Want Some Answers ???

Hello there

It doesn't matter what I write you disagree. And that's true again. So why do I write to one who won't listen? Maybe this is the last time. You wrote,

>>Thank you so much for moving our discussion in this direction. While I am confident that Creation Science cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and I can therefore refute your scientific evidence for Creation, it was getting quite time-consuming.<<

You decided to "skip over" and since discussion has become pointless it's the only direction to go. You disagree with everything I write on principle. I'm convinced that evolution is a religion and unsupported by science (and more convinced than ever) after reading the defenders of evolutionary philosophy.

>>I hope that my refutation of some of the 'facts' of Creation Science, such as the existence of dinosaur and man footprints, and the trilobite-in-a-footprint fallacy has not caused you too much distress.<<

The "trilobite-in-a-footprint" is not a "fallacy" I'll seen the pictures. Nothing you have written has made me think 'perhaps God used evolution'. Sorry but you are not convincing on any point we discussed. You wrote,

>>I too think that belief in God is the central issue in the Creation - Evolution controversy.  So it is extremely appropriate that we discuss it here.<<

Yes although scientific facts are convincing of themselves against the theory of evolution. But that doesn't matter because "you would reject anything I write or quote so it's becoming pointless in going over the same details."  You wrote,

>>Excellent. Good idea. I don't reject those things you 'write or quote', I show that they are not correct, IMNVOO (In my not very objective opinion). :-) Similarly you refuse to examine the scientific details of evolution, only the FAKED 'scientific' stories of 'special creation'. But never mind that.<<

But you do "reject" my quotes from experts. I didn't "refuse to examine" anything. I examined all the matters raised. I mentioned that the only reasonable explanation of the world and the existence of life on earth is that there's a God. You call that "a religious faith" but when I look around, I find there is design, order and laws in great abundance. Design is not a religious viewpoint but a statement of observation and fact.  I understand design order and laws because I use them everyday with my mind. I know they don't  just happen by chance, no matter what any say. To that you wrote,

>>That's absolutely correct:  you believe in Design because of your religious faith. That's fine.  I respect that.  I don't agree, but I DO repect that. Some of my friends are in the same position as you, belief-wise, and they're still my friends; I accept their beliefs.<<

The observation of "design" in the world is not "religious faith". There's design everywhere and it's a statement of fact. One doesn't need to be religious to see and understand design, order and laws. But one must be religious to deny it regardless of the facts. Because I use design, order and various laws everyday - with my mind - obviously (to me) it appears there is a mind behind the design, order and laws found in creation. You wrote,

>>What's not fine is speading lies about evolution (that it is demonstrably wrong, both scientifically and morally) to people who don't know enough science to do what I do (refute your claims).<<

Anything I write or quote is regarded as a "lie" by you. As I said, regardless of what I say, and quote, you find a reason why it's wrong, and on principle. I wrote that you appear confused about life, God, and man. You answered,

>>I believe in an objective truth.  Facts are either right or wrong. Sometimes, you can't know.  But they are either wrong or right.  That is how I was able to dismantle your Creation Science arguments:  because they are objectively incorrect (scientifically speaking)..You ask the question:  "who knows the truth"?  Nobody. Maybe you think you do, but you cannot prove it. There is always doubt.<<

No you don't know what you believe. Your idea of truth is "facts that are either right or wrong" but they are only 'right or wrong' according to the way you interpret them. In other words, truth relates to how much you know at a given time. For you truth is relative. You can never be sure about anything there's "always doubt". There's no ultimate truth in your confused world or that truth can be absolutely known.  That idea comes from an anti-Biblical philosophy, which holds that everything is relative. As for knowing "the truth" I'll come back to that. You wrote,

>>I do not think I am confused about life, God and man. I was bought up in a Christian environment. I understand the concept of God. I understand how life works, at least more than many people in this day and age. And I think I have at least a basic understanding of how people (man) work, too.<<

Yet you have rejected the Christian perspective about "life, God and man". And adopted a view that holds truth as relative. You can never be sure about anything, even the things you claim to "understand".  So you are confused about life, God, man and what's true. You don't know what is true. Which proves the fact living in a "Christian environment" doesn't' make one a Christian. You wrote,

>>Can you please summarise the truth found in the Bible for me?  I need to know how you interpret the Bible, for us to have a meaningful discussion.<<

How can we 'know' the truth? Jesus said, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. [Jn.14:6].  You wrote,

>>Do you deny that God is a religious idea?  Isn't he?  Isn't all Christian-based religion based around the Judaeo-Christian God?  God is at least associated with Religion.<<

As I said, when I say "God" you haven't a clue who or what I refer to. It's all confusing, a "religious idea". So you have no bases for answers to problems in society and your own life. God is a Person and only known and revealed through the Word of God - Christ. If you want to know the truth or who God is, then you must come (like the rest of us) through Christ. You wrote,

>>Evolution can help explain why death occurs, but does not make a judgement that it is 'good'.  No human being in their right mind thinks that death is good.<<

Yes "death" in evolutionary philosophy isn't good. Yet evolutionists believe it's how one species can develop into another [Hitler had the idea]. Death is an undisputed essential factor in evolution. Biologist H.Mohr states, "If there were no death, then no life would have existed. There is no other way around this axiom of evolutionary theory" [Human Evolution Heren Text 1983 pg12]. Aggression is the flywheel that actually set evolution in motion. The fist is the active instrument and proof of becoming human. Murder, hate and aggression are the eggshells of evolution without which men would not have developed. It regards death, suffering and struggle as good, helping evolution along.

