Three issues Thread

I don't expect to gain any love for this post, but I have decided
that it is time I said something - Here are three issues on which
most people are staggeringly uninformed.

Vaccination
Global Warmeing
Evolution

Vaccination:
This is an issue which plagues society. And, it is true that
"scientific evidence" against vaccination is sometimes
hard to find. There are many pie graphs and flow charts on
both sides of the argument, but here are some solid "facts".
You may argue that "where is your evidence?" but stop right
there - you are sitting at a computer; before you is the
internet...so just 'google' it! as in "vaccination dangers"
(923,000 hits)

Fact 1:
If you are a doctor, and you decide that there is no
evidence that immunisation works, or that it is
downright dangerous - good luck. There have been
dozens of respectible MDs who have had their licences
revoked for trying to publish research criticizing
vaccination.

Fact 2:
There are many good books on the subject, most of which
have a uncanny habit of being hard to find. One of these,
"vacinnation roulette" is one of the better ones.

But, like most issues, asking your doctor will usually
get you a stonewall.

But:
I have seen inoculation damaged children and adults,
and it is not pretty. It is reminiscent of that
old film "logan's run" where the main character
was the only one aware of the lie. You are dealing
with an industry here, and one that will go to any
length to protect its interests.

And one facet of humanity is exposed, and that is
the "herd" effect. There is constant pressure to
enforce the procedure on all--"for the good of all"--

Global Warming:

Fact 1:
Yes, there is evidence to suggest that there has been
some change in temperatures (apart from china's sudden
temperature drops).

Fact 2:
But, you may not be aware that thousands of American
scientist have signed a petition condemming the teachings
of "an inconvenient truth", by Al Gore.
Worldnetdaily.com
This is right after a certain photographer who had taken the "polar bears in
peril" photo came forward and announced that the polar bears
had climbed onto the floe for a rest....

Fact 3:
There was a documentary named "the great global warming swindle".
This also has become "hard to find".

Analysis:
In short, all the speculation about global warming happily
ignores one minor thing - man is not in total control.
Men can build empires--and costal cities--, but all will
eventually crumble. In this time, there are many earthquakes,
floods, and other calamities - but one thing is always left
out, and that is God.

There are natural disasters, and there always have been.
But, think of Pompeii - it was one of the most debauched
empires in human history - yet, it is admired! There is
no recognition that the eruption was linked to the
wickedness of the city's inhabitants. But, when
great disasters occur now, some shifting plate or warm
weather is blamed. Evil does not last - history occurs
in cycles, of nations becoming good, then falling, then
the survivors migrating to another place to start again,
or, in some cases, rebuilding their cities.

Evolution:
This is a strong issue. But the answer is simple.
Nothing has ever evolved - there is no evidence of any
creature at any point in history evolving to a higher
form - in opposition, modern genetic creatures are
actually decaying in genetic integrity

You can believe whatever you like. And, evolution
is an easy master - it won't judge you or send
you to burn in never-ending torment for your sins.

One other thing:
Sunscreen - it contains petrochemicals...and you
put it on your skin.

So, go your way, belive all that puppet scientists
tell you - so far, it's a free world.

Oh good, someone who preaches against science they do not know anything about. Yes, the public is staggeringly uninformed, but better that than misinformed by paranoid, ignorant demagoguery such as yourself.

Immunization works. There has been demonstrable evidence of this since the initial inoculations against Small Pox. Medical professionals are not ostracized for gathering data, but they are for fabricating data and purposefully flawed methodologies such as those who attempted to create the Autism-Thimerosal link. Please, represent YOUR sources for doctors losing licensing for attempting to publish research negative of vaccination effectiveness. I have also seen the attempted inoculation affect children and adults, and? This is a known risk which is far outweighed by the benefit of the herd immunity you so carelessly spit upon. This is not a concept of 'for the good of all' but without a capable host a strain dies. This is why Small Pox has been annihilated.

Short-term temperature reading is not an accurate way to gauge global warming. Long-term readings over the last half century show an obvious raise. More accurate is readings of carbon-dioxide and methane, primarily, levels in the atmosphere which absorb longer waves of solar radiation which would otherwise deflect back into space. Because of this the molecules vibrate, and will diffuse more heat otherwise released. Unfortunately, carbon-dioxide does not degrade quickly, and more continuously moves into the atmosphere. The only true discussion is how big of an effect we have, and thus far it does not appear too significant.

As for Al Gore, of course scientists disagree with the man who is ignorantly politicizing information he does not know and filters for personal advantage. This is not a significant disagreement about the fact that humans emit carbon-dioxide into our atmosphere, nor the physics behind this.

To the photograph...I just ask...and? People believed a photograph meant to be poignant about the looming threat, not the paranoia which has been hyped by Gore and his green associates.

Now, on to Evolution, my personal favorite subject, define a higher form and decaying in genetic integrity. I have the distinct inkling you enjoy spouting big words, and nothing else. We have atavisms, pseudogene sequences, endogenous retroviruses, genetic similarity, our own chromosomal fusion, morphological similarity, transitional fossils, and a congruence of all across all phylogenetic trees and strata, as well as observed instances of both induced and natural speciation, novel biochemical pathways, novel genetics, and the mechanism of natural selection. The ending appeal to emotion was particularly amusing.

However, we both agree on sunscreen, but for significantly different reasons. Proper SPF sunscreens have demonstrable results against numerous skin conditions including melanoma, unfortunately the problem with these is remaining in the sun too long. Use of sunscreen retards your skin's natural ability to heal after damage.

Hmm. Be careful, I could have more PHDs than you have cars.

A few things.

Smallpox has not

been annihilated. Anyone who thinks this needs to do more reading.

Smallpox inoculation was directly linked to one very famous death, by the way: The famous preacher Jonathan Edwards, died after receiving one of the pioneering inoculations.

I have a brother who enlisted in the military, and I was able to directly observe the immediate bad effects of the "shot".

And, herd immunity. This is touchy, and dangerous. It is the reason which is used to justify other technologies, such as flouridating the water supply.

That is another bugbear of mine, since I have also personally seen what sodium flouride does to animals, cattle for example, who drink it directy. It is incredibly toxic, even when greatly diluted.

And think for one moment...hollywood, as much as I hate it, had the right idea - the masses can
be badly deluded. As I said,

Logan's run, and such demonstrate what happens when the population believes some procedure is good, and it is completely

incomprehensible to people that it might not be so.

I ask you, PROVE that vaccination actually did any good. And I don't mean govenment paid scientists.

How about YOU get some mad dogs, chop their heads open, crack open the skull of a healthy dog, sew damaged mad-dog brain

into healthy dog's skull, then sew back up. A few days later, dog will die of infection, and you can remove its brain, crush it up,

and add water. Then concentrate. THAT, was how the Rabies vaccine was made up until about the fifties.

We are now in an era of using dead, unborn children for bases for new vaccines.

I understand that when people such as myself speak, it sounds alarmist.

Cough, evolution.

THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!!! GET A NEWER TEXTBOOK!!!

Congruence is explained by one, very powerful designer, aka GOD.

People use such techniques to attribute various writings to a single writer, so why not use them to indicate that

all creatures had the same architect.

I don't agree with everything they say, but I will endorse "Creation Science" magazine. The problem is that, unfortunately,

people are not actually allowed to publish anti-evolution articles in mainstream, "respectable" scientific publications.

Social engineering filled the schooling system since the 70's, brutally attempting to rewrite the values and "truths" of the

following generations.

I can think of one other thing, and that is Cancer. The scientific community bleats "Find a cure, find a cure...let's use stem

cells eg." I will now personally endorse something, something which actually puts my career on the line. And that is a product

called "Cancema".

It does
work, no matter what the FDA try to say. It is now actually illegal to market it for use on human melanoma treatment,

and the current loophole is saying "animal use only". Naturally, you've never heard of it, and you probably never will.

