Atheism growing in America
 

Atheists put their faith in ethical behavior

By MELISSA FLETCHER STOELTJE

San Antonio Express-News
SAN ANTONIO -- Melissa and Chanse nibble on club sandwiches and french fries at a local coffee shop. To look at them, they're just another young couple enjoying lunch on a weekday afternoon.

She wears stylish glasses, and her thick black hair is swept up in a ponytail; the only hint of a slightly rebellious streak is the tattoo that peeks from under her shirtsleeve. He is a slight, soft-spoken man with a laid-back demeanor and a full beard.

Melissa and Chanse are young atheists. They don't believe in God. As such, they're part of a small but substantial minority that swims against the overtly religious mainstream of America, a spiritual tenor that has grown more strident in recent times as issues of faith increasingly become entangled with politics and public policy.

The public face of atheism in recent times has been Michael Newdow, who filed a lawsuit over his daughter's having to repeat the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually dismissed his case, stating he did not have proper parental standing on behalf of his daughter.

The story made headlines for months. But for most atheists, it's not headlines or scandal they desire. They simply want to go about their own lives without hassle or pressure.

Atheists, they lament, are the last minority in this nation that is fair game for bigotry. Experts who study religion in public life concur.

"Atheists are not very well-thought-of in America," says John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "It's still acceptable to criticize atheists in a way that's not polite. People may harbor negative views about Jews, Catholics, Muslims and evangelicals, but they know they're not supposed to voice those views, so they don't. But it's still OK to say anything bad you want about atheists."

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens profess some religious faith, although far fewer attend worship services on a regular basis. The public square has become increasingly dominated by religious (specifically, Christian) rhetoric, from the "values voters" of the 2004 presidential election to hot-button cultural issues that carry a religious edge -- abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, intelligent design, the right to die.

And yet at the same time a compelling undercurrent is at work. A study done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that the percentage of the population that describes itself as "nonreligious" more than doubled from 1990 to 2001, from 14.3 million to 29.4 million people. The only other group to show growth was Muslims.

"Right now, the fastest-growing religious identity in America is the nonreligious," says Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Madison, Wis.-based group that champions church-state separation and works to educate the public on nontheism.

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 16 percent of Americans (about 35 million) consider themselves "unaffiliated" -- a category that includes "unaffiliated believers," "secularists" and atheists/agnostics.

The latter terms -- atheists and agnostics -- are lumped together, says Green, because they share so many similarities. But there is a subtle difference: Atheists forthrightly affirm that there is no God; agnostics simply say as humans we can never know. Together, they constitute about 3 percent of the American population.

Green says atheists/agnostics as a group tend to be well educated and politically liberal (although, he says, there are atheist Republicans). They tend to cluster in big cities on the East and West coasts. They tend to be younger, not older. They tend to be male more than female.

But what, exactly, do atheists believe in, if not in God?

In a nutshell, atheists believe in reason alone, in those things that can be arrived at through intellect and the scientific method. Concrete evidence for God, they argue, simply doesn't exist. They don't cotton to leaps of faith or anything that involves a supernatural being reaching into human lives. They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.


source

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Atheism growing in America?

Not here or anywhere I can see.

We all eventually take some leap of faith, don't we?

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

That's some of the biggest BS I've heard all week. I've been put down, snapped at, left out, chewed up and spit out all my life for being "religious".
I was always the minority in school, being a regular churchgoer and having parents who listened to christian radio stations.


I think Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" should be read in defiance of that statement.

Right, right. "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" Sure. You want
a square circle or some dry moisture to go with that? It's called a paradox.


Hmm... and what catagory does "a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully" file under?

Fat chance. Would that explain the violent actions of godless men, such as Hitler, Stalin, the Chinese government, the Russian government, Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Husien. (Muslims and Christians/Jews do NOT worship the same God, if you read the Christian/Hebrew scriptures and the Muslim scriptures, you can tell the persona of God is quite different, even the stories are, while simailer, different)