Evolution is not wonderful it's gruesome. The way of development entailed an appalling measure of pain and sorrow. The Biblical testimony concerning God's nature is distorted when death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles. If God exists, evolution is nonsense. Why? Because God is perfect "in Him is no sin" [1 Jn.3:4]. When a God with that character creates something, it can only be perfect [Deut.32:4] and very 'good' [Gen.1:31].

The Bible says repeatedly man needs a Saviour. Evolution preaches the opposite; nature is red in tooth and claw. The Bibles position is very clear - death is not the result of living for a long time, but the penalty we pay for having sinned. Jesus Christ, the Creator (made flesh) shed His blood in death to redeem/restore sinners and ultimately to liberate the whole universe from this curse of death and bloodshed brought in by Adam. If the evolutionary story were true, the whole point of the Gospel ('good news') message would be lost, because Adam's predecessors would then have been clawing or clubbing each other to death in a world of bloodshed.  I mentioned, "evolution has no good explanation" for life. You replied,

>>That's right. And you know why? Because evolution is ONLY a scientific theory. It is not a way to live your life. It is not a philosophy. Atheists in general believe in evolution.  But that does NOT make evolution = atheism (to me, anyway). You are talking about the 'atheistic, materialist worldview', I think. Why not refer to it as atheism?<<

It's an anti-Biblical philosophy which holds that everything is relative. A theory people "believe in". Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Diobzhansky (The American Biology Teacher, Vol.35 No.3 Mar. 1973, pg.129) quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in Jn 8:12  "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

Man has been in confusion about who  he is, who God is, what's right or wrong, what love is, and what life's all about. Man has been at war with himself and his neighbour ever since he fell into sin. The Bible has the answer's why. I agree with you, evolution has no answers, it's "ONLY" a theory. Yet people base life on it and teach it as if the ultimate truth.

I mentioned that because man disobeyed God in the Garden he's now become a sinner and enslaved to sin. Sin blinds man to the truth it makes him hostile and separates him from God. Evolutionary philosophy doesn't tell you this it doesn't help at all. The fact we are God's creatures and have a fallen sinful nature explains a lot. You replied,

>>So atheists are the biggest sinners of all, I see. I don't agree.  Your religion is so negative - sin, sin, sin.  Its all a big system to make people fear the consequences of not believing in any particular brand of Christianity.<<

No, no. In God's eyes all sin is the same and all are guilty. Rom 3:9-10 "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one".  So all are sinners. Only when we realise we're the "biggest sinner" and need a Saviour can God can help us. The consequences of our repentance to God means life becomes 'positive, positive, positive. So what's your answer to life and all the things I need to know? You replied,

>>No, evolution doesn't help with any of that. Its just a scientific theory. I hope I've explained to you how it is a successful, beautiful theory, but it is ONLY a theory.  Nobody lives their lives by evolution! Wanting evolution to tell you anything about 'sin' is asking far too much of any scientific theory!<<

If only a theory, why should it be promoted so dogmatically? It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion.  You say, "Nobody lives their lives by evolution" But they do. It's the foundation for lawlessness, homosexuality, pornography, abortion etc. Creation is the bases for laws, marriage, standards and meaning of life. It all depends on what your foundation is. If you accept a belief in God as Creator, then you accept that there are laws, since He is the Lawgiver. God's Law is the reflection of His holy character. He is the Absolute Authority, and we are under total obligation to Him. Laws are not a matter of our opinion but rules given by the One who has the right to impose them upon us for our good, and His own glory. He gives us principles as a basis for building our thinking in every area.

 Accepting the God of Creation tells us what life is all about. We know that God is the Life-giver. We know that life has meaning and purpose and we know humans are created in the image of God and so have value and significance. God made us so that He could relate to us, love us and pour out His blessing on us and so we could love Him in return.

On the other hand, if you reject God and replace Him with another belief that puts chance, random processes in the place of God, there is no basis for right or wrong. Rules become whatever you want to make them. There are no absolutes-no principles that must be adhered to. People will write their own rules. It must be understood that our world-view is inevitably affected by what we believe concerning our origins and our destiny.

As the creation foundation is removed, Godly institutions start to collapse. But with the evolution foundation, the structures built on that foundation-lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc., increase.  Many recognize the degeneration occurring in society - the collapse in Christian ethics and increase in anti-God philosophies, but don't know why. Because they don't understand the foundational nature of the battle. Creation vs evolutionary philosophy.

 I mentioned you will question this, reject that and share opinions, but ultimately remain hostile to the truth and God. You replied,

>>Hmm. Am I HOSTILE to 'the truth and God'? I don't think I am. I don't go around attacking Christians or burning Bibles. I have considered having vigourous arguments with those annoying street preachers about the 'literal truth' of Genesis, but I haven't done so yet. I am not behaviourally hostile to 'the truth and God'. I AM hostile to people who ATTACK science and try to destroy it in a fatuous attempt to further their own narrow brand of fundamentalism.<<

You are confused and all over the place. You can't even write one paragraph before you state how "HOSTILE" you are.  You write further on - "OK, fine, maybe I am a little hostile to Christianity" and then provide a web page address to prove it There's no doubt in my mind you are hostile to the truth and God. The Bible says, "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" [Rom 8:7]. Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters"  [Mat.12:30].  The Bible correctly reveals the nature of men today. You wrote,

