and fail to be constructive on any level will tell us everything we need to know.


As has been explained ad infinitum we all have choices. Choices to read, choices to express our thoughts, etc.

I'm no longer going to respond to non-constructive or rude postings. I will however, continue to be me and stay true to my faith. If in doing so I inadvertantly use a loving term like God bless you in application to someone for whom the term is inappropriate or offensive please tell me politely and I will happily not use use the term in your context again.

God bless you to all that want to be so addressed and peace to all others! I think we are all one no matter which side of the same coin we think we are on. G

ood fortune to everyone on here; I hope the sun is shining where you are - it is here. Pollen count is high also. Btw, does anyone get hayfever in da phils?

Thanks Brother. You are right! In truth the christians on this site are actually trying to be compassionate, loving and forgiving. We certainly do not intend to be rude. If others think we are, it is just their interpretation, but the truth is we are being courteous. We are just trying to be informative.

However, maybe we would be respected more if we were also rude and offensive? But for born-again believers, filled by the Holy Spirit it is not possible for us to behave in that way (generally). Everything I say is said in a spirit of compassion, love and peace. I try to hold everyone in respect and well meaning. But as this is an open forum stating that we are free to discuss ANYTHING, then I do not understand why we cannot respect everyone and their views. This does not mean that we shouldn't discuss things , but I agree that it should be done in a kind and pleasant way.

As there are many believing Filipinas who use this site but maybe feel inadequate to express their feelings well in English, they may be frustrated by so much atheistic talk or some may be unfairly influenced by just hearing one side of the argument. My articles are mostly directed to help THEM and encourage them, to see that there are very STRONG evidencies to support our christian faith.

You cannot ignore the fact that MOST Filipinas believe in God. As this is a Filipina UK forum you cannot dismiss what matters to them!!!!!!!

By the way, we committed christians are not threatened by scientific theories and certainly not by those who do not give serious consideration to our well thought out rebuttals to scientific theory. We welcome any rebuttal, but are also entitled to respond with our own rebuttals, surely????????

[ukgangster]

I don't think anyone objects to someone having their own beliefs. I certainly don't and can "tolerate" them without any problem. They can go to church and pray in private as often as they wish. My objection is when they introduce their beliefs into debates as matters of fact and without any real reason. There are plenty of religious forums where the converted can discuss these matters to their hearts content. I would rather see those with a religious conviction demonstrate their high morals in practical ways, through their behaviour rather than through words in a non religious forum.

Hang on, you are contradicting yourself...

You say you "tolerate" them, but if "they" try to explain what "they" believe you proceed to rubbish them.

You can't have it both ways.

[Piamed]

I normally get hay fever in June every year (got it now, but thanks to Loratadine its under control), however when I was in Tacloban in June 2004, I had no hay fever at all, same thing back in 1993 when I was working in Malta for the summer - no hay fever, so I can only assume its a problem in the UK.Same with me; i only ever seem to suffer in the UK. I guess the grass and tree pollen is uniquely British :)


I don't think anyone objects to someone having their own beliefs. I certainly don't and can "tolerate" them without any problem. They can go to church and pray in private as often as they wish. My objection is when they introduce their beliefs into debates as matters of fact and without any real reason. There are plenty of religious forums where the converted can discuss these matters to their hearts content. I would rather see those with a religious conviction demonstrate their high morals in practical ways, through their behaviour rather than through words in a non religious forum.
I appreciate your observations but would say that there were at least two sets of beliefs introduced David. Please note that when population growth and poverty are discussed, it is quite common for a non-believer to introduce the notion that the blame sould be variously apportioned upon the Church, Catholicism, religion, etc. The believers summarily responded with their own view.

There are several fora where non-believers can discuss to their hearts content. Also, referring to high morals in this context is a tad facetious don't you think!

Let's be equitable. That is my final contribution.

[John Chingford]

hang on, you are contradicting yourself...

You say you "tolerate" them, but if "they" try to explain what "they" believe you proceed to rubbish them.

You can't have it both ways.

amen!!!!!!!

[aposhark]

Right.

By now some of you probably know me as the former mod WalesRob, well now I am plain old ukgangster. So the truth is out.

One of the reasons I stopped being a mod on this forum was I was sick and tired of all this fighting about religion, and here you are all, at it again.