I admit, yes there has also been done much evil in the name of Christ, too, but it is unfair to paint their sins on Christians who actually follow the Bible.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

you know what the difference is? you don't notice it because Atheists are not inclined to be vocal about what they do or do not believe unlike Christians. We don't like being harrased about these things we are on a whole a silent minority. the ones on the web are vocal because we can be annonomous.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Really? You're not inclined to be vocal? So how do you know that you really are a miinority? I'm sure there are plenty of "closet athiests" I've known several.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Did the article say that Christians suffered no harassment? No it said that it is more socially acceptable to poke at Atheism than religion you really need to READ the article

and paradoxes are not scientific there is a phsyical reason for everything science seeks that. There is no scientific evidence for a god or a creator of any sort
You really need to read up on ethics and morals of Atheism to understand how this can be (see Richard Carrier)

umm dud I hate to break it to you but Hitler, Bin Laden, and Husein all believe(d) in a god so therefore they are not godless... you obviously don't know who your god is though READ THE OT and tell me that your god isn't a violent, wrathful, childish, god

Oh but wait if you were to follow the bible you would be first in line to restart the Spanish inquisitors
The bible advocated killing:

Gays
Disobedient children
Women who are rapped
Women who are pregnant
Some one who doesn't attend church?
Children of non-believers

The list goes on so why don't you pick up arm and kill every one who doesn’t believe in YOU god? Otherwise you are just as bad as the sinner for allowing these things to happen over and over again.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I am rare. I am quite vocal myself... I know many Atheist (we have secret meetings how to overthrow the world we are the Evil Atheist Conspiracy :))


but honestly most Atheist I know don't find it nesesary to subject themselves to the abuse that the masses put them through (I know I have gotten my share) and I don't blame them for not wanting to put up with that shit. They tend do things in a more passive manner.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Perhaps you really need to READ the last statement there. Growing up, I was
pressured into denying my christianity out of fear of being a reject. I know
that many other Christians feel the same way. I don't understand how a class
full of young people -who will say something like "why? are you religious?" if I ask them to watch their language- is a minority.


hmm, paradoxes are not scientific? That's interesting seeing as how paradoxes are flaws in thought and theories, which exist. For example,
a theory that one could kill himself by going back in time to kill his (young) grandfather so that his father is never born can be disproved by showing
that the man or women who went back in time to kill his/her grandfather,
never being born, could never have gone back in time to kill his/her grandfather.


Maybe. you need to read up on Shaeffer.

Hitler was fundamentally an athiest who basically believed in "survival of the fittest",
thus the nazi army and WW2. Any 'god' he may have believed in, I do not beleive in.

Second, if you would read the second half the statement you just quoted, you would see my response to your Bin Laden and Husein argument.



I know my OT, thank you very much, and I don't see a violent, childish god at all. I see a God who is God, who created the universe and everything in it,
I see a Holy God who has done nothing wrong, as He is incapible of sinning, I see a just God who acts in wrath, only in answer to the laws He gave being broken. I see mankind as a fallen, sinful race who has no place nor right to judge God, just as the criminal on trial has no place to judge or accuse the
(in this case perfect and blameless) judge.


You left out

Persons guilty of incest
Nations who were not Isreal
Certain members of Isreal
and (at least) two priests of Isreal, whom God killed Himself

Gays, yes, in the nation of Isreal, because they have polluted God's Holy name by their sin.

Show me where is says to kill raped women, I can't seem to recal that part.

^Same thing with pregnangt women.

Someone who does not attend church?! Where is that at?

Children of non believers? What? I'll need a reference as I seem to have missed/ forgotten that part, also.


Umm did you miss that small part of the Bible called the New Testament?
All I can do, in the end, is pray for the world, but that seems futile, since
after seeing the state of the world (and reading Revelation) I know that
it is pointless to try and stop the evil in the world, God has to do that in His own time. I can help people when I can, and I do my best to do so, but I
will not kill everyone who doesn't believe in my God, because, unlike what you say, I would then, in truth, not become better than Bin Laden and Hitler,
as you said, but I will become just like them.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I didn't say that you were not have a hard childhood with your faith but what I am saying is that Atheists are more harassed because of the simple fact being that there are more Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other theists that will criticize and persecute Atheists. Just by sheer numbers there are more to persecute Atheists than there are to persecute Christians.

Yeah that is really scientific time travel something that at this point is barely on the fringe of science. Uh huh yeah REAL SCIENTIFIC

I am familiar with his works I just didn't recognize the name 'til I searched it. I have and there is nothing new or special about him just the same old same old.
you need to read up on Hitler (start with Mein Kampf) he in fact did believe in god the Christian god to be exact (*that is the closest version of god you could identify him with) it is the Christian/Catholic Church who have propagated the lie that Hitler was an Atheist.