>>But with my friends I repect Christian beliefs.  I personally reject them, yes.  But I do not attack those beliefs without provocation. I don't think ANYBODY has final authority in their understanding of the Universe.  They might THINK they do, but how can they prove it? They can't. Philosophically, it is impossible!<<

Yes you have no "final authority" regarding anything. Nothing can be known, nothing can be proved, what a contradiction to claim to be absolutely sure about evolutionary philosophy? And you reject the higher Authority of God. Unfortunately, you start and end with the words of men and reject what the Bible states. What an arrogant position the unbeliever has?  You wrote,

>>Fundamentalists have a strongly belief in the need to obey authorities<<

Everybody must 'obey authorities'. But Christians must be prepared to come totally under God's authority and listen to Him. Christians have the conviction that arises from the Holy Spirit, that the Bible is the infallible, authoritative Word of God - otherwise, we have nothing. If the Bible is to be questioned and cannot be trusted and continually subject to reinterpretation based on what men think they know, then we don't have an absolute authority. We don't have the Word of the One who knows everything so we have no basis for anything. Truth is spiritually discerned. That's why without the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit there can be no real understanding.

If there's no God, there's no final authority. Nothings absolutely right or wrong. When absolutes are ignored, nations, business, society, families break-down and we feel a sense of injustice.
You: "There are no absolutes".
Me:  "Are you sure ? "
You: "Yes"
Me: "Are you 100% sure ?
You: "Yes absolutely"
One can't say there's no absolutes or final authority without contradiction. If there's no absolutes or ultimate values, the worlds a mad-house, because millions pursue them everyday. You wrote,

>>The Old Testament is a narrow book based around a Middle Eastern tribe. It reveals their two contradictory Creation myths, their barbaric nature and the way that their violent disposition and horrid laws were reflected in their powerful god. The New Testament is a much more recent creation. A cult formed by some strange events (since blown up all out of proportion) placed itself to take advantage of the old beliefs on the Hebrews and used classic cult-creation techniques to make a powerfully virulent religion.<<

I didn't know you were an expert on the Bible? When did this happen? Please supply some Bible verses to prove these strange claims. You wrote,

>>Christianity is racist, extremely sexist, promotes slavery, violence and hate,<<

Only in your confused mind. Obviously you know nothing of what the Bible says. And the way you rubbish Genesis proves you don't know what you write about.  The Bible teaches men are created equal in God's sight. You wouldn't have a clue. Evolutionism is racist. S.J. Gould in Natural History (Ap.1980, p. 144) says "Recapitulation (the evolutionary theory which postulates that a developing embryo in its mother's womb goes through evolutionary stages, such as the fish stage, etc., until it becomes human) provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behaviour in lower races"  (brackets mine). Gould also concludes that the term  "mongoloid"  became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid.

So some thought a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution. The leading American paleontologist of the first half of the 20th century, H.F. Osborne, says "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian.... The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old of the species Homo sapiens"  (Natural History, Ap.1980, p. 129).

Sexist? Promotes violence? Nonsense. Jesus says,  "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" [Mt.5:44].  Mt.5:46  "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" Mt.22:39  And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  Jn.13:34  "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Rom.12:9-10 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves". 1 Cor.13:4-6  " Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth". You say the Bible,

>>accuses everyone in the world of being a terrible sinner,<<

Yes indeed. "The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin" [Gal 3:22].   And, "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" [Rom 6:23]. So "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." [Rom 4:8]. And you say the Bible,

>>tells all non-believers that they will be supernaturally tortured to the extent of pain beyond belief FOR ETERNITY. For its followers it promises nothing but a lifetime of 'testing' by their god, hate from non-believers (easily imagined if its actuality is not strong enough) and an eternity of worshipping their self-proclaimed Angry, Jealous god.<<

Could you provide some verses to prove each of these ideas you have? You wrote,

>>It also contains hundreds of straight errors (in the orignal text, no less) and many straight contradictions which believers  can only reconcile by carefully 'interpreting' scripture<<

And please, show me the errors from "the original text" and "straight contradictions".  Concerning, 'interpreting' the Bible says that Scripture is not a "private interpretation". [2 Pet 1:20]. I mentioned, Christ came into my life; He changed me and turned me around [for the better]. You wrote,

>>Most people who 'come to Christ' are drawn in in this manner. They are at a bad time in their life, and the religion offers them hope. As their attitude changes, and they recieve Church help, their lives get better. This improvement is attributed to their new beliefs... 'slowly'? Shouldn't a powerful God be able to make your life immensely better the moment that you accept Christ into your heart<<

Not all who 'comes to Christ' do because of a 'bad time in life'. There's many reasons and they vary with each. But all must come admitting they need a Saviour. And all must have the spiritual birth, which places them into God's family. Growth as a child of God continues all life. Five things make a Christian grow strong - [1] Prayer [2] Reading the Bible [3] Sharing their faith [4] Keeping company with other Christians [5] Using their heads. I mentioned that God's love showed His love for us by sending His Son to die on the cross as payment for our sin to bring us back to Himself. This world running down, God will make another where there is no sin and death. He has promised this in His Word - the Bible. You replied,

>>The only record of this is the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less. I can present many books which suggest that the Bible isn't true. Wouldn't you agree that a mere book (no matter its antiquity) is not good enough to base ANY decision on?<<

The Bible has been closely, carefully and critically examined yet survived with greater dependability. It's accurate and not waiting to be verified by science. In fact, geological research is a slow and devious method when testing the Bible. Science changes, man's knowledge is limited and men misread facts, yet the Bible has proven true prophetically, geographically and historically. Usually those who don't believe the Bible is God's Word don't know enough about it. Usually those who don't know enough about the Bible don't know God.