That's all for now, except one final word - Germany became a hellhole after an economic depression. America, belive it or not, is actually a faint hope, because in the Biblical book of Revelation, there is a kingdom corrosponding to all the

major powers, for example, EU, Rome and Russia, but there is no America - NO WHERE. So, as long as America exists,

the world isn't going to end.

Edited by: Robert-33

Robert-33 wrote: Hmm. Be careful, I could have more PHDs than you have cars.

Your profile says you are 17. Either you are lieing about your age (and being a liar does not make your case look good) or you are throwing out empty, weightless arguements and hoping no-one looks at them closely (also not a good precedent for the rest of your points)

Which is it then?

I ask you, PROVE that vaccination actually did any good.

everything i am vaccinated for has never infected me again? i think thats good enough
diseases are never annihilated, the plague still infects people today
there is no vacin against it but there are medicine, if treated quick enough then there is no problem
some vacins dont exist because they cant create them, aids for example, it constantly mutating
its like looking for the guy with the blue shirt but the guy constantly changes his shirt
not trying to discuss it, just saying PHD's mean nothing
a father from a friend of mine has done one of the biggest studies (school wise) he then had to do one of the lowliest jobs (dont know how to call it in english ) because people with his phd's wasent wanted
so tough for you, im with gibberstein on this, you sir, are lying, something you saw on a site and saying you wrote this is stealing
science has proved itself, if it wasnt for science you wouldnt be complaining here

The evidence for vaccination is simply massive, I feel it isnt a lack of evidence for vaccination that is driving these comments but more a lack of your own understanding. In almost all cases when a human being has succesfully produced anti-bodies to fight a virus they will be able to produce them again if the virus re-infects. As such the way vaccines work is by injecting humans with dead or immobile versions of the viruses. This means the human's immune system can learn how to produce anti-bodies to combat it without actually being at risk from the virus.

As for evolution, your statement on there being a lack of transitional fossils shows your own lack of understanding once again. The fact is that every single living creature is 'transitional' including you and me. Everything that is alive is a new snapshot of life and its the summation of hundreds of millions of these snapshots (over millions of years) which form the visible signs of evolution. Evolution is a well understood science with sheer mountains of evidence from a wide range of areas. Its not just fossils (although these are certainly enough). There's genetics as well which basically spells out a path of how the creature has evolved and looking at closely linked species shows the great similarities in genetic code.

God explains nothing, its a total non-argument for explaining the existence of anything simply because you cant explain the existence of something complex by something even more complex. What created the creator exactly ? Or would you postulated he created himself before he existed .

I sincerely suggest you actually look at the real evidence and science in these areas. I understand you already have your own views on these issues but its clear you have never actually been properly taught or learned any of this stuff. I think you're doing yourself a great disservice by locking yourself away from actuality like this, you seem happier to follow the facts of a 2000 year old book rather than the facts of the world.

Arguments from authority, even if you produced proof of this authority, mean nothing; a Doctorate in Bioinformatics from Columbia University would be lost beneath what you laughably attempt to pass off as knowledge.

Last reported case of Small Pox was in Somalia in 1977, Ali Maalin. As a natural disease, this has been annihilated in all available evidence. No one suggests inoculation poses no threat; I said this outright, but the diseases themselves produce far more horrendous consequences. Notice, Jonathan Edwards' age at the time of inoculation was over 50, which is dangerous. Your insinuation of 'government paid scientists' fails to consider the intergovernmental procedure to eliminate Small Pox and Polio, amongst a slew of others which are in massive decline. Considering this is how your immune system functions, you'd need to provide real evidence for your insinuations.

You don't understand herd immunity, since fluoridation does not affect anything transmittable; you probably mean herd mentality, as group think and conformity. If the population, a herd, is not immunized fully versus a disease, virus, etc., any non-immunized organism has the potential to be a carrier, and with this comes the evolving grounds to bypass the immune system of fellow organisms. Without such a potential carrier, contagions do not develop resistant populations and are likely contained. (Edit: I feel I should mention there exists as well amounts of herd immunity, this is not all or nothing except in the strictest sense. A proper level of herd immunity means breaking chains of infection and denying viruses, bacteria, etc., enough hosts to sustain itself within a population)

Sodium fluoride is no longer used within the United States, replaced by Hexafluorosilic Acid. Safe levels have been determined and fluoride levels in the water are carefully monitored. However, I do disagree with the fluoridation of water, simply due to having to listen to conspiracy theorists and there being no health risk from lack of fluoride. I don't suppose you'll want to demonstrate the potential hazards of fluoridated water supplies by providing correlative data from regions of the United States practicing fluoridation?

Please cite sources for the method you describe for Rabies Vaccination, since organisms such as rats and rabbits are much more capable breeders and normally much smaller, and since infection is a relatively simple matter using saliva that seems a long-winded process to produce carriers.

Due to your religious background I would presume you were anti-abortion, stem-cell research, and blastocyst harvesting, but please define the qualities which differ gametes from zygotes to blastocysts and further in terms of which possesses the necessary qualities to be considered human life.

All fossils are transitional, though the best example would be Tiktaalik, an organism between Panderichthys and Ichtyostega in the tetrapod adaptation towards land. For those interested, this is a particularly compelling fossil, found with specific predicted features including the development of early lungs, wrist-like structure, phalanges, and changes to the ear, and as equally as important was located predicted geological strata due to necessary period between other fossils.

Pseudogene sequences, endogenous retroviruses, and atavisms are in direct contradiction to the arguments put forth for a deity as common designer put forth for morphological and genetic similarity. There is no reason for organisms to possess inactivated traits of related organisms, to possess more similar inactivations due to mutations on genes with more-closely related organisms, nor show the pattern of difference found in ERV infection as organisms branch with a common designer except to appear as though populations evolved. Whomever accepts such a premise labels themselves incapable of overcoming personal bias.

Arguments about common designer are folly as you're discussing creator, in which nothing has ever been observed to create absolutely but design using current materials. Any designer would then need to be a sufficiently advanced alien race which would have evolved elsewhere. Further, crystals are incredible structures of staggering design, but you've replaced your mineral lattice god with crystallization, and your little lava breathing, pillars of earth shaking daemon who forged the continents has been usurped by plate tectonics. And we don't know of any hallmarks of willful design, the method we use to determine human creations, on natural forms.

Nor is anyone not allowed to publish such materials. Real scientists do this constantly, except they do not publish 'anti-anything' articles but write scientific papers challenging the validity of the currently established theories of all sciences with new information. This is the crux, the writer needs to perform real science, they need proper methodologies, and they should gather actual data; Creationism as a whole does not seem to gather this.

Black Salves, such as Cansema, are effectively corrosive creams useful on superficial cancers strictly, leave extensive scarring and will destroy healthy tissue, unlike simple out-patient surgery. They encourage self-diagnosis regarding malignancy and spread and discourage medical follow-up. Marketing them as cancer cures is unethical, and thankfully illegal, I believe for animals too even. Bilking fearful people out of money with a placebo is terrible enough, but with a harmful product is nothing short of despicable.

If anyone out there is concerned about the possible development of cancer in yourself, a loved one, or a friend, I advise you, do not use Black Salves of any sort.

Edited by: Vangor

I'm slipping! How did I miss this classic!

You want us to dismiss evolution, proper scientific method and one of the cornerstones of modern medicine all because the Bible says so, and the Bible is perfectly accurate and always correct.....

Robert-33 wrote:
That's all for now, except one final word - Germany became a hellhole after an economic depression. America, belive it or not, is actually a faint hope, because in the Biblical book of Revelation, there is a kingdom corrosponding to all the

major powers, for example, EU, Rome and Russia, but there is no America - NO WHERE. So, as long as America exists,

the world isn't going to end.

