Prophecies about South Africa

[Legalbuff]

Hi AlanB

I don't put my faith in nothing. I put my faith in God - the mere meaning of the word "faith" is to put your belief into something you cannot see. That's all I'm doing.

As to "what I let God get away with":

1. God does not need my permission to do anything. He is God, and I am human. I will not dare to defy him, and "dare" him to answer to me, or put him to the test. The point of faith is accepting his will. This may not work for you, it does for me.

2. As for suffering people world over: much more complex issue than God just fixing everything when mankind broke everything down to where it is today. I don't know why different people/nations have different destinies. That's just the way it is.

3. I find the tone of your post a tad agressive. No need for that. We don't all have the same belief, and nowhere did I try and convince anyone of my point of view. That's the point of a forum - a point of view. I don't mind if you have your view - don't attack me on the basis of mine.

I still believe God loves us unconditionally. I still believe that all he requires from us is faith - even if it is blind faith. In the end - it's all we have. I also believe that I am completely dependant on his grace. Were it not for him - who knows where I'd end up?

Have a great day AlanB - even if we don't agree.

Regards

L

[KirstyP]

Nough said Legalbuff - well put!

[AllisonW]

AlanB,

I too am a aethist. So i see much of your logic. However, it is clear that this a christian post, so dont waste your energy. Nobody is going to hear you. I have long learned not to argue religion. It only causes you undue stress.

Enjoy your day.

Allison

[Legalbuff]

Hi Alison

I've PM'ed you.

Bye

S

[Emille]

Hi

My views: (1) I dont want to take anything away from a prophecy, but one must know who it is that has given a prophecy- see it in context- I am sorry but too often you get these sms's or emails with something christian in it and then it turns out to be a hoax (2) I believe we all have our own personal destinies (in other words, I dont believe 'that everybody that is emigrating must now stop their plans, as God has a destiny for each of us- and its not just in South Africa) (3) I think this whole 'unsaid' issue that somehow its 'a sin/wrong' to emigrate is rubbish (4) we can contribute to God's kingdom wherever we are- sometimes it make more sense to be in a 'less christian country'- if christians never moved to other places, christianity would have been limited to Israel

My 2 cents worth

All the best

Emille

[celeste]

I agree with you Emille and on this subject Jonah has come to my mind of late. People sometimes say oh Aus is such a nation without God don't take your kids there because of drugs and tattoos and long hair etc. etc. but Jesus did not come for the righteous but to call sinners to repentance. It's easier to share the gospel with someone who is not sitting in a religious setting trusting in his own self righteousness to save him.

I for one look forward to opportunities to share the Good News with people who are sitting in darkness "without hope and without God in the world" whether they are in SA or Australia. I have a sister there who needs God and I keep wondering (with great excitement) if there is more to us going to Aus than to just flee from SA's political uncertainty and discrimination.

Each person must seek the Lord for Himself to follow His will to live a godly life whether it must be on this side of the world or the other.

Edited September 20, 2008 by celeste

[Preacher]

Am I being ugly when I say one of the nicest things australia has had to offer is the fact that I dont have to deal with christians trying to preach to me daily? Its been an absolute joy not having to put up with the happy clappys. I have had the local jehovah witness knock on my door once but thats been it.

This godless society will welcome you with open arms and will rarely judge you for your beliefs. Please be so kind as to return the favour. Most of them like the darkness they live in and the only good news is no news.

Cant believe a person with a tattoo or long hair could be put into a box like that. What a backward mentality to have. Sorry for being blunt but there is just no other approach I could really take with this

[louw.pretorius]

The people on the Titanic also liked the blissfullness ignorance - until it was too late THEN they all wanted so desperately to be warned, but when they were warned nobody listened.

You like it later but in the long run earlier is better in my mind.

[Preacher]

I dont understand the point you are trying to make?

[louw.pretorius]

Most of them like the darkness they live in and the only good news is no news

Please read my post in the light of your quote above. People like to stick to a healthy level of Blissful ignorance and don't appreciate being told the truth - especially if its bad news. My point above is about the same thing happening during the Titanic's last voyage. The people were warned but ignored the warnings because it wasnt convenient.

PS. I'm half dog - half man. I'm my own best friend.

[Preacher]

So basically if they choose to ignore the word of God they are damned to hell?

Gotcha. After all His love does have certain requirements. If you dont love him straight back its off to the fiery pits of hell for you. Better be on the safe side and get down on your hands and knees and pray to Jesus then.