 The reason we know God exists is that He has told us so, and He has revealed Himself to us. He has told us all about who He is, what He is like and what His plan is for planet earth. He's revealed these things through the Bible. There's less reason today for rejecting the truth of the Bible than ever before. We know so much more about the Bible. Once our society was once based on Christian absolutes. People knew what was right and wrong. Values were built on Biblical principles (ie, The Ten Commandments). Most people accepted or respected a belief in God. You replied,

>>Was it? Laws were built on the Bible, yes, because when they were written that is what was right. Since then, many laws have changed, for example anti-homosexuality laws. Laws have also changed to prevent the death penalty (surely a biblical punishment) because that is WRONG<<

Yes laws are changing. Yet behavior you might think "WRONG" are not regarded wrong any more. Such as sexual deviancy, public lawlessness, etc. Recently more and more people have rejected the God of the Bible. As belief in God has been abandoned, people have questioned the basis of the society in which they live. So they don't obey the Ten Commandments any more. Why should anyone say that homosexuality is wrong? Why shouldn't women be allowed to have abortions whenever they desire? Once people eliminated God from their conscience, they set about to change any laws based on Christian absolutes that held God as Creator (and thus Owner) of everything. You wrote,

>>I don't think 'people' have said that at all. The Ten Commandments, on the whole, were the expression of universal social and moral values (don't kill, steal, etc.) They have NOT been abandoned. Every rational person obeys universal social and moral values.<<

They have been abandoned. But it wouldn't matter what the evidence is, or what I say you disagree. Where do the "universal social and moral values" come from? Do we make them up to suit? Just because for you there's no absolutes not everyone believes that.  Most people have a good sense of right and wrong, and a desire to purse absolute truth and right and avoid wrong. God is a Moral Being and created man as a moral being.  Yes men  know intuitively there is a difference between right and wrong, even though they may not agree as to the precise definitions. The Bible describes this as conscience given by God, commonly inherited in all. It tells us what we are and ought to be and if we don't measure up we feel guilt and fear punishment.  When two argue, each claims to be right and have an ultimate standard they're closer to than the other. The Creator then, isn't an inanimate force but a moral being and must have standards.

I mentioned that Christian absolutes have been diluted or removed as the basis of society and replaced with a world view that says, "We do not have to accept that the Christian way of doing things (basing our world and life view on Biblical principles) is the only way; we must tolerate all religious beliefs and ways of life." However, this "tolerance" really means an intolerance of the absolutes of Christianity. You respond,

>>It means that your narrow, restrictive (and destructive) 'Christian absolutes' did not have to be held to be the truth. It does not mean intolerance. Christianity as a whole has to understand, that to recieve tolerance IT has to tolerate OTHER beliefs.<<

Yes, 'thou shalt not murder' is very "narrow and restrictive". Murder is common place these days. Perhaps we should be more "tolerant"?  Like those Nazi's who believed [based on evolution] that killing Jews was really the only solution for those 'destructive' Jews who were a problem. Your problem is you don't have 'truth' it's only what you interpret as true. You wrote,

>>Outlawing Christianity will NOT occur! Don't be so pessimistic! Won't your God protect his own religion!? "If God be for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31, Dr Purchase. Have a little faith!<<

 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" [Mt.24:9]. In context Rom.8:31 says that nothing, and no one can stand between the child of God and God's love "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies...Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? [Rom.8:33,35].  You seem to forget Christianity was once 'outlawed' and a crime. You wrote,

>>My own unbelief centers around the ridiculousness of Genesis. If Genesis is not true, then the rest of the Bible does not have to be true either. In some ways, I would love to still be a convinced Christian. It would make living so much easier, answer several important questions, and provide a very definitie direction for my talents and intelligence.  But I cannot be a convinced Christian because Genesis cannot be true. In fact, the rest of the Bible also has many contradictions. Did Saul have four or forty thousand horses/chariots?  Look it up!<<

"Saul" is not mentioned in Genesis. What information have you provided regarding "the ridiculousness of Genesis"? Nothing! Like I said, you believe what you want, so you can do what you like. No skeptic yet has provided anything that makes me doubt the truthfulness of Genesis. Darwin called this struggle to the death "natural selection" and offered his theory as a substitute for the Creator.

Evolutionists later added accidental changes in heredity (mutations) to their theory. But death and accident do not create: instead they bring disease, defects, death and decay into the world God created.  After mankind's sin and rebellion (the Fall) the earth became so filled with violence and corruption God destroyed it with a flood and gave it a fresh start with Noah, his family and the animals in the ark. Fossils- 'billions of dead things buried in rock layers which were laid down by water all over the earth' - speak of God's judgment on sin. They show well-preserved soft parts requiring rapid hardening of sediment [for their own existence] and rapid burial. You don't want to think about God's judgment but live in a world of dreams. Genesis really throws your world up side down, no wonder you never read it and shut it out of mind.