I read it but you lumped Bin Laden and Hussein in the godless types... just because you claim that they believe in a different god than you, doesn’t make them godless they have a god. DUH!

You have got to be kidding right? I mean come on the god of the OT and NT are not the same only some one blinded by faith would not be able to see that and the OT god did go back on his word and changed his mind... so much for being perfect.
Yeah I know I just named a few off the top of my head
its great to know that you are a bigot I thought hatred was a sin
I will need to reference back but basically it says to kill the woman and compensate the father for destroying his "property" and since the woman was no longer pure she must be put to death.
it was during Israel’s conquering of the "Promise Land" they were instructed to kill every one men women children and even the women with child they were to cut the women open and kill the fetuses and "dash the babies heads on rocks" [sarcasm]No Christian wants to remember that now do they it is so convenient to ignore because it is grotesque and no loving god would ever do that to a defenseless fetus remember abortion is wrong.[/sarcasm]
Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy if one works on the Sabbath he shall be put to death
See above answer about Israel’s march on the "Promise Land"(tm)


So why have an OT? I mean really why have the rules from Leviticus? (Where most Christians get them idea that homosexuality is wrong (Lev 19) not to mention tattoos and other things. so why is the OT even considered to be part of the "holy book" if you are just gonna disregard what it teaches?

You can't pick and chose what rules you want to follow and what rules you want to ignore but all Christians ignore some rules which is hypocarcy

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I disagree. I do not beleive that atheism is as rare as suggested.

It's called ABSTRACT HY- nevermind, you'd just blindly sas me again...


I think that the main problem we are having here is that you are unaware of MY own personal belief system, I do not catagorize myself on the same group with every other human being on the planet who says that they believe in a god/higher power. If I did, I would be in the same group with you, worshipping your Nature.


No, no, no, wait, wait... you kidding right? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP?! :D The God that I believe in is the ONE AND ONLY GOD, so when I call Bin Laden and Hussein Godless, I mean that they are seperate from the TRUE God, the Christian and Hebrew God. Godless. Jehova-less. Yaweh-less.


Well if He did "go back on his word and change his mind" with someone with your attitude, would you blame him? So much for your arguement.

PS. God is true to his word, but a deal is off when the other party (humans, the IMperfect ones) break the bargain first.


It's great to know you're out of line, I thought misquoting was unscientific.


Interesting. I'll await the reference. That is, if there is one.


Come on, you can't honestly say that evolutionists are not overly guilty of this... Plenty of evidence has been ignored and plenty of creation scientists have never had a voice,
completey due to the fact they they don't believe in the Evolutionary Theory. If you don't believe this is true, then
I feel sorry for you, you've been severely had.


Yeah, it says what it says. It never says kill someone who doesn't go to church... it says REST on the Sabbath. Keep it Holy. To be Holy means to be
"set apart as different", God rested on the seventh day of the creation of the world, and then He sanctified that day and MADE IT HOLY. OR, He sanctified that day and SET IT APART AS DIFFERENT. So naturally, it would be illegal to work on a non-working day. Since God sanctified it on the seventh day, when He rested.

And I don't pick and choose I do my best to keep the rules, only when Jesus came and paid the sacrifiece for sins, the animal sacrifices were done away with. Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

btw, in the NT Romans 1:23-32, it says-

"...And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their
own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Being filled with all unrighteosness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do
the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

well if you look at the census numbers you would learn that only 3% of the country is Atheists/Agnostic so I guess you learn somethign new today :)


I do not worship anything and I am annoyed with your presuption that I worship nature.
[quote]
No, no, no, wait, wait... you kidding right? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP?! :D The God that I believe in is the ONE AND ONLY GOD, so when I call Bin Laden and Hussein Godless, I mean that they are seperate from the TRUE God, the Christian and Hebrew God. Godless. Jehova-less. Yaweh-less.
[quote]
All Theists say that they have the one true god you are nothing special in assurting this I mean if you were to ask Bin Laden he would say that he has the one true god and that the infidel chistians don't know what they are talking about
I am not even going to justify this with a response
where?
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!
so tell me have you ever worked on saturday? if so then we should kill you now.

do you wear mixed fibers?
have you eaten food prepared by a woman on her period? (if you eat our you may have and would have never known)
would you kill your son if he disobeyed you?
these are in in Lev 19

would you sell your daughter in to slavery? YES the bible allows this

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I guess that believing in nothing is easier for some than believing in something;)

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

you'd like to think that wouldn't you Julie.:p

truth be told in some ways life is easier but in many others its not, that is the trade off in anything you decide.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Wow... the idea that its easier to be religious than atheistic is so SO off base...