Im surprised that you would automatically consider someone who does not agree with your religious belief system ignorant. Maybe they made a calculated informed decision not to believe in what Christianity has to offer?

I mean, with the 600 odd variations of the religion, countless wars fought in its name, colonies claimed at the expense of heathens, the Church being the most wealthy establishment during the middle ages and currently the one establishment that has produced more paedophiles then any other, one would think a person would have to be ignorant if they wanted nothing to do with the religion at all.

No thanks. Im not about to start condemning people with tattoos and long hair anytime soon. Rather get to know them before I put them into a box.

[alanb]

Hi AlanB

I don't put my faith in nothing. I put my faith in God - the mere meaning of the word "faith" is to put your belief into something you cannot see. That's all I'm doing.

As to "what I let God get away with":

1. God does not need my permission to do anything. He is God, and I am human. I will not dare to defy him, and "dare" him to answer to me, or put him to the test. The point of faith is accepting his will. This may not work for you, it does for me.

2. As for suffering people world over: much more complex issue than God just fixing everything when mankind broke everything down to where it is today. I don't know why different people/nations have different destinies. That's just the way it is.

3. I find the tone of your post a tad aggressive. No need for that. We don't all have the same belief, and nowhere did I try and convince anyone of my point of view. That's the point of a forum - a point of view. I don't mind if you have your view - don't attack me on the basis of mine.

I still believe God loves us unconditionally. I still believe that all he requires from us is faith - even if it is blind faith. In the end - it's all we have. I also believe that I am completely dependant on his grace. Were it not for him - who knows where I'd end up?

Have a great day AlanB - even if we don't agree.

Regards

L

I was not attempting to be aggressive, I am just truly astonished at those of you who have so much , asking for more and caring little what happens to the rest of mankind. I also did not say you should give god permission to do anything, I said you should challenge him to do something about it. Go ahead and ask God to look out for others less fortunate than yourself, why not? I used the word "dare" because I can guarantee you that nothing will happen no matter how you put it. If God was a politician he would be classed as one of the most under performing ever. You can liken him to an African dictator in fact, in power forever and achieving nothing, but excelling at ignoring the fact that 99% of his constituents are starving and living in abstract poverty and misery.

"I still believe God loves us unconditionally. I still believe that all he requires from us is faith"

There you have your condition right there, in your own words. So therefore his love is conditional. You have to at least give me that.

I agree wholeheartedly that mankind is responsible for civilisation as it stands today, bearing in mind that mother nature plays a part in floods, famine etc, but you keep telling us there is this god of love out there who loves us all equally and "unconditionally", and who has the power to intervene (ie. answer your prayers). As I said previously, all most of these people want is a basic meal, warmth and security. Oh yes, the African dictator thing, they can intervene, but somehow they wont, no matter how much suffering they see and no one can work out why and most are too scared to challenge them. Not so sure I would want to worship any entity belonging to that club.

Have a great day.

[alanb]

AlanB,

I too am a aethist. So i see much of your logic. However, it is clear that this a christian post, so don't waste your energy. Nobody is going to hear you. I have long learned not to argue religion. It only causes you undue stress.

Enjoy your day.

Allison

I'm not arguing religion. Of course, this thread has a religious context, but to me, it goes to character. It amazes me when people brag about their all powerful god who loves us all unconditionally etc and then are happy to have nothing change for those less fortunate than themselves, while asking for more.

[louw.pretorius]

So basically if they choose to ignore the word of God they are damned to hell?

Gotcha. After all His love does have certain requirements. If you dont love him straight back its off to the fiery pits of hell for you. Better be on the safe side and get down on your hands and knees and pray to Jesus then.

Im surprised that you would automatically consider someone who does not agree with your religious belief system ignorant. Maybe they made a calculated informed decision not to believe in what Christianity has to offer?

I mean, with the 600 odd variations of the religion, countless wars fought in its name, colonies claimed at the expense of heathens, the Church being the most wealthy establishment during the middle ages and currently the one establishment that has produced more paedophiles then any other, one would think a person would have to be ignorant if they wanted nothing to do with the religion at all.

No thanks. Im not about to start condemning people with tattoos and long hair anytime soon. Rather get to know them before I put them into a box.

Hi Preacher, i can see that despite the fact that you claim you are "informed" you have not really talked or researched this subject so I can understand that you would equate God to religion.

Religion (ie. The Church) is but a earthly organisation run by people for people. It is easy to hang these people's faults on the nearest highest clocktower. Also equating the Roman Catholic church to all Cristians is allso an oversimplification of this matter, as Mr Calvin and many many others have openly stated their differences based on Bible

God does not conform to any religion but is the basis of many who try to understand and live their lifes in the manner they think is correct.