....while also wanting us to believe that the world is OK because the Bible has inaccuracies and ommisions in it's end of the world prophecy? Please make your mind up, the contradictions do you no favours. It's a shame, because the Bible is a good moral guide if read with intelligence and wisdom. Unfortunately nowadays it mostly seems to be misquoted and abused by zealots with an axe to grind. If only they could give the same attention to "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" as they do to the brimstone and fire bits

Robert-33's second post on the moddb.com "Three issues thread", as some
may have noticed, lacked cohesion and seemed to meander over already
given points.

THIS POST IS CLARIFYING AND WILL SET FORTH EXACTLY
THE EVIDENCE AND REFERENCES REQUESTED BY SOME.

Important - some of the people referenced may hold views vastly
different to Robert-33. Unless otherwise indicated, the views are to
be considered those of the book's authors, or the person being quoted.\

I do not claim to be some great scientific mind. And...it is strange,
I feel certain I dreamt many years ago that one day I would write something
like this...I just can't remember. I bring these arguments with respect, and
only wish to be "heard out" on them.

Vaccination (Revisited):
I will provide extensive extracts from the book "Vaccination - The 'Hidden' Facts",
by Ian Sinclair. Copyright Ian Sinclair 1992.

(Note: I have transcribed all books as accurately as possible. If I considered
punctuation seriously questionable it was altered, otherwise it was left as it was.)

CHAPTER 4: Vaccination Condemned

"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and ineffectual
efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization".
-Dr Robert S. Mendelsohn

Whilst there are many doctors and scientists who oppose and condemn vaccination
procedures, their numbers represent only a minority, for the vast majority continue to
support and promote the necessity of vaccination campaigns. That they do so however, is
not because they are aware of any 'real' evidence to prove vaccination, but they are simply
unaware of the evidence which disproves it! As Dr Mendelsohn points out: "Most
doctors don't know". This is because few doctors do any of their own research into
vaccination. They simply accept what has been taught to them in medical school and are
happy with that.

It is just as unfortunate that of the minority of doctors who 'do know'[,] few are prepared to
'publicly' expose or condemn the practice of vaccination. Speaking before the Australian
Natural Therapists Association in Sydney 1990, Dr David Ritchie explained: "To question
immunization as a medical doctor is to put your head on a chopping block!" Dr Ritchie
referred to an eminent medical figure in New Zealand who spoke publicly about the
dangers of certain vaccines. Within 48 hours of this public address, the medical professor
was before a medical tribunal for disciplinary reasons!

Dr Mendelsohn points out: "Historically, doctors who have dared to change things
significantly have been ostracised and have had to sacrifice their careers in order to hold to
their ideas. Few doctors are willing to do either".

'Fear' is probably the major reason that prevents those doctors in the 'know' from speaking
out publicly. Fear of rejection by their fellow colleagues, fear of ridicule, fear of disciplinary
action such as 'de-registration', fear of financial loss, fear of losing one's position or career
opportunities. Indeed, as the Vaccination Inquirer states:

"It takes a large amount of courage for a doctor to declare himself to be
opposed to vaccination".

One doctor who had the courage to publicly oppose vaccination was Dr Anthony Morris, a
respected research virologist working for the US Food and Drug Administration. In 1976, Dr
Morris was fired from his position for publicly opposing the swine flu vaccination program.
Dr Morris called this program a 'senseless fiasco'[,] warning that the vaccine could result in
harmful and even fatal effects. As it turned out, there were 41 deaths and over 500 cases of
Guillain Barre syndrome (not to mention the many hundreds of adverse reactions that
would have gone unreported). Dr Morris maintained that such dangers were well known
to most scientists but they were "scared to voice their objections". The full story as
reported in 'The Vaccine Machine', Gannet News Service, makes interesting reading:

Vaccine Machine Runs Over Whistle-Blower
By Chris Collins and John Hanchette

Washington - Federal employees who stand in the way of the
government-industry vaccine machine can get squashed.

Such a whistle blower was Dr J Anthony Morris, a respected research
virologist who in 1976 worked in the Food and Drug Administration's division
of biological standards. Morris, now 66, was canned that year by the head of
the FDA for raising a lonely voice against the swine flu vaccine that
President Gerald Ford wanted "every man, woman and child" to receive.

Morris, an influenza vaccine specialist, was known to superiors as a trouble-
maker long before the swine flu fiasco.

Five years before, he had raised dust before congressional committees by
helping to show that the federal government was failing to protect the public
by not recalling vaccines contaminated by a virus that caused cancer in test
animals.

When he presented evidence that flu vaccine was largely ineffective, he was
relieved of his vaccine control duties. When he suggested slow viruses might
be contaminating vaccines, his work on that project stopped.

His contentions that flu vaccines did not afford the protection Americans had
been led to expect by the Public Health Service were not received with
jubilation by the companies that make flu vaccine and by the doctors who
were injecting them by millions of doses a year.

Morris was reduced to a position of impotency. His research was stopped,
and he was ordered to kill his 5,000 laboratory mice, animals that reflected
years of important vaccine safety work.

"You get a couple of large garbage cans", he recalls, "and then you saturate
some cotton balls with ether and throw them in the can. Pretty soon you
have a garbage can full of dead mice".

By 1976, federal health officials and vaccine makers were warning the public
that a flu epidemic like the 1918 pandemic that killed millions world-wide was
imminent unless everyone lined up for the swine flu vaccine. Morris was the
only federal scientist to raise his voice against the program.

He held seminars on the National Institute of Health campus. He sent letters
to newspapers. He talked to reporters. He warned that the shots could
trigger a range of serious illnesses, and pointed to reports of severe nerve
system disease and deaths linked to previous flu vaccinations.

By mid-December the swine flu program was suspended and in shambles.
About 500 vaccinees had been afflicted with Guillain-Barre paralysis and at
least 10 had died. Morris was not treated as a prophet with honor. He was
instead fired by the FDA for "inefficiency and insubordination".

The FDA still contends Morris was fired for wasteful research dating back to
1972, not for opposing the swine flu. FDA documents show Morris was fired
July 12, 1976, immediately after his persistent seven week attack on the
swine flu program as a dangerous hoax.

Morris reflects that "getting fired was the best thing that ever happened to
me. I felt like I was free for the first time. Free from all the regulations and nit-
picking".

He still believes it was economically motivated.

"The influenza vaccines were the biggest sellers at the time".

Morris has since set up a non-profit scientific foundation in Maryland and
spends much of his time speaking out against the continued hazards of
vaccines. Even here, he claims the FDA has retaliated to his whistle-blowing
by finding out his speaking schedule and sending denigrating material in
advance to sponsoring organisations.

When Washington TV personality Lea Thomson two years ago aired a
program on the pertussus shot dangers that shook the vaccine community,
Morris appeared on a follow-up Phil Donohue talk show broadcast nationally.
Under his visage appeared the printover "Biology Dept. University of
Maryland" - for whom he was doing consulting work at the time.

"When I got back, the university people told me never to do that again. They
said it would jeopardize grants and the federal government would not
hesitate to yank them if there was a controversy".

Dr Morris has since stated:

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children
does more harm than good" and that "there is no rationale for forcing
immunization.

One of the most extensively documented studies of the risks associated with routine
vaccinations is found in the book, The Hazards of Immunization, by Sir Graham Wilson. Sir
Graham has written:

"In addition to the many obvious cases of mortality from these practices
(Referring to vaccination) there are also long-term hazards which are almost
impossible to measure accurately ... the inherent danger of all vaccination
procedures should be a deterrent to their unnecessary or unjustifiable use".

On December 7, 1985, Dr Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, spoke before
a full house of Italian doctors at Piacenza. According to Turin's leading daily, La Stamps, of
December 8, Sabin declared:

"Official data has show that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the
US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against
which they were supposed to provide immunization".

Chapter 3: Vaccines - How Safe and Effective?

[Robert-33: This chapter is long, so I have narrowed it to main points of interest.]