Why can't you all just get along and accept that some people DO believe in God,blah blah and some don't. I thought the UK was supposed be a tolerant society, but sadly not when it comes to religion.

Aposhark, you have shown again how bigoted and ignorant you are by rubbishing other peoples beliefs and I quote

"Sorry Piamed,

I don't read your posts anymore, because they are full of fairy stories, and idealogy without any proof."

Now, if Piamed wants to believe in God and the fairy stories, thats up to him, you have no right to tell him he's wrong and same vice versa.

Rob,
As I have mentioned many times, if there is no mention of religion, there would not have to be many of us who will dispute these fairy stories.
You are a christian and good for you; go to church as much as you want and enjoy your beliefs, it is just that these beliefs are always brought up on this forum.

If christians don't want any rebuttals from us atheists here, don't mention religion.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ON HERE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RELIGION.

I really do want to get along with everyone here, and I will when this ideology without proof is kept to the proper places.

We will be a "tolerant society" when religion is kept in its proper place, be it church, mosque, synagogue or wherever.

The simple fact that you also unmask yourself is fact again that you do not like to read other people's differing views.

So it goes around and around.

For the Filipinos who come to live in the UK, they will soon realise that most people here would rather not have religion mentioned in company.

As this is a democratic forum as the UK is a democratic country, everybody has the right to speak up, or in this case, type up.

It is simple......It is your call.....

[ukgangster]

amen!!!!!!!

I'm not taking sides here either. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[John Chingford]

Hi Piamed. Thanks Brother. You are right! In truth the christians on this site are actually trying to be compassionate, loving and forgiving. We certainly do not intend to be rude. If others think we are, it is just their interpretation, but the truth is we are being courteous. We are just trying to be informative.

However, maybe we would be respected more if we were also rude and offensive? But for born-again believers, filled by the Holy Spirit it is not possible for us to behave in that way (generally). Everything I say is said in a spirit of compassion, love and peace. I try to hold everyone in respect and well meaning. But as this is an open forum stating that we are free to discuss ANYTHING, then I do not understand why we cannot respect everyone and their views. This does not mean that we shouldn't discuss things , but I agree that it should be done in a kind and pleasant way.

As there are many believing Filipinas who use this site but maybe feel inadequate to express their feelings well in English, they may be frustrated by so much atheistic talk or some may be unfairly influenced by just hearing one side of the argument. My articles are mostly directed to help THEM and encourage them, to see that there are very STRONG evidencies to support our christian faith.

You cannot ignore the fact that MOST Filipinas believe in God. As this is a Filipina UK forum you cannot dismiss what matters to them!!!!!!!

By the way, we committed christians are not threatened by scientific theories and certainly not by those who do not give serious consideration to our well thought out rebuttals to scientific theory. We welcome any rebuttal, but are also entitled to respond with our own rebuttals, surely????????

[ukgangster]

Rob,
As I have mentioned many times, if there is no mention of religion, there would not have to be many of us who will dispute these fairy stories.
You are a christian and good for you; go to church as much as you want and enjoy your beliefs, it is just that these beliefs are always brought up on this forum.

If christians don't want any rebuttals from us atheists here, don't mention religion.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ON HERE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RELIGION.

I really do want to get along with everyone here, and I will when this ideology without proof is kept to the proper places.

We will be a "tolerant society" when religion is kept in its proper place, be it church, mosque, synagogue or wherever.

The simple fact that you also unmask yourself is fact again that you do not like to read other people's differing views.

So it goes around and around.

For the Filipinos who come to live in the UK, they will soon realise that most people here would rather not have religion mentioned in company.

As this is a democratic forum as the UK is a democratic country, everybody has the right to speak up, or in this case, type up.

It is simple......It is your call.....

Who says I'm a Christian????????????????????????????????????? So because I go to Church with Elsa sometimes on Sunday (maybe 5 times a year), thats makes me a Christian??? Now who's displaying ignorance and arrogance in equal measures?

Aposhark if discussing anything religion offends you, don't take part in that discussion, simple, thats what I did. All I can see is that your winding yourself up and probably a few other members on this forum as well, in fact I would say you come across as bitter and angry when it comes to discussing religion.

"A LOT OF PEOPLE ON HERE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RELIGION."

Your opinion, you have no proof to back that up. Funny that.