To the issue you raised: God's love is not conditional, but He tries to warn people of their ultimate fate. Is this not love already? God has already decided to give humanity a free will. Why interfere with them if they've made up their "calculated informed decision" ? The love does not stop but the end result is not what He would have liked. He does not make robots of us but RESPECTS our decisions.

If you would like to spin my statements about humanities blissfull ignorance as a choice into a religious matter you are willfully misinterpreting my statements, please read them again as I was referring to Titanic and the parralels with humanity as a whole in religious matters and others.

I dont condemm people with tattoos or long hair because I have it too.

[Preacher]

Hi Preacher, i can see that despite the fact that you claim you are "informed" you have not really talked or researched this subject so I can understand that you would equate God to religion.

Religion (ie. The Church) is but a earthly organisation run by people for people. It is easy to hang these people's faults on the nearest highest clocktower. Also equating the Roman Catholic church to all Cristians is allso an oversimplification of this matter, as Mr Calvin and many many others have openly stated their differences based on Bible

All due respect, but Catholicism was the first organised version of Christianity, no matter how much happy clappys wish it were not the case. The fact that you have had so many break offs is in itself yet another example of just how divided christians themselves are. The ironic thing is that a pagan decided what would and would not be in the main holy bible. One does not need to do a lot of research to understand that the religion and its history has so many holes in it.

Just because people choose to ignore the farce that is chrisitianity does not make them godless nor does it make them ignorant. I take offence to the stance christians like celeste take. Most educated non-christians are not idiots looking for salvation through christ. They are merely people that have reviewed the situation as a whole and realise that its a crock of .

God does not conform to any religion but is the basis of many who try to understand and live their lifes in the manner they think is correct.

To the issue you raised: God's love is not conditional, but He tries to warn people of their ultimate fate. Is this not love already? God has already decided to give humanity a free will. Why interfere with them if they've made up their "calculated informed decision" ? The love does not stop but the end result is not what He would have liked. He does not make robots of us but RESPECTS our decisions.

If you would like to spin my statements about humanities blissfull ignorance as a choice into a religious matter you are willfully misinterpreting my statements, please read them again as I was referring to Titanic and the parralels with humanity as a whole in religious matters and others.

I dont condemm people with tattoos or long hair because I have it too.

Fair enough. I have no problems with people following any belief system and they are welcome to it. I take issue with people being called godless when they have long hair or tattoos. I take offence to the notion that they need to be preached to. I also take offence to the notion that people who are atheist are seen as ignorant. If anything, ignorance is typically a condition religious people suffer from.

I dont bother christians at their homes preaching the evils of religion. Do the non christians a favour and leave them be.

[Legalbuff]

Never mind. Submitted 2 posts but changed my mind.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Legalbuff

[Legalbuff]

Never mind

Edited September 25, 2008 by Legalbuff

[Alida]

You know what Preacher ? You are soooo right. Catholisizm actually did hijack Christianity. It surely was a pagan group by the name of the Alexandrians in Egypt, that claimed themselves to have the right to decide what parts of God's Word should be part of the Canonic books we today know to be the Bible. Much of the original Scripture was left out, being called the Apocryphic books and is claimed to not be part of God's Word. They even shuffled the chronolical order of the books, making the reading of the Bible very confusing. Very effective start to a huge effort to create dissilusionment, doubt and loss of power, isn't it ? And the Christians fell for it hook line and sinker, being sooo naïve and without knowledge themselves (especially during the dark middle ages).

It is not that what has been written in the Bible has so much changed, but the modern interpretation of what is said and the modern way of applying the original meaning has changed, as if we humans have the right to change what the Author originally meant to say. We do not even do that with another human author, but we have the cheeck to change God's Word to suit ourselves.

The one huge problem with Christianity is that Christians are a bunch of sheep people (someone calls us 'sheeple' - so absolutely right !) Christians are often so extremely naïve, they don't even now how to think for themselves ! No wonder those who want to see the power of God in Christians does not see it, because they are so caught up in their own ideas of what they think life should be like, that they are by no means an image of what true Christianity should have been.

Yes, there are many, many holes in the religion called Christianity. Because, as you would certainly agree, nothing that is good and true, would be left unattacked by the opposition. And, as I said, Christians lost their boldness - and I blame that mainly on the church in general, preaching a watered down story of the original, powerfull message. Over many centuries, generations of Christians was taught a myriad different lies and deceptions in the name of Christianity and because the Christians themselves was not awake enough to detect the lies, they fell prey to all the deception, even to the point that they today defend the lie as if it is the truth.