Page 48-49:
Doctors Kalokerinos and Dettman (Australian Nurses Journal, August 1980)
comment:

"In 1974 we submitted an article to the editor of the Medical Journal which
included positive and disturbing facts about routine immuninizations. After a
considerable period of time the article was returned and we were told that
after consultation with various experts that it would not help immunization by
making these facts known. It was hoped we would understand and besides,
most doctors were aware of the dangers.

"Naturally, we challenged the decision but the article was not published and
we feel this denied physicians the opportunity to at least exercise their
critical faculities.

"The profession is always quick to publicise any case of infectious disease
occurring in the unvaccinated, but seldom do you hear when the recipient of
such a disease has been well and truly vaccinated".

On the odd occasions when adverse reactions are reported, they can often be
presented in a misleading manner. An article entitled, "Nature and Rates of Adverse
Reactions Associated with DTP and DT Immunizations in Infants and Children' (Pediatrics
Nov 1981 Vol 68, No.5) reports that out of 15,752 shots, only 18 children suffered serious
reactions. Yet if you read the article carefully, it mentions how each child was given 5 shots
meaning that only 3,150 children were involved. In other words, one in every 175 children
suffered severe reactions.

...Sir Graham Wilson, former Director of Public Health Laboratory Service, England and
Wales, originally supported the principals of vaccination and set out to debunk the vaccine
critics. However he was forced to change his position when he discovered irrefutable facts
exposing the dangers of vaccines. He subsequently wrote a book, The Hazards of
Immunization, published in the 1960's. Sir Graham has written:

"The risk attendant on the use of vaccines and sera are not as well
recognised as they should be. The late Dr J R Hutchinson of the Ministry of
Health, collected records of fatal immunological accidents during the war
years, and was kind enough to show then to me. I was frankly surprised
when I saw them, to learn of the large number of persons in the civil and
military population that had died apparently as the result of attempted
immunization against some disease or other. Yet, only a few of these were
referred to in the medical journals ... and further, when one considers such
accidents have probably been going on for the last 60 or 70 years, one
realized that a very small proportion can ever have been described in the
medical literature of the world".

Chicago attorney Allen McDowell handles only lawsuits involving pertussis
vaccine, and then only "extreme cases ... severe brain damage or death".

"Most of the cases we're involved in ... I'd say 95 percent were never
reported as a reaction to the shot", he said. "The doctors didn't report them,
the clinics didn't report them.

''One possibility is that the doctors didn't want to be sued; another possibility
is that they didn't recognise it as a reaction to the shot. Until recently,
doctors thought if the reaction didn't happen within 48 hours, even 72 hours,
that it wasn't the shot."

McDowell said he has about 70 cases pending, with probably 150 cases
pending nationally.

[Robert-33 notes: That's just one attorney's cases.]

Attorney Andrew Dodd of Los Angeles said: "The reason you don't see a
thousand cases or two thousand is that parents don't know.

"I have reviewed 25 cases. In 24 of those, the medical records reflected the
physicians saying 'This is probably a pertussus immunization reaction'. But
they never told the parents.

CHAPTER 10: THE CASE AGAINST VACCINATION

"There is no real basis in all of nature for the doctrine of immunization. Immunity,
were it real, would mean the suspension of the law of cause and effect".
-Herbert M Sheldon.

...One of the worst pieces of information appears on an immunization
leaflet...which says:

"Immunization is one of the most important components in ensuring good
health in your child".

Immunization does nothing to promote the health of children, or anyone else
for that matter. On the contrary, immunization only serves to weaken the body....

Let Me Sum up the Case 'against' Vaccination

1: Statistical and graphical evidence clearly reveals that vaccination was
not responsible for the decline in incidence and mortality from infectious
diseases as claimed by Medical Science. Furthermore...in the cases of
smallpox and diphtheria, there were dramatic increases in both the incidences
and mortality...following mass vaccination campaigns.

2: The true reasons for the decline in incidence and mortality from
infectious disease can be attributed to major improvements in living
and working conditions, nutrition, hygiene, and social reform.

3: Vaccine is neither 'safe' nor 'effective'.

- up to 50% whooping cough cases have been found to occur
in fully vaccinated children.
- measles outbreaks can still occur despite high levels of vaccination,
similarly with rubella.
- following the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine in the USA,
those states who enforced compulsory vaccination experienced increases
in polio incidence.
- the Sabin polio vaccine has been blamed, even by medical authorities,
as the cause of the few remaining cases of polio in the US today.
[Robert-33: That was the first 'herd immunity' vaccine. Does anyone
still like 'herd immunity', aka. 'herd infection', after that fact?]

- not only have the 'flu' vaccines been shown to be ineffective, but in the
elderly, can result in certain stress reactions such as heart failure and the
crippling Guillain-Barre syndrome.
- the failure of vaccine campaigns in third world countries.
- the disastrous history of the smallpox and diphtheria vaccination
campaigns throughout the world provides startling and conclusive
evidence as to the dangers and inefficacy of vaccination
- SIDS, allergic disorders, mental and behavioral problems,
immune malfunctions, Reye's syndrome, juvenile onset diabetes,
Guillain-Barre syndrome, brain damage, multiple sclerosis,
arthritis and even cancer have been linked to vaccination.

--
The very diseases that vaccination is supposed to save us from,
are in themselves, not harmful, but beneficial. The acute infectious
diseases, measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc, are in reality, cleansing
processes; attempts to prevent them through vaccination is based
on an ignorance of their true nature.

CHAPTER 11: WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES

Page 93:

Dr John Keller:
"Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will...to persuade the unprotected
people to get vaccinated. This we do in three ways: first by education, second by fright;
and third by pressure. We dislike very much to mention fear and pressure. During...
March and April...education...vaccinated only 62,000 people. During May we made
use of fright and pressure and vaccinated 223,000 people.

[Robert-33: Here is another book]
Book: "Vaccination Roulette: Experiences, risks and alternatives."

Page 12:
"The myth that an unvaccinated person is a disease threat to everyone else also exposes
the lies about vaccine effectiveness: if vaccines did give protection, how could a
'protected' person get a disease from an unvaccinated person?"

"America has a very high rate of child deaths;
on the infant mortality scale among
developed nations, America hovers near to
twentieth, despite having the highest
possible standard of medical technology (or
perhaps because of it)."

Page 35:
*
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is funded from an excise tax on every
dose of covered vaccine that is purchased. In other words it's as if you are buying
life insurance every time you get a shot. [Robert-33:This might only be for Australia.]
*
Vaccines have never been subjected to the standard double-blind test required for
every other medication. This is despite research that indicates a possible-highly
probable or causal-connection between vaccination and brain damage, meningitis,
encephalitis, autism, Guillain-Barre paralysis, ADD, ADHD, asthma, arthritis and
multiple sclerosis.
*
Jonas Salk, the inventor of the IVP testified along with other scientists before a
Senate subcommittee that since 1961, except for a few importations from other
countries, all cases of poliomyelitis (polio) were caused by the Oral Polio Vaccine.
*
It is a known fact that most infectious diseases have been on the decline in extent
and severity, due to better hygiene, sanitation and diet before vaccines were
developed. For example, cases of scarlet fever are rare and there is no vaccine
against this. Yet in the 1800's and early 1900's it was an equally fatal disease.
*
An 3.6 kg infant receives the same amount of vaccine that a 18.2 kg 5 year-old
receives. You wouldn't do that with Tylenol. [aka. paracetamol - Robert-33]
*
According to the Merck, Sharpe & Dohme MMR II vaccine package insert, women
have a 23% risk of getting arthralgia and/or hearing loss from the MMR II vaccine,
which has also been known to cause hearing loss.
*
Vaccines contain carcinogenic toxins (formaldehyde and the mercury-containing
compound Thimersol) and are being injected into 2/4/6 month old infants whose
immune systems are not fully developed.
*
Paracetamol is given to infants and children when a shot is administered
to mask a fever which could indicate a reaction to the vaccine.
[Robert-33: They may not still be doing this, but they were in 1998.]