Yes atheists realize the inconsistency in Christians' believing in evolutionary philosophy. G.R. Bozarth "The Meaning of Evolution"  The American Atheist, Sept.1978, pg.19 says, "Christianity is-must be-totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with all its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution....It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicted on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None." You wrote,

>>Check out this site:  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The ENTIRE Bible - marked with discredits! Heres just ONE example: Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." So Paul simutaneously condemns homosexuality (hardly a PC view!) and states that women's 'natural use' is to be sexual objects for men!<<

Not another silly Sceptic site. If you are looking for truth, as you claimed [although I doubt it] why not read the Bible? Oh, I know. You only want comments from idiots who rubbish it.  I have never meet a sceptic who is a professional or knows much about anything of great value. Such a notion that Paul regarded "women's 'natural use' is to be sexual objects for men" is nonsense.  Paul wrote, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" [1 Cor.6:18].  Jesus said,  "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,  greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean' [Mk.7:21-23].

I mentioned most people have the wrong idea about the creation - evolution question and deceived that evolution is science. It's not science, it's a belief system about the past. We don't  have access to the past, only the present. All fossils, living animals, plants, our planet, the universe, everything exists in the  present. We cannot directly test the past using the scientific method (which  involves repeating things and watching them happen) since all evidence that  we have is in the present. You wrote,

>>Obviously I don't share your perceptions there. You know in your own mind my beliefs on this issue. Writing more would be a waste of time and energy. Well, OK, maybe I'll just state that evolution IS a science!  Some parts of evolution are based on 'historical science', yes, but some of its predictions CAN be experimented with (and shown to be true, for example speciation events and beneficial mutations have been observed in the laboratory).<<

Evolution is NOT science it is a theory. It's a philosophy without proof. Even Darwin said before his book was published - "You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." Darwin, 1858, in a letter regarding "Origin of Species". Quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 Feb.1984.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. S. Lipson, FRS (Prof. of Physics, Unis. of Manchester) "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin", vol. 31, 1980, p.138.

Is evolution a fact? or a faith?  "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." L.H. Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, Lon, 1971, p. xi.

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." H.P.Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland), "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory". "Journal of Theoretical Biology", vol. 67, 1977, p.396.

I mentioned that special creation, by definition, is a belief about the past. The difference is that creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book which claims to be the Word of the One who was there, who knows everything there is to know about everything, and who tells us what happened. Evolution comes from the words of men who were not there and don't claim omniscience. This whole issue revolves around whether we believe the words of God who was there, or the words of fallible humans (no matter how qualified) who were not there. You replied,

>>Wow! Thanks Dr. Purhase. I shall cherish that sentence for the rest of my life.  "I admit that you are correct." Fascinating. A Creationist acutally admitting that his beliefs are just that, beliefs rather than science! And what is more - you actually use the phrase 'a book which claims' to describe the  Bible!  Wow! Are Dr Purchase's beliefs weaking? Shock, horror! :-)<<

Admitting that someone is correct is not weak. If you are correct about anything, why not say so? I admit where I'm wrong something you can never do. Instead of you convincing me about evolutionary philosophy the opposite is true. So much so, it's hard to give evolution creditability.

But considering what the fossil record is like ... could evolution be admitted to be wrong?  "Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not-as much recent publicity has implied-doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record. Some palaeontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that the fossil record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium'. The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution-whether evolution occurred [sic] at all. This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments-and the present debate within palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution." Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 Jun.1981, p. 830. You wrote,

>>And I think the issue is whether we: a)  believe the Bible, the alledged word of God, when it PROCLAIMS ITSELF isthe word of 'God who was there'. (circular reasoning; logically wrong) or b)  believe thousands of SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS over hundreds of years showing that the evidence favours an evolutionary explanation rather than a supernatural one. (scientific reasoning; logically consistent).<<

Yes the Bible proclaims itself the Word of God. But as to whether "thousands of SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS over hundreds of years" have proved evolution a fact, that's doubtful. How long will it take for you to realise or admit the truth that evolutionary philosophy is a fraud? It can't be observed and can't be tested. And the experts say, "Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.  It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."  Paul Ehrlich (Prof. of Biology, Stanford Univ. and L.C.Birch (Prof. of Biology, Univ. of Sydney), "Evolutionary history and population biology".  "Nature", vol. 214, 22 Ap.1967, p. 352.

I mentioned many people think scientists are someone in a white coat, unbiased, objective & infallible. Yet he is biased (his books) and not objective. He's human and seldom wears a white coat. You reply,

>>Yeah, only chemists wear those geeky white coats.  :-) He's NOT infallible.  Nobody has ever claimed that. How do you define objective? What IS objective? Well, I don't think ANYBODY can be unbiased.  But I really think that if the fossil record strongly spoke out for evolution (Gish:  "The fossils say NO!") then even REALLY biased people would see that. I think that Science as Whole has a self-correcting feature which means that AS A WHOLE it IS objective, unbiased and infallible-over-very-long-periods-of-time.  OK?  Thats my opinion.  Its why I respect Science and defend it and wish to become part of that great institution. Fact:  Some scientists are Christians. Fact:  A tiny amount of scientists are Creationists! Don't THEIR biases bring the 'overall' bias towards 'unbiased'? I KNOW scientists are just like you and me!  I am not a scientist yet, but I will be one day.  In the mindset/belief sense, scientists ARE me. As I say above, Science as a whole is unbiased, pretty objective, etc etc.<<

What confusion abounds. Once you "don't think ANYBODY can be unbiased" next you accusing creation scientists of "THEIR biases". An atheist is one hundred percent biased. You ask, "What IS objective?" only a moment later to claim "it IS objective". You make an excellent evolutionist. But you will find all those who disagree will be fellow evolutionists. Because an atheist is 100% biased. The study of evolution is a study of some of the most bias people that have ever held a theory.  Boucot states - "Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links'. The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping morphologies arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and even for a fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory.  In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory."  A.J. Boucot, Ph.D. (geology) (Prof. of Geology, Oregon State Univ.) in "Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls", Amsterdam, 1975, p. 196.