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

And someone said there is no scientific evidence for God... No, that is not true. The fact that anything exists is scientific evidence on its own. Many miracles, visions and other things of the sort are also scientific evidence. What you really mean is that there is no proof. But of course that is natural. Proof would sort of defeat the whole purpose.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Hey, uncertain, have you read this?http://www.creationevidence.org/scie...idencefor.html

Or this?

http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/04earth4.htm

:)

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

This is in defense of myself on page 1, which I never really got the chance to reply to.



Well, I am annoyed at your hateful responses, but I endure them, but for now I think it's better to just let this go. Sorry if I was rude.


What do you think I am? An idiot? I could say that Atheists say that they know the true truth and that theists don't know what they're talking about. Would that make you feel smarter or insulted? Please be more thoughtful before you spout out todays well-known headlines to me.


That's the way. I think you're getting the hang of this. ;)

You called be a bigot and accused me of being hateful.
Yet, there was no hatefulness in my statement. This is
a prime example of God's Holiness being uncomprehended
or ingored. Yes, that would be a very evil and hateful thing
to say if I was speaking of anyone other than The Holy God,
in Whom there is no fault, Who is worthy of all glory, praise, worship, Who has all power, wisdom, rightesness, etc. But
God is God, and it is -to say the least- unfair to Him to have
all this sin and evil in His nation.

Also, I don't believe that God's law is unloving or evil, childish, wrathful, etc, but loving, Devine, and merciful. If God was all those evil things you say He is, why on Earth would He have given us the law, and told us what not to do? The law was to be known by everyone in Isreal, therefore, if one broke the law, he/she would have done it knowingly, with full knowledge of the consequences. If they commited sin unknowingly then there were sacrifices to pay for their sin. These there were also, even if they did sin knowingly.

This is as valid as calling every law made in America
pertaining to right and wrong evil, and the judge,
jury, and executioner wrathful, childish beings.



For someone who claims to have studied the Bible, you seem to know shockingly little about the Christian faith.

Acts 10:9-16 (NIV) About noon the following day as they were on they're journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.

He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!", Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything unpure or unclean"

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything unpure that God has made clean."

This happened three times, and immediatly the sheet was taken back into heaven.


1 Corinthians 6:12 (NIV) "Everything is permissible for me"- but not everything is benificial. "Everything is permissible for me" -but I will not be mastered by anything.


1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV) "Everything is permissible" - but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" -but not everything is consructive.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Not those exact links but i have read quite a bit on young earth theories and the like. In the end, they all seem crappy to me. Science definitely seems to be in favor of evolution.

Of course, this matters nil to me, religious wise, since my faith does not rely upon a six thousand year old Earth in any way shape or form. I also consider myself a rather unbiased observer because the argument really does not matter to me. If the evidence were in favor of a young Earth, I'd have no trouble believing that either. Just doesn't appear to be true.

And then of course there is the argument I always hear, the one about God simply creating the universe to look old. Well, that's also perfectly alright, but goshdarnit if He created it to look old, I am gonna treat it like it is old. And this theory of course ignores the notion that the Bible never SAYS He created the universe to look old, which of course does not mean He couldn't have, but since strict Genesis literalists have to appeal to total exactness everywhere else, you think there would be a problem with God never having mentioned that he put stars in the sky 2 million light years away and made them visible immediately.

And if somewhere along the line some evidence is found that seems to point towards a young Earth, sobeit. Simply seems unlikely given the evidence.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Well the universe, including the minerals, etc used to create the earth
were obviously already there, the Bible says in the beginning the world
was void and without form and the Spirit of the Lord hovered above the waters, so obviously it had been there for awhile. I, personaly, have no problem believing that God had already created the known universe, and
(as you look into what the word "genisis" means it becomes clearer)
that the book of Genisis is about mankinds beginning.

However, there is, as mentioned on the above sites, mounting evidence
that the events described in Genisis happened at a time much more in
tune with what the Bible says.