Robert-33:
Here are a two illustrations.

The Aztecs sincerely believed that, if there were not daily human
sacrifices, the sun would not rise. Do you think they did not have
some kind of 'proof' that this was so? Is it really so different to
the modern belief that, if vaccination ceases, great epidemics
will overcome us?

There is truth to the statement "When a vaccinated person develops
smallpox symptoms, it is automatically classed as another disease.

This is exactly the same as: The UN have not once, ever prevented
a war. BUT we haven't had a 'war' since 1945. No, we have 'armed
conflicts' now, which are wars all the same. You aren't actually
allowed to have a 'war' anymore. Arab nations psychotically firing
weapons at Israel isn't 'war' it's now 'attacks'. Such is the game of words.

[There were so many other books and powerful statistics which I would
bring here, If only I'd had more time. It's a cesspool of deception, and
no matter how deep one digs, it never stops. So, all I can say is,
"Think very hard before you allow your doctor to inject you with a,
possibly experimental, cocktail of chemicals, none of which are
beneficial.]

PART 2---

Global Warming (Climate Change) Revisited:

[Robert-33:
As is seemingly normal, a very long and detailed
guide to this subject was written. But the file was destroyed.
So, this section was re-written in 15 minutes - apologies
to anyone expecting anything more detailed.]

Really short - why someone is lying.
[This was researched as well as possible, but some may not
believe any of this, considering how it wildly differs from what
people are being told daily.

Global mean temperatures have risen nearly half a degree Celsius since
the turn of the century.

BUT - from 1880 to 1940, global mean temperatures rose steadily by
approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius, then, from 1940 to 1980, global
mean temperatures fell steadily by approximately 0.3 Celsius.

This sparked a worldwide scientific paranoia that an "ice age"
was on the way.

The US National Academy of Science [The ones pushing 'global warming']
released the report 'Understanding Climate Change. A Program for Action'
stating, "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."

Then, Dr Stephen Schneider, now a 'leader' of the Greenhouse theory,
published an article in "Science" magazine, saying even an
EIGHT-FOLD increasing in CO2 over existing levels would warm
the Earth's surface by less that 2 degrees.

Basically, now that Global Warming is in, science has changed hats.

W.D. Sellers wrote a paper in 1973 entitled "A New Global Climate
Model Based on the Energy Balance of the Earth-Atmosphere System".

Sellers indicated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature
increase of only 0.1 degrees Celsius. [!!!!]

[Robert-33:
My main point, is that this is rapidly turning into the next "War on X".

Does anyone remember what happened last time? Americans got the
Patriot Act, flaying alive 'human rights' with every bizarre,
not-understandable to even some lawyers, paragraphs.

Think of all the things governments can 'rightfully' restrict in order
to stop the Climate Change boogieman.

SCIENCE DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE WEATHER
AND TEMPERATURE SYSTEMS THEN, AND THEY SURE
HAVEN'T GOTTEN SOME KIND OF 'REVELATION', WHICH
ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE THE KIND OF STATEMENTS
THEY ARE MAKING NOW.

And, now to another point.

In the book "Why Do I Feel So Awful?" written by
Dr David R. Collison, time is spent outlining unforeseen
risks of using fluorescent lighting. When the book was
written, Dr David could never have predicted that within
twenty years, groups like Planet Ark would be, with
good intentions, trying to have the bulbs universally
adopted, and candescent bulbs banned.]

[Robert-33: This had to be written in a hurry, so extra detail
was left out. I apologise.]

[A section on a study by Dr John N. Ott, on behavioural effects
on fluorescents was omitted for time reasons. But, the tests concluded
that normal, "cool" white fluorescents caused severe negative effects on
concentration and behavior.]

...Other studies have...[revealed] that people working under conventional
fluorescent lighting become tense and irritable. Exactly how much
stress we can blame on our increasingly lit environment is not
know, but there are disquieting signs that it may be considerably
more than we have ever suspected.

...full spectrum fluorescent lights [like those used in behavioral
tests] are also used to provide normal growth for indoor plants
in commercial nurseries. ...plants grow well and have healthy
foliage. Expose the same plants to the more commonly used
'cool' fluorescent lighting, however, and they quickly
die. If nothing else, this should sound a note of warning
in the minds of humans.

...[melanoma researchers] frankly admitted...they had not expected
to find a link with any kind of lighting... Fluorescent light can sometimes
extend to the ultraviolet range.

...Those exposed to fluorescent lighting had twice the risk of developing
malignant melanoma, and the longer the exposure, the greater the risk.

...one basic precaution that can be taken with fluorescent lighting, [is
the use of] plastic diffusive strips, which reduces the spread of ultraviolet
lighting at work, (where the lights are often unshielded)

...naked, unshielded, unshaded fluorescent tubes should never be used,
a lesson that ought to have support of law in the workplace.

Flickering Fluorescent Fits There is one other, quite different reason
to be concerned about fluorescent lighting...many people complain
of headaches when they have been in a room lit by fluorescent lights.

For these people, the cause of the trouble is not the radiation, but
the fifty-cycle-per-second flicker peculiar to fluorescent lights.

...In summary, then, we find fluorescent light affecting
people adversely in three quite distinct ways. ...It is a subject that needs
a great deal more careful study, for almost certainly it is a much more
widespread cause of many of the unpleasant symptoms experienced by
office and factory workers than has ever been suspected

[Robert-33: Now. I have my say. The world is being whipped up into
a 'stop climate change' frenzy, and most likely the foolish plans will go
ahead. Let me promise one thing though. If the nations of this world
continue to grow more corrupt and immoral, yes, you are about to
witness the worst weather ever. But, every unexplainable catastrophe
will have a convenient explanation: "We haven't cut energy consumption
enough!" It is sad, really, people are not going to repent, and so their
fate is sealed, really, by their own actions.

Melanoma is a subject of much debate. And, like always, the vaccine
machine is caught up in it. Rest assured, there will never be a cancer
vaccine (WHICH DOES NOT CAUSE UNFORSEEN EFFECTS ON
OTHER ASPECTS OF HEALTH!) Do these researchers really
know anything about what they're dealing with? It is doubtful.

I will mention, as I did once before, a product named "Cancema".
It is very useful for treating melanomas, and you might be able
to still obtain it, (That is, until the FDA completely eradicates it)
I have seen the product's effectiveness, and it is a disturbing thing
that the FDA seem intent on crushing it from existing it from
existence. But, if you are suffering from melanoma, I encourage
you to investigate it. I can't say that as a medical doctor, because
then I wouldn't be allowed to even mention it, heh.

Fluoride is another thing. No matter what anyone tells you,
it is dangerous, it is the wrong chemical (Sodium Fluoride is
NOT Calcium Fluoride), and here are a few references:

In November 1985, the British Medical Journal reported
a link between fluoride and anorexia, even in children.

Theoretically, cancer could result from fluoride altering
the proteins controlling the genetics of cells.

And, former chairman of the New Zealand Fluoridation Promotion
Committee and one time principle dental officer in New Zealand's
health department, John Colquhoun, believes that New Zealand's
original enthusiasm, which resulted in mass fluoridation, was
completely misplaced in the light of later evidence.

"We dentists made a big mistake," he said in a lecture in 1987.
"We overrated the benefit of fluoridation and ignored genuine evidence
that, for some people, even the low levels of fluoride used in fluoridation,
are a health hazard."

[Robert-33: And, how exactly two chemicals, one a substance which
causes mottling of the teeth (Calcium Fluoride) and another, a powerful
toxin and a substance proven to cause spastication in cattle (Sodium
Fluoride), were confused is unclear.]

PART 3----

Evolution (revisited):

I had to think a great deal on this issue.
There is a perception among avid followers of Evolution that
if someone thinks the theory is "dead", then they are unscientific.