And so what? "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences." Dr. M.Walker (Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney Univ.), "To have evolved or to have not? That is the question". "Quadrant", Oct.1981, p. 45. Obviously scientists are just like us, with beliefs and biases. A bias determines what you do with evidence, the way we decide that certain evidence is more relevant than other evidence. Scientists are not objective truth-seekers or neutral. You wrote,

>>Don't believe you.  End of story. 'the best bias'!  Only a Creationist in a tryly strained position would even ask this question.  It is pretty obvious which bias you consider to be 'best'. THATS RIGHT!  Revealed Creationists such as yourself are 100% biased.  Case closed.<<

I brought these comments together. One-liners scattered through a few paragraphs. So you are an atheist, who believes there's no God. Can you entertain the question, "Did God create?"  The answer is, "No."  As soon as you allow the question, you're not an atheist. So, to an atheist scientist looking at the fossils and the world around him you're 100% biased.

Like I said, Atheists, agnostics and revelationists (and theists) hold to religious positions, what they do with the evidence is determined by the assumptions (beliefs) of their religious positions. It is not a matter of whether one is biased or not. It's a question of which bias is the best. That's where truth is important. There have been occasions where I've given a convincing answer to Sceptics on the web, but it doesn't matter. They don't think or care. But more interested in silly comments, one liners that don't say anything of value. Mindless is a word that comes to mind when I think of sceptics and atheists. Not that you are, but most are. You wrote,

>>I think that person could consider the idea that God created the world _through_ evolution, etc. Again, I don't believe you.  End of story.<<

Yes some do, but should they? Has God limited power and struggled to create the earth? No!  Unusually those who are being indoctrinated with evolutionary concepts in public schools or universities think God used evolution. But it depends on what is meant by "evolution."  If it's defined simply as "change" [eg, the growth of a baby into an adult, the production of hybrids and other new varieties of plants or animals through scientific breeding processes, or the development of the various types of dogs or cats from one original dog or cat "kind"], then no one would argue.

 But the theory is far broader than that. Evolutionists consider it as a basic principle of continual development, of increasing order and complexity throughout the universe.  The complex elements from simpler elements, living organisms from non-living chemicals, complex from simple life and man from some kind of ape-like ancestor.  Religions, cultures, and other social institutions are likewise believed to be continually evolving into higher forms. So, evolution is actually a complete worldview, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of one who created and upholds all things.  Sure the philosophy [ie "religion"] of universal evolutionary progress is widely taught in schools and some accept the compromise position of "theistic evolution." But I believe that's inconsistent and contradictory.  It contradicts the Bible record of creation.  10 times in Genesis (ch.1) it says God created plants and animals to reproduce "after their kinds." The Biblical "kind" may have been broader than our modern "species" concept, but at least it implied definite limits to variation. The NT writers accepted the full historicity of the Genesis account of creation.  Even Christ Himself quoted from it as historically accurate and authoritative [Mt.19:4-6].

And it's inconsistent with God's methods. The standard history of evolution involves the development of innumerable misfits, mutations, and extinctions, useless and even harmful organisms. If this is God's "method of creation," it is strange that He would use such haphazard, inefficient, wasteful processes.  And the idea of the "survival of the fittest" (where the stronger eliminates the weaker) is the essence of Darwin's theory, this is clearly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, unselfish sacrifice and Christian charity.  The God of the Bible is a One of order, grace and not cruelty. You wrote,

>>1 Question: Did you write back to those people and retract your wildly incorrect 'E. coli genome' and 'Ancient footprints' claims? No? Then they are NOT reasonable answers (overall).<<

That's rude, and after those nasty emails from you and your brother. Shall I relive your apologies? Are you playing a game with no intention of seeking the truth? Just making yourself a nuisance. Perhaps I shouldn't waste time writing, but before I conclude there's a few thoughts.

You have the crazy idea that evolution is a scientific fact. It's not! I know it's accepted as fact by many scientists, but scientific principles are not established by majority vote. Having now looked at one of Morris' books "Scientific  Creationism", [San Diego: Creation-Life Publ, 2nd Edn, 1985) it's probably the most comprehensive scientific critique on all aspects of evolution. There is a significant number of scientists today [thousands] who reject the theory or who regard it as a still unsettled issue.  Even those who accept it, don't accept it because of scientific evidence [which many scientists are only superficially familiar], but because they have been intimidated by the myth all scientists accept evolution! You wrote,

>>Right, good one, quote the Bible why don't you. You don't say anything important in that paragraph<<

Well, I accept that no theory of origins-evolution or special creation or anything else-can possibly be scientific.  "Science" means "knowledge" and by definition means that which we actually know concerning the facts of nature and their interrelationships. The very heart of science is the reproducibility of experiments. That a certain process is observed and measured and then conducted again, and the same results should be seen. So by experimental repetition and verification, a scientific description of a process is eventually developed.  Since it is impossible to repeat the supposed evolutionary history of the world and since no human's were present to observe and record the supposed evolutionary changes, evolution in the broad sense is beyond the scientific method.  The theory then, is not science at all.