The lie has only power when it is believed. Christians gave power to the lie by believing it. They were taught to believe the lie by wrongly misusing their own Christian principles and applying it wrongly. Because Christians lost the real knowledge of their God and His Word, they did not have any means by wich to discern the lie. Most people grew up learning the lie to be the truth, and when we are confronted by someone (like you are doing now), we cannot answer you, because we ourselves discovered the holes of the lies we've been taught to be truth. Today, we even defend the lie, giving it tremendous power and making God and Christians look like fools.

That's why being a born again believer in God and His Word, is mostly something completely different from being a Christian in general. There are even completely pagan religions calling themselves Christians, because they hold their leader as a Christ (a redeemer), and are in their own right therefore, Christians - followers of their own Christ.

You are therefore so very correct in your accusations, they are not ungrounded. But remember, you are seeing the holes in a religious system fraught with century old lies. Like the lie that Roman Catholisism IS Christianity. The only power this lie has, is that most people believe it, even well-meaning Christians.

So I would so very much wish that all claiming themselves to be Christians and thinking people like you, would discover the original, wonderful, powerful message God intended us to know !

[Wizard]

............THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS IN A FOXHOLE...............(period)

[Alida]

Maybe not - but do you know everything ? Maybe half of everything ? Might it be possible that God exists in that part you do not know about yet ?

[Eva]

Oh, I imagined everyone praying when they get into a scrape, asking God to help them. Its amazing how the biggest unbelievers call on God in times of need. Actually not sure why I am bothering to post anything, this thread seems to get people very agitated.

Edited to add: Read this on another thread here, soul stuff...

thought it would be an interesting read for some. Enjoy.

"Check the stats below regarding proportion taken from Wiki:

a palm is the width of four fingers

a foot is the width of four palms (i.e. 12 inches)

a cubit is the width of six palms

a man's height is four cubits (and thus 24 palms)

a pace is four cubits

the length of a man's outspread arms is equal to his height

the distance from the hairline to the bottom of the chin is one-tenth of a man's height

the distance from the top of the head to the bottom of the chin is one-eighth of a man's height

the maximum width of the shoulders is a quarter of a man's height

the distance from the elbow to the tip of the hand is one-fifth of a man's height

the distance from the elbow to the armpit is one-eighth of a man's height

the length of the hand is one-tenth of a man's height

the distance from the bottom of the chin to the nose is one-third of the length of the head

the distance from the hairline to the eyebrows is one-third of the length of the face

the length of the ear is one-third of the length of the face

Scary the proportions, intelligent design - anyone who is an atheist needs to read and honestly understand that perfection like that didn't take place through evolution alone."

Edited September 25, 2008 by Eva

[AllisonW]

I try to be respectful to christians all the time: BUT let me make one thing clear: There will be one atheist in the fox hole and that will be me. I am most proud of my view as a scientifically based atheist. One thing that i cannot bear is Christians who seem to believe that their religious views / god etc should be off bounds from critical analysis and comment. My beliefs or non beliefs as an atheist are not a whim - they are the result of a long thought process. I WILL not be praying to a non existing deity if i am in crisis and believe me i have had my difficult times. I saw a great email the other day: "Prayer - a great way to do nothing and still believe you are helping!". So listen whatever makes you feel better about yourself - jesus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, the fairy at the bottom of the garden. The bottom line is that i am so glad that i am saving my children from exposure to this out dated mumbo jumbo! How can anyone believe that with the suffering we are facing right now, there is a benevolent daddy sitting the clouds helping out? Religious folk freak me out - listen carefully and you will soon hear the underlying issues of patriachy, racial intolerance etc lurking underneath.

I know you thing that you and your fairy tale IS reality but the rest of us in the fox hole dont agree - (Oh and i am stilling waiting to struck down, my life seems to be pretty good!)

Finally, please educate yourself on evolution before you comment on it! This is the best explanation that we have for life on earth and although i know you think that the devil put the fossils there just to test you (Cue eerie satanic music!!!!!: DUM DUM,DUM) i think that nobel peace prize winning scientists know a little bit more then your sales men ministers and pastors who have degrees in mythology (oops sorry theology!)

Now that i have said my say - after being sorely tested ! - have a good day

Allison

[AllisonW]

And just in case you wondered what i base my views on - please check out the following:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=50

And:

What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?