Evolution, once you strip away hundreds of years of varnish, is
a theory - therefore, it should be treated as one. Somewhere
along the line someone thought it a good idea to dub it
"truth of Evolution", and start teaching it to schoolchildren with
evangelistic fervor.

Here, in as few words as possible, I will try to put a "chink" in
the shell this theory has formed for itself. Really, these three issues
are so similar, even in the way that an outsider can only unlock the
door - but the individual has to make a choice to leave. I can't forcibly
convince anyone Evolution, Global Warming, or Vaccination are wrong.
The truth is never downstream, which is why lies are so easily spread -
they pander to something in human nature, as well as essentially being
a current which pulls people along. People have died for
believing the wrong thing - this I won't deny. It's just besides the point.

The issues number in the thousands. But, it is only necessary to destroy
the foundations, and the entire structure collapses.

I will use the 1999 edition of "The Answers Book."
by Don Batten, Ph.D; Ken Ham; Jonathan Sarfati; Carl Wieland.
www.AnswersinGenesis.org --url might not be current.

This book was only used as a reference, however. An amount was
written and re-written by Robert-33, as he has access to knowledge
not present at the time of the book's writing, or known by its writers.

[Robert-33: This book isn't flawless, but if you think it's more flawed
than its evolutionary equivalents, you are frankly an idiot who has no
scientific discernment.]

[ET Searchers Say:]

"Any day now, we'll pick up a tiny, coded signal -- then we'll know
for certain there is intelligence out there, because coded information
does not arise by chance."

[Robert-33: ET searchers are Evolutionists, as a rule. How then...]

[Evolutionists Say:]

"The precisely coded information in each cell would fill many books...
but we know for certain that NO intelligence created life..."

The moon--
The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4cm per year,
and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if
the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth,
it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance
from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual
age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon
is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric
'dates' assigned to moon rocks.

[Robert-33
Some [Evangelion devotees for example] are probably somewhat
aware of the theory that the moon was formed by a major meteor
collision, which hit the earth billions of years ago. The theory never
really tried to be more specific than that - also, it does not attempt to
theorize the planet's state without of the moon.
For now, however, it's the accepted theory.

Genesis 16:
"And God made two great lights; the greater light [sun] to rule the day,
and the lesser light [moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The moon is there because it needs to be. If it wasn't the night would be
pitch black, and without it, the tidal system would not exist and coastal
areas would stagnate.]

[Robert-33: This segment is for a certain someone.]

Evolutionists believe not only that mankind evolved from an
apelike creature, but that ultimately everything evolved from
a single-celled organism which happened to arise from non-
living matter. They claim that the similarities between living
things are proof that they evolved from common ancestors.
They cite such things as the similarity between human and
chimp DNA, similarities between embryos, claimed vestigial
organs and claimed transitional fossils between different kinds--
such as supposed ape-men. The idea that human beings have close
to 100% similarity in their DNA is often claimed to prove that
humans evolved from apes ... 97%, 98%, even 99% similarity,
depending on who is telling the story.

[Robert-33: I have re-worked some arguments for the
next segment. The originals were good, but they were
also long, and I have not the space for it. If my illustrations
are wrong, I am wrong, not the book's authors.]

Similarity is not necessarily evidence for common
ancestry. (evolution) but may be due to a common designer.

Example:
An artist draws a series of paintings, in completely random order,
over the course of a week. They are all of abstract, imaginary
objects. Say there are 90 paintings.

Under evolutionary logic, you would take the most simple painting, and then
rearrange the rest in increasing order of complexity. Then, it could be said:
"See the simple painting? The one next to it is very similar to the first, but it is
more complex. Therefore, the paintings evolved." This is two things: bad art
critique, and an insult to the skill of the painter.

"Creationist" logic, on the other hand: looks at the paintings, takes note of their
similarities, and concludes: "These were all painted by the same artist."

The same applies with books. Literary analysis is employed to attempt to discern
whether multiple works came from the same author.

Therefore, why is organic life treated any differently? Why spend years of
work fruitlessly attempting to duplicate it, when--according to evolution--life
can simply be created through chemicals, chance and time?

If life can be created easily by chance, why cannot the most skilled scientists
create it? It is a misconception that scientists have created life. What
they have made is no more life than a blank pile of paper is a written book.

Evolution's argument here is illogical.

Back to the issue-DNA similarities.

Where did 97% come from? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique
called DNA hybridization, where small parts of human DNA are split into
single strands and allowed to reform double strands with chimp DNA.

However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not
hybridise, only one of which is a degree of similarity.

Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? Perhaps it served
the purpose of indoctrinating the scientifically illiterate with evolution -
like the imaginative 'ape-men' reconstructions in many museums

Robert-33: And now to something quite nasty - the embryo scandal.]

Most people have heard of the idea that the human embryo, during
its early development in the womb, goes through various evolutionary
stages, such as having gill slits like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc.
Abortion clinics have used the idea to soothe the consciences of
clients, saying, for example, "We're only taking a fish from your body."

This concept was pretentiously called the 'biogenetic law', which
the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel popularised in the late 1860s.
It is also known as 'embryonic recapitulation' or 'ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny' meaning that during an organism's early development it
supposedly re-traces its evolutionary history. So, a human embryo is
supposed to pass through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile
stage, and so on.

Within months of the popular publication of Haeckel's work in
1868, L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy
at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent. William His Sr,
professor of anatomy at the University of Liepzig, and a famous
comparative embryologist, corrobated Rutimeyers criticisms.

These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his
drawings of embryos to make them look more alike. Haeckel even
printed the same woodcut several times, to make the embryos look
absolutely identical, and then claimed they were the embryos of
different species! Despite this exposure, Haeckel's woodcuts appeared
in textbooks for many years.

Prof. Keith Thompson (biology, Yale) said,

"Surely biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised
from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry,
it was extinct in the twenties."

However, even textbooks in the 1990s were still using Haeckel's
fraudulent drawings, including a textbook used in introductory biology
courses in many universities.

The late Carl Sagan, in a popular article titled 'is it possible to be pro-life
and pro-choice?' described the development of the human embryo as follows:

"By the third week ... it looks like a little segmented worm. ... By
the end of the fourth week, ... something like gill-arches of a
fish or amphibian have become conspicuous ... It looks something
like a newt or tadpole. ... By the sixth week ... reptilian face ... By
the end of the seventh week ... the face is mammalian, but somewhat
pig-like. ... By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles a
primate, but is still not quite human."

This is straight from Haeckel. A human embryo never looks
reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo,
from the moment of conception...it does not become human sometime
after 8 weeks. This is just what the bible says -- the unborn baby is
a tiny human child (Gen. 25:21-22, Psalm 139:13-16, Jer. 1:5,
Luke 1:41-44), so abortion takes an innocent human life.

...Specialist embryology textbooks acknowledge that human
embryos do not have gill slits. For example, Langman said,

"Since the human embryo never has gills -- branchia -- the
term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted in this book."
--Langman J. Medical Embryology (3rd edition), p. 262

Vestigial Organs-
The vestigial organ argument has been thoroughly discarded.
Years ago, the British thought that the tonsils were 'vestigial
organs', and decided that cutting them out in large numbers--
the end result was a population fatigued and ill. In fact, the
government was forced to import Scotsmen and Welsh to
work the mines, as the British men lacked the endurance.

Lift the bonnet on your car: just because you can't see what
the various parts do, doesn't make them useless. You can even
start chopping the hoses and cables and the car might still run.
Just don't expect it to ever start again, or actually move.

Transitional fossils--

There are no transitional fossils. Just as with the embryo drawings,
disproved 'evidence' for this has been included in textbooks for years.

Darwin said that his theory rested on the geological record, and that he
was hopeful that, eventually, the required fossils would be found.

The lack of transitional fossils even drove evolutionists to
propose a new mode of evolution in the late 1970s so they
could go on believing in evolution without needing transitional
fossils. Punctuated equilibrium basically says that the evolutionary
changes occurred so quickly that no fossils were preserved to show
them.