[aromulus]

Had enough now




As there are many believing Filipinas who use this site but maybe feel inadequate to express their feelings well in English, they may be frustrated by so much atheistic talk or some may be unfairly influenced by just hearing one side of the argument. My articles are mostly directed to help THEM and encourage them, to see that there are very STRONG evidencies to support our christian faith.

I am starting to think that your copy and paste articles are for your benefit only.:doh

I am quite sure of it, a self defense mechanism.:NoNo:


You cannot ignore the fact that MOST Filipinas believe in God. As this is a Filipina UK forum you cannot dismiss what matters to them!!!!!!!

What seem to be most inportant to them in this forum is being re-united with their husbands/fiancees. bringing up kids, finding and keeping jobs, visa processes, sending money to their loved ones at home, asking for advice on a wide variety of day to day issues, recipe swapping, photo swapping, making chika-chika, tampo, bragging back home about how "rich" the banas are, etc.


By the way, we committed christians are not threatened by scientific theories and certainly not by those who do not give serious consideration to our well thought out rebuttals to scientific theory. We welcome any rebuttal, but are also entitled to respond with our own rebuttals, surely????????

I disagree on that wholeheartedly.

As you feel extremely threatened by scientific advances, you all seem to retreat in a cocoon or bury your head in the sand.

What you have been doing is preaching, and you justify it by mentioning a self perceived notion that "Filipinas" are in need of it, because they believe in God.

They may well believe in God, but they don't certainly need ill advised sermons.
They are free to worship in their own fashion, whenever they want and wherever they are.


Please do not insult our wives intelligence with that patronizing attitude.:cwm23:

Same attitude I encountered as a child, being fed fairy stories by priests, monks, nuns and suchlike.

To prove a small point.
A photo of my wife's little shrine at home.

[John Chingford]

Aposhark says that atheism is not deliberately preached on this website. This is strange coming from him. Look at his signature. "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen

Every time he sends a post he is preaching atheism!!!!!

I don't mind! - everyone to his own. But he should not then complain when we feel we should say something in response

[aposhark]

Who says I'm a Christian????????????????????????????????????? So because I go to Church with Elsa sometimes on Sunday (maybe 5 times a year), thats makes me a Christian??? Now who's displaying ignorance and arrogance in equal measures?

Aposhark if discussing anything religion offends you, don't take part in that discussion, simple, thats what I did. All I can see is that your winding yourself up and probably a few other members on this forum as well, in fact I would say you come across as bitter and angry when it comes to discussing religion.

"A LOT OF PEOPLE ON HERE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RELIGION."

Your opinion, you have no proof to back that up. Funny that.

ukgangster, you go to church in the UK so I believe you are a "christian".
Sorry if you find this assumption incorrect.

It is a democratic country and a democratic forum, so I reply.
I am not "winding myself or others up" - religious types just cannot accept that many here and in society at large just aren't interested any longer.

I am not bitter or angry, I feel very calm and focused on the "real" things in life - not religious mumbo-jumbo.

I am replying to you and others with similar beliefs to ask you to keep these beliefs to yourselves and voice your opinions in places where they will be appreciated.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

Seems pretty simple to me.

[aposhark]

Aposhark says that atheism is not deliberately preached on this website. This is strange coming from him. Look at his signature. "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen

Every time he sends a post he is preaching atheism!!!!!

I don't mind! - everyone to his own. But he should not then complain when we feel we should say something in response

John,

Thankyou for noticing my signature.
I originally had it as "One Life, Live It", but I noticed so many quotes from the bible in many other's signatures, I thought it would be good to get a little balance into the general flavour of this forum.
Thanks once again for reading my comments.

[John Chingford]

Hi Aromulus. Let me first say that I think this website is absolutely amazing for information, debate etc. I LOVE IT!!!!!! As you are the boss, I must respect YOUR wishes.

Actually, I have been trying to bring the topic to an end myself, but every time I try, someone raises a question or statement (put in my direction). Is it not fair that I respond to it?

Or is this website changing direction to a tolerant site only for non christians to say whatever they want but christians cannot? Is that not discrimination against quite a high number of people on this website? However, if you do not want me to say anymore on this thread I will stop now. But if I am criticised further - especially when someone says "see. John cannot answer that" it will be hard for me not to respond.

Respect to you. I do understand what you are trying to do ie keep it all friendly. I accept that and agree with you. Everything I say, I say in a friendly way. If angry people respond badly - maybe the issue is inside them, not the fault of the topic