It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the

arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the

most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all

scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem.

What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it

never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of

producing a better explanation for that original

problem.

So what was this original problem that evolution theory was

invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named

after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the

term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a

hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom,

Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the

remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists

classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree"

structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed.

In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the

animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.

Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of

evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to

please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call

them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into

an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance

and development of animal features also looks like a family

tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its

appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal

species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one

branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of

the tree, and as you examine more complex organisms on any given

branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this:

ALWAYS) stay that way. They never jump back and forth; while

features can jump between bacteria due to genetic material exchange

(they're so small that they can literally swap pieces of DNA),

we have never observed a feature exchange between complex

organisms. There is no reason why an engineer would steadfastly

refuse to take features from one product line and use them in

another, so why would this be the case for an engineered

biosystem?

This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It

is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so

incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when

those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of

the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered

yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species

which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree

were also geographically close to one another. And whenever

someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they

discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is

unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also

show a geographical connection.

The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning

coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous

problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created

these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to

be related, by carefully arranging their structures and

geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic

need for this, as we have proven in the last century

by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and

seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments.

There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a

hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably

mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this?

No one ever provided an answer ... until Darwin.

This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it

is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain.

Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make

the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain

why or how. And if they can't explain why or how,

then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone

explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family

tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? It's not enough

to say that God reused previous designs; that would explain the

similarities but not the divisions in the family tree. The

Linnaean taxonomy is a family tree, not a family sponge. Only

evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where

you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work

forward to predict the outcome.

[broekies]

And just in case you wondered what i base my views on - please check out the following:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=50

And:

What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?

It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the

arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the

most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all

scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem.

What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it

never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of

producing a better explanation for that original

problem.

So what was this original problem that evolution theory was

invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named

after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the

term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a

hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom,

Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the

remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists

classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree"

structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed.

In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the

animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.

Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of

evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to

please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call

them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into

an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance

and development of animal features also looks like a family

tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its

appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal

species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one

branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of

the tree, and as you examine more complex organisms on any given

branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this:

ALWAYS) stay that way. They never jump back and forth; while

features can jump between bacteria due to genetic material exchange

(they're so small that they can literally swap pieces of DNA),

we have never observed a feature exchange between complex

organisms. There is no reason why an engineer would steadfastly

refuse to take features from one product line and use them in

another, so why would this be the case for an engineered

biosystem?

This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It

is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so

incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when

those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of

the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered

yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species

which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree

were also geographically close to one another. And whenever

someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they

discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is

unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also

show a geographical connection.

The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning

coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous

problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created

these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to

be related, by carefully arranging their structures and

geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic

need for this, as we have proven in the last century

by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and

seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments.

There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a

hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably

mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this?

No one ever provided an answer ... until Darwin.

This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it

is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain.

Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make

the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain

why or how. And if they can't explain why or how,

then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone

explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family

tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? It's not enough

to say that God reused previous designs; that would explain the

similarities but not the divisions in the family tree. The

Linnaean taxonomy is a family tree, not a family sponge. Only

evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where

you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work

forward to predict the outcome.

AllisonW, you sure are bright for a 31 year old lady. You so believe in science then you must also believe that your IQ is 5 points less than the average man so please shoo....

It is much easier to proof evolution as a corrupt human theory, but I suppose you are still evolving.....

ME AND MY HOUSE WILL SERVE GOD TO OUR DEATH... just to give you the creeps

[AllisonW]

Broekies,

I am so flattered that you took the time to check out my personal profile and comment on my age. I fail to see the point? I am so amused by the fact that in the face of my scientific viewpoints you feel that you need to attack me. I am still waiting for you to refute any of my arguments. As usual, when faced with logic and rational thought religious folk will resort to Ad hominem attacks. And just in case you are not aware of what this is (perhaps you were busy in bible ed classes?), let me define it for you, as per Wiki, you know on the internet, the "thingy" that the scientists thought up:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Gravity is a theory to, everything is built on scientific knowledge, including the computer that you used to type your drivel on. Actually i as a person cannot evolve, but i am pleased that you get the point that the species is still evolving. Maybe there is some hope for you.

I am so pleased for you that you are serving whoever for however long. By the way dont go swimming - you could get swallowed by a whale!

Thanks for the shiver!

Ps: I am sitting here enjoying my coffee and breakfast while you are probably sitting in church - who has a lower IQ now.