[Robert-33: In other words, "The evolved penguin-men? You just
missed them! If you'd been looking over there,
{points random direction} you would have seen them!]

The basic problem of early human perception--

Here is the paradox: evolution teaches 'we' are the most intelligent
humans to ever walk the earth. Our ancestors were less so, and
were essentially superstitious simpletons.

Scripture, however, clearly teaches that:
Humans were very intelligent.
They were first farmers, then hunters.
By the second generation they were building cities.

And there is nothing unscientific about these assertions!

Here, an attempt is being made to establish that every living
thing is in a process of degeneration, and not evolving.

Modern humans are weak, they have short life-spans, etc.

THE SCIENCE IN THE NEXT SEGMENT IS STILL
FULLY VALID, BUT IT IS TO BE READ IN A LESS
ACADEMIC SENSE.

Evolution has a huge wall in front of it.
On this wall is written:
GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT
Effect is never greater than cause.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

These respected facts are rudely shoved aside when Evolution
enters the room. Evolution says:

Effect is greater than cause - you put in ooze, you get out Nobel
Prize winner.
Garbage, if you bash it with natural selection long enough, will
eventually turn into...something.
"What second law?"

How many people remember the Tim Allen film: The Santa Clause?

Well, people like to equate God with Santa, but Santa is actually a fantastic
type for Evolution.

"How does Santa get around the world to X billion children in one night?"

= "How does Santa...sorry, the 'soup' turn from lifeless chemicals - something
science cannot duplicate?

Answer:

"Well, the rules of physics and time don't apply to Santa."

"Since we don't know the exact conditions present at the time of the
event, we cannot be certain. And, the rules of chemistry might not have
been formed at this point."

Seriously....

Natural selection--
Is a sieve, but can a sieve make a cake? No...that takes intelligence.

Cake making, evolutionary style:

Grab all your ingredients.
Throw them around a bit. (Universe forming)
Find as many lethal chemical substances as possible, and
start scattering them around the kitchen at random.
(This simulates any of the chemicals, which, if they
are present, shatters any hypothetical formulas for
creating life. Aka. kills the cook.)
Stand absolutely still. Remember, this cake is
going to make itself. Now wait.
70 odd hours later, you will pass out.
Get up again. Prop yourself up, and keep watching.
Is that cake ever going to make itself?
No. And that is exactly evolution's problem.
Actually...we haven't even GOT a cake yet....
so the sieve "natural selection" never even appears....

Other thoughts--
Speaking in another context, but very relevant:

"Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue
is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get
anything published by a journal today, you will run up
against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down."
--Nobel Prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle.

Education:
The 'modern' teaching methods come straight from Nazi Germany.
They are essentially mind control techniques, and anyone
denying this is badly deluded.

Example:
If a student is required, every day, for the X amount of years the
education system has a hold upon him or her, to write things like:

"80 billion years ago, X happened."

the student will eventually, unless they have parents able to correct them,
come to believe these things. And, this is why, in no minced words,
telling children "we always know better than your parents" one of the most
evil, totalitarian, destructive things a government can do.

If it keeps up, every nation will begin to mirror Nazi Germany.
They were told their parents were superstitious fools, who would be
swept away with the new order.

A great sickness is pervading society, and the education system
is certainly not helping! If you were an American educated during
the seventies and eighties, do you remember those nice little questions
you were asked? Like:

"If you have a nuclear bomb shelter which can only hold 3, and you have 4
people - a baseballer, a pregnant woman, a pastor, a physicist, and a writer.
(Insert whatever they substituted) BUT, there was always a religious figure.

And, naturally, the children would be carefully told that, basically, the pastor
was least desirable, mixed in with a few others. (Sometimes they were
[maybe still are!] required to cull down a list of about 6. Christians always
got left outside.

Other minor points:

Sea life fossils atop mountains is perfectly suited to a global flood.
Think what happens when you fill something with sand, then add
little stones. When you press down, mountains form. And, with them,
the stones [sea life] are pushed up also.

Strata:
The problem with strata is that they not only indicate time, as evolutionists
claim, but they often indicate density, as well.

Think of the classic 'jar' experiment. Take a clear glass jar; add rocks, sand,
na, na, na. And then fill with water. Screw on lid, then shake. Let alone
for a few hours, then check. Based on density and such, clear strata will
have formed. And, if you drain away the water, you are left with dry layers.

There is nothing scientific about chanting "billions of years, billions of years."
over and over like a 'broken record'.

There are other things, such as unfossilised T-Rex bone, and many other
things which leave evolution without a leg to stand on. It is my regret that
I only have limited time and space.

And, there is a book named "The Dawkins Delusion?" En.wikipedia.org
I am told it is very good.

SUMMARY:
I have done what I can, researching these things for some time.
The rest is up to the individual. I do not wish to violently debate
the issues I have raised, but I sincerely hope that through what
I have done here, I will be a light unto the world, showing people
the truth. I cannot close without saying this:

All have sinned and therefore are worthy of the punishment demanded
by their just and great creator; however, through the sacrifice of his
only begotten son, Jesus, the Christ - we are redeemed of our sins which
would otherwise drag us down into eternal torment in separation from
God. And, all who repent of their sins and trust in the promise of Christ
will not suffer, but shall have everlasting life.

If you one who calls themselves "Christian", then I urge you to follow
your master's command to be discerning in ALL things, so that
you might not be led into deception, as is written shall happen to
many.

Robert-33
Draft-1

wall of text anyone O.o
i dont believe anything that is in the bible :s
the events did happen only they are higly exagerated (like the moses story, he doesent devide the see, it just wasnt flood + 'bump' in the sand below and it looked like it was splitting while in reality the sea was just retreating for a while (sounds like its a dude now lol))
so anything you say about the bible means nothing to me

If you one who calls themselves "Christian", then I urge you to follow
your master's command to be discerning in ALL things, so that
you might not be led into deception, as is written shall happen to
many.

let me guess, darwins evolution theory is evil :/

And, there is a book named "The Dawkins Delusion?" En.wikipedia.org
I am told it is very good.

the only reason its 'good' is because it bashes a book that says that god does not exist :/
i dont have anything against religion (well not alot) but stuff like this makes me hate it
i mean, the god delusion book is just the opinion of the writer in a book
to me it actualy looks like christianity wants to surpress any public opinions that say bad about it
they wrote 2 books, both bashing dawkins (the writer of the god delusion) so the only reason they wrote it was to crash dawkins reputation (same thing they tried to do to edgar allan poe, they tried it after his death tough)

I have done what I can, researching these things for some time.
The rest is up to the individual. I do not wish to violently debate
the issues I have raised, but I sincerely hope that through what
I have done here, I will be a light unto the world, showing people
the truth. I cannot close without saying this: All have sinned and therefore are worthy of the punishment demanded
by their just and great creator; however, through the sacrifice of his
only begotten son, Jesus, the Christ - we are redeemed of our sins which
would otherwise drag us down into eternal torment in separation from
God. And, all who repent of their sins and trust in the promise of Christ
will not suffer, but shall have everlasting life.

If you one who calls themselves "Christian", then I urge you to follow
your master's command to be discerning in ALL things, so that
you might not be led into deception, as is written shall happen to
many.

this is the biggest cr...ok im not gonna say it but its still true
so if we dont pray and listen to god we will be send down to eternal damnation huh...ok gotcha
see ya in hell then :/

for the record im not anti-religion per se (it gives hope to people wich is important, but it also has alot of bad points) im just against writings like this
when i read it i feel alot like they are trying to convert me :/ they shouldnt try to convert people, if they want to join then they will join
sayinghow they will end up in hell if they dont join is verry oppressing to me
+ if something has been proven with enough evidence, then there is a reason why its proven.
you just go in against logic, and the only evidence you have are writings and so from people who believe in god (or fanatics in the case of the book thingy (at least they are to me))
you should get opinions/writings/books of more people, not only christians

there is said it >.> dont ban me just my opinion, its not a attack

Robert-33 wrote: One other thing:
Sunscreen - it contains petrochemicals...and you
put it on your skin.

i can ignore all the other insipid rantings but i'd like to call you out on this. try living in a nation with significantly increased UV exposure as a person of fair skin without sunscreen. enjoy your early death.