The processes of nature today are conservative and decay processes, not creative and developmental. All processes [ie biological and geological] operate within the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, (the two best-proved facts of science). The First is the Law of Mass-Energy Conservation - that nothing is now being created or annihilated.  The Second (Increasing Entropy), indicates that disorder or disorganization of every observable system in the universe tends to grow. So, the basic structure of the universe is not one of continuing "creation" but "conservation." The basic law of change in the universe is not evolutionary development upward but "devolutionary" change downward.

These facts are common every-day experiences, how can one suggest otherwise?  We do see biological variation, but always within limits. No two individuals are exactly alike, even with the same parents. New varieties or species occasional develop (by artificial breeding or natural selection in response to environmental changes), but these are always the same basic "kinds."  Eg, there are dog and cat varieties, but never any kind of new intermediate between dog and cats!  (Or horse and elephant, or ape and man).

 If evolution were true, biologists couldn't develop any kind of classification scheme [ie division of species, genera, families, etc.], because there would a continuous intergrading of all life forms.  And if all living plants and animals had arisen by gradual modification from a common ancestor, they all ought to be exactly alike!  You wrote,

>> One of the reasons why evolutionists have such difficulty in talking to most creationists is because of the way bias has affected the way they hear what we are saying. They already have preconceived ideas about what we do and do not believe. They have prejudices about what they want to understand in regard to our scientific qualifications, and so on. See how easily your own words are turned against you?  Childs play .<<

No not at all.  Special creation by a divine Creator can account for the actual observed facts of nature much better than a hypothetical process of development in the past, contrary to basic known scientific law in the present.  Obviously "similarities" are best explained in terms of a common Designer, who created similar structures for similar functions, rather than by assumed ancestral relationships.

Also, it's reasonable that God would have made for each basic "kind" a genetic system which would permit ample variation in response to environmental changes, even though it must basically continue to "bring forth after its kind" [Gen.1:11, etc]. Biochemists are only beginning to unravel the marvelously complex genetic code, which assures that characteristics transmitted will be those already present in the parents.

At times "mutations" occur.  These sudden changes in the genetic structure brought about by penetration of the germ cell by radiations or some other disorganizing medium don't help.  Evolutionists believe that if these mutations turn out to be helpful to the individual, they will be preserved and transmitted to the descendants by natural selection. This is believed by most evolutionists to be the chief mechanism by which evolution occurs.  But it doesn't convince the genetic experts.

The trouble is, that practically all mutations [even evolutionists acknowledge 99.9%] are harmful not helpful. Mutant varieties almost always die out if left to themselves, or revert to ancestral types. This, agrees with the Second Law.  A mutation is a random change in a highly organized system. The probability of an increased order arising by random variation decreases as order of the system increases. So evolution, required an almost magical manipulation of the basic laws of nature as they are know to function at present.  See Morris, 'Evolution in Turmoil" [San Diego: Creation-Life Publ., 1982, pg.190]. You wrote,

>>THE UNIVERSE IS APPROXIMATELY TWELVE BILLION YEARS OLD!  ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE!<<

In 1940 the earth was 2 billion years old. In 1954 3.2 billion years old, in 1964 3.6 billion years old. In 1989 4.6 billion years old. On whose authority do you base your figure of 12 billion years? And why does every evolutionist differ?

A test on a rock - The uranium-lead method gave 500 plus or minus 20 million years for the rock's age.  The potassium-argon method gave 100 plus or minus 2 million years  The rubidium-strontium model test gave 325 plus or minus 25 million years  The rubidium-strontium isochron test gave 375 plus or minus 35 million years.

Then comes the all-important question. "Where did we find this rock? Were there any fossils nearby, above or below the outcrop containing this lava rock?" When you report that it was just below the limestone layer containing your 320 million year old fossil, it all becomes clear. The rubidium-strontium dates are correct; they prove your rock is somewhere between 325 and 375 million years old. The other tests were inaccurate. There must have been some leaching or "contamination." Once again, the fossils date the rocks, and the fossils are dated by evolution.

This is the way it's usually done. An interpretation scheme has already been accepted as true. Each dating result must be evaluated-accepted or rejected-by the assumption of evolution. And the whole dating process proceeds within the backdrop of the old-earth scenario. No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old-earth ideas stand, no matter what the true evidence reveals. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution.

A committed evolutionist, Dr. Kitts is an honest man, a good scientist, and an excellent thinker. He and many others express disapproval with the typical thinking of evolutionists.  "...the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions, not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred."  [D.B. Kitts, Paleobiology, 1979, pp. 353, 354.] What do others say? "And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" [Niles Eldridge Time Frames, 1985, p. 52]

And? "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" [T.Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" New Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67].

There are, many  techniques available to date the earth and its various systems, many based on much sounder science than radioisotope dating. The most of these dating methods give maximum "ages" for the earth which are much too low to have allowed for evolution to occur.  Each dating technique is based on careful measurements and sound theory, but they share a common weakness in that they all employ the same uniformitarian, naturalistic assumptions inherent in radioisotope schemes, and therefore give questionable results. However, many such methods are more reliable than radioisotope schemes, even though not necessarily absolutely correct.

I am convinced that rocks and other earth systems are not at all reliable for dating the earth, whether individual rocks or physical systems, simply because dating methods rely on improvable assumptions. I would like to quote a few experts here but are making this too long for tonight.

Some of these alternative dating techniques point to an age of only thousands of years, while others give ages in the low millions. Remember that all these techniques involve assumptions which largely exclude the possibility of Creation or Noah's Flood. But even given those invalid assumptions, still the weight of the evidence is much more compatible with the young-earth position than with the old-earth position. The data cannot specifically tell us one way or the other, but the young-earth position appears to be favored. 