Robert-33 wrote: Evolution: This is a strong issue. But the answer is simple. Nothing has ever evolved - there is no evidence of any creature at any point in history evolving to a higher form - in opposition, modern genetic creatures are actually decaying in genetic integrity You can believe whatever you like. And, evolution is an easy master - it won't judge you or send you to burn in never-ending torment for your sins.

Not that i nessesarily agree with your "logic" but ill try to defend your position. Take Pascals wager:

" 2. The Argument from Superdominance Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. There are exegetical problems already here, partly because Pascal appears to contradict himself. He speaks of “the true” as something that you can “lose”, and “error” as something “to shun”. Yet he goes on to claim that if you lose the wager that God is, then “you lose nothing”. Surely in that case you “lose the true”, which is just to say that you have made an error. Pascal believes, of course, that the existence of God is “the true” — but that is not something that he can appeal to in this argument. Moreover, it is not because “you must of necessity choose” that “your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other”. Rather, by Pascal's own account, it is because “[r]eason can decide nothing here”. (If it could, then it might well be shocked — namely, if you chose in a way contrary to it.)"  

this is taken from Plato.stanford.edu

 

So if you believe god exists and he doesn't then all you lose is the time you "wasted" worshiping him, if he is true and you believe that he is (and follow his rules...so on and so forth) then you will (presumably) go to heaven. If you believe he is not true and he is not true then you gain the time you spent not worshiping/ doing stuff for him. If you don't believe and he is real then you will (presumably) be sent to hell and spend eternity in misery. Given that the risk is greatly skewed to not believing and following his word, the only rational option is to believe.

 

About sunscreen:

Everything is bad in excess, but sunscreen does more good then bad. If we didn't have sunscreen we would be more prone to skin cancer (which is greatly on the rise). I am sure that if you constantly add sunscreen to your skin you would have some adverse side effects...maybe sun deprivation if you add an ungodly amount. True there are chemicals in sunscreen but most products have chemicals. Protect yourself from cancer and horrible burns, or from a minute risk? Seems pretty simple to me, USE SUNSCREEN

Edited by: shumo154

shumo154 wrote: the only rational option is to believe.

In which? Most faiths possess direct contradiction with one another to the extent only one may be true (certain, less-mainstream possibilities though do not, the world is primarily Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or Jew), yet all have the sizable possibility of being false. Especially if, by Pascal's own assertion, reason cannot decide this position, which means evidence does not support belief to the neutral observer, then this chance of a particular choice being false and still condemning you is extraordinarily high. This extends in that there exist more potential choices than potential observers of those choices, which means you cannot choose are the wager is null.

However, he plays a dangerous game by most accounts of anthropomorphic powers, as possessing faith is the requirement. I fail to see how such an omniscient being would accept hedging bets as genuine faith. One would need a caveat regarding intellectual honesty, in which case the honest position is to not declare belief and the purpose of the wager is still null.

But, if you ignore those, the problem still returns that Pascal is wagering an infinite gain versus a non-existent loss, while the reality is a supposed infinite gain versus an infinitely greater loss. That is, we know time exists in all manners which are useful to say exists, and if you waste this time in worship then you have lost infinitely more than the person who has not. At best, you arrive at a null once more, though reality favors the fact that time demonstrably exists whilst the other premise is a premise built upon a premise built upon a premise. No one knows if such a heaven exists nor how this would be obtained.

Arguing more with the general notion of Pascal's Wager than you, obviously, but I thought to squelch that rather quickly.

shit.... I'm sure I have seen this before in a movie or something... I cant quite remember... it seems my mind is clouded by a strange.... MIST...

well played vangor

It is hard to know which (if any) religion is true. Everything can be partly discredited through mistranslation or even foul play from early on.No matter what we have a great possibility of being screwed. All we really can do is to live life to the fullest. Whoever or whatever you may believe in, it helps to think that we are not just here randomly out of pure luck from evolution. I am sure it is possible, but i really don't want to believe that i came from an ameba or bacteria that evolved hundreds of billions of years ago.

on a side note, that isn't my argument, i was just trying to give the other guy a small amount of support since this forum mostly goes against his views (as do i). It is good to see how others view our world, and to try to understand their thought processes. I do somewhat believe in evolution, but i wish it wasn't true.

shumo154 wrote: I do somewhat believe in evolution, but i wish it wasn't true.

Why do you believe rather than strive to comprehend the reality of the situation (I believe you mean the second much more, just noting)? As well, why wish it was not true? What is particularly abhorrent regarding a process of gradual, cumulative-selection driven development? From where I sit, this parallels well our development as an organism since conception, our development of civilization since the most primitive familial groups, and our development as people as we engage the world with a perception of increasing experience.

But, I knew that was not something you were arguing with but playing Devil's Advocate.

yes it is a great feat for a fungi like organism or an amebia to possibly evolve into an organism with our capability. If true it would mean that anything truly is possible if given enough time. The only problem is our apparent lack of a true purpose or "meaning"...i will end this here as it is crossing over with another topic.

Yes i was trying to give a helping hand to the other side. I try to see others views as i would like them to see my views : with an open mind.

recant: i do believe in evolution, but it would be better if it truly was intelligent design. I will be gone till monday

shumo154 wrote: The only problem is our apparent lack of a true purpose or "meaning"

I've yet to find anyone place forth a convincing reason that purpose applied by another being, even an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator, grants any meaning which is distinct from personal purpose. Purpose in either case is arbitrarily defined and has nothing unique; why do you feel better to be the pawn in chess than sitting behind the board playing against equals? (I am certain someone will take this out of context, but this is a discussion on purpose alone, nothing else)

That is to say that we are the highest beings in the universe. No one is sure what else exists, or if we are or aren't "pawns" in someones or somethings game of chess. Even if we are, do we have the capacity to realize that we are. If we are "pawns" who is playing with us, and who are we playing against?(probably taken out of context.) To say that we are equal to an all powerful force is naive and dangerous.... lets move back to the original 3 or 5 topics please.. this is somewhat spilling into a different forum topic, if you want to debate this further take it there or message me.

If there are higher beings, I think we would be about as capable to understand or recognize it as an ant is capable of recognizing us as living, intelligent creatures. It's not in their design to comprehend us, just as it isn't within our limits to understand something as complex as a "god" or it's motives/reasoning.

Edited by: Tokoya

frosty-theaussie wrote:

i can ignore all the other insipid rantings but i'd like to call you out on this. try living in a nation with significantly increased UV exposure as a person of fair skin without sunscreen. enjoy your early death.

Dork, (I don't mean that meanly) did you even investigate my origins?

Sunscreen, ironically, was linked to DIRECTLY CAUSING skin cancer. I mean, in case you aren't paying attention, I have just as much scientific support as any of my opponents, but my sources are simply different. I mentioned the Dawkins Delusion

because it is a well written book by a man with impeccible credentials. That's all.

Edited by: Robert-33

Robert-33 wrote: Sunscreen, ironically, was linked to DIRECTLY CAUSING skin cancer.

so is.. THE SUN.

Basically we are all doomed to get skin cancer. So what, do you have an alternative to sunscreen robert, or are you just rambling on about a problem with no current solution.

Robert-33 wrote: Sunscreen, ironically, was linked to DIRECTLY CAUSING skin cancer.

Cite sources for direct causation as that's a massive claim; sunscreen usage has a higher correlation of skin cancer occurrence compared to those who avoid excess, direct sun exposure.

Agreed, where are your sources, and what are your alternatives?