Look at some dating involving human civilization. Several writers have advocated various dating methods, which, even if not definitive, are compelling. One involves the fact that civilization dates to only 5,000 or so years ago, at the beginning of written history. Evolutionary ideas, however, would insist that humans diverged from ape-like ancestors some three million years ago and through a gradual increase in culture developed into "stone age" people and then "bronze age", "iron age", and up into the modern era. This gradual increase in technology and cultural levels should be reflected in archaeological discoveries.

Yet, true history, that is written history, relying on human observation and authentication, agrees remarkably with that suggested by Biblical history. Human culture from its very start was advanced, and humans have always been intelligent. The only claims which disagree with this perspective are those derived from the illegitimate use of dating techniques, as well as from the evolutionary assumption of human development. But evidence for primitive cultures can be more easily understood in terms of isolated language groups of intelligent people, migrating away from the Tower of Babel, having been separated linguistically, and no longer having access to the broad array of technology available to other groups. "Primitive" people groups were those which totally lost their technology from misuse or hardship, and who didn't compete well against larger, better-situated, and advanced language groups.

Population Statistics  is another dating method. Observation of earth's population and population growth also indicate a young earth. Given the total number of people on earth today, now approaching 6 billion, and its present rate of population growth of about 2% year, it would take only about 1,100 years to reach the present population from an original pair, which is of the same order of magnitude as the time since Noah's Flood-at least it's within the right ballpark. You wrote,

>>Atheism and evolutionism are NOT religions. What is your definition of religion?<<

The evolutionary theory is a good definition of a religion :) As mention already.  If evolution is not true, the only alternative is creation. That is why evolutionists cling to the evolutionary philosophy even if the evidence is totally contradictory. It is really a spiritual question. This true of you. You wrote,

>>Sort of ... but how do you explain Christians - even Evangelist Preachers, who 'lose the faith' ?  THEIR whole philosophy is destroyed. If that is true, then how do you EVER manage to convert people?  People are at least a LITTLE bit flexible - flexible enough to change belief systems - sometimes, more than once!<<

There are many reasons why they lose faith. I haven't all the answers. However,    "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse" (Rom.1:20). The Bible says there's enough evidence for people to know God is Creator. You wrote,

>>That's right. The Bible LIES. For they are NOT clearly seen. Do you understand the gravity of that accusation? The Bible LIES<<

Really? What caused this little outburst? (Like the lie in the Garden). Please make a list those Bible "lies". "They are clearly seen -  "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psa 19:1). Look at the design and wonder of creation - the sunset - blue sky - flowers - beautiful creatures. Evidence is everywhere of a Maker. You won't admit the evidence.  I wonder, "Evolution the Lie" sounds like a good name for a book. You wrote,

>>Why hasn't he opened MY heart to the truth? I know that my neighbour Shaun has prayed for me, and I suspect that you have, too...<<

Yes indeed prayer is important.  Why your closed heart? Because this is what you want. You don't want to believe the evidence. You would rather be blind:-

>>I don't believe in the concept of sin.  I am sinless, because by my own rules there is no sin.  You, on the other hand, are guilty on many counts<<

The Bible says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. [1 John 1:8-10]. C.D Cole in Definition of Doctrine writes - "Sin is a patent fact—its reality does not need to be argued. Sin is a fact of experience, of observation, and of revelation. Sin is something I feel in my own heart; it is something I see in others, even in my best friends and loved ones; and it is something revealed in the Bible. The policeman pursues it, the physician prescribes for it, the law discovers it, conscience condemns it, God controls and punishes it, and yet nobody likes to own it. But as a matter of fact, sin is all that anyone owns; he is a steward of everything else he may possess. Obvious as sin is, there is a proneness to treat it like some folks treat their trashy relatives; it is ignored and even denied". 

Jesus described the Spirit of God like this, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you". [Jn.16:13-14].  You don't WANT to be "open" to the truth. Like I said, it's because you don't want to see the truth or the evidence. You refuse to allow the evidence to be correctly interpreted in the light of God's Word. You wrote,

>>It is because the evidence is AMBIGUOUS. People can ALWAYS choose what religion to have. What do you mean 'correctly interpreted'? Shouldn't the evidence be clear and convincing?  'things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen", etc etc? All the evidence? Tell me the evidence. And don't use the Bible. CAN you prove Christianity without mentioning the Bible?  No. You can't.<<

The ambiguousness is within you, not the evidence. Evidence abounds but you are closed to it. Who could I quote anyway - no one and nothing, you have rubbished it all.   You wrote,

>>No, it isn't his desire. But he HAS set up the Universe in such a way that he KNOWS who won't get to heaven.  If he created the Universe and knows everything that will occur, then he has made us, and exposed us to such evidence, that He controls who of us will go to Hell (which he also created, or didn't stop from occurring after he'd set the Universe in motion, which amounts to the same thing). Not very nice of Him, was it? (I know, I know, we have free will ... thats a weak argument in itself...)<<

I aspect you are debating, for the sake of debating.  It's very easy to answer your complaints but you are contradicting yourself repeatedly.  I'll leave you with this, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" [Jn 3:16]. God is wonderful, why not accept His offer of grace and eternal life?  "He rewards of those who seek Him".

Kind Regards,

Mark

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences."  [Dr. M.Walker (Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University), "To have evolved or to have not? That is the question". "Quadrant", October 1981, p. 45]