And, by the way, I don't find it very hard at all to believe in Adam and Eve
as described in the Bible. If the first part of Genisis was not particularly
true, then why would the Bible mention where the garden of eden was
geologicaly, and why would God have set an angel and a "sword of flame
which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life" ?
Why would Satan have taken the form of a snake, since snakes are
obviously real creatures and if the adam and eve "story" is only allegory,
then why all this realism?

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

hello police? yes this is Lunar Shadow.... Yes I would like to report a hijacking.... no not an air plane no no no its my thread on creed feed yeah thats right. what? you'll send some one right over? thank you so much.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

:D

He hijacked the thread... I just responded to him. Heh.

But yeah, anyway, growing atheism doesn't surprise me at all. People continue to shun morals, responsibility, discipline, etc. And they look for more and more "independance" (like they even know what that means) so of course atheism is the logical choice. There are no moral bounds, no principles, no ethics. you can do whatever you want whenever you want. Does it surprise anyone that the U.S. would have a growing atheist movement? Sure doesn't surprise me.

From another point of view, athiem is also extremely simple. Indeed, there really is no more simple view of life. I would say it way too simplistic but people don't care. They listen to crappy music because it is simple, they watch crappy movies because they are simple, they go to public school where everything is dumbed down and simple. Simple is the thing and atheism is as simple as it gets.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Yeah, it seems that way at first, but as you ask an atheist more and more
questions, atheism gets more and more complicated and confusing. It is
very very difficult to come up with a believe system not based on any
higher being. Several concepts are "borrowed" from other faiths, ie the golden rule, etc. Atheism accepts no notion that possibley the fact that
all previous beliefs of earlier civilizations/nations/creeds/religions were even
remotely true. To quote Michael Crichton-

"Instead, each generation writes off earlier errors as the result of bad
thinking by less able minds- and then confidently embarks on fresh errors of its own"

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I'm not talking about wishy washy liberal agnosticism. I am talking about real atheism. Real atheism is as simple as it gets, and definitely is one of man's greatest wishful thinkings of all time.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Yes, if you notice, by saying that there is no creator, they are
saying that some of the most brilliant minds in history, such as
Albert Einstien, Sir Issac Newton and Leonardo Davinci where all wrong,
which in turn, is saying that the average atheist (even dropouts and
flunks) who "knows" that there is no god is smarter than Einstien,
or smarter than Davinci, or than Newton, whose scientific laws they
believe in. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

"Thanks for the discoveries, but you are wrong in every other apsect
of your life, and we'll just seperate the wheat from the chaff."

Not if their laws/theories were based upon their wholeness.

Albert Einstien, arguably one of the most genius minds in history set
out to prove that the universe could be the way it is without a Creator.
He later said that this was "the greatest mistake of my life".
Although, he never believed in a personal God, he did concede that there
was a creator. Is there an atheist smarter than Einstien?
If there were, I think I would have heard of him by now.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I have been studying quantam physics a lot lately... man. If that doesn't show the complexity of our universe, and how against the odds it would be to have all happened randomly (setting aside for the moment the usual arguments of how it even EXISTS and then what set it into motion), but even beyond that, no way can my reasoning mind believe that our universe just came to be the way it is by chance.

I guess others can deal with that amazing leap of faith, but I can't. Believing in God makes more sense.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Either way you look at it UD there is a sense of rediculousness to it either there is a god or there isn't yes there is some I guess you could call it faith involved in atheism but what it really comes down to is that there hasn't been scientific proof of god so I pesonally can not believe with out evidence it is quite plain and simple.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

the one thing that you and UD are missing is that there is a natural moral order in the world and beyond weather you wanna call it the golden rule (wich btw christ was not the first to state in john 12) or you want to call it sevivalist tactics there is a moral order hell it is evident in pack animals as well.... Atheism isn't a religion it is a philisophy stand point. how can something be a religion when there is nothing being worshiped?

Atheism isn't easy as UD would have you believe it isn't a selfish choice it is an intellectual choice based on observable facts and hard data. is it 100% sound? no but neither is any other stand point weather it be theism, polytheism, pantheism, or what have you.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

But if you need proof of anything to act upon it, you would need proof of the non-existance of God to act upon that, wouldn't you? And disproving the existance of God is impossible.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

If that is true, there has to be something higher. There simply cannot be a natural moral order without something higher.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

not really you see it is as this in science something isn't until proven otherwise so it is not illogical to operate from suc a stand point as Atheism

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

why must there be something higher? I mean really humanity has evolved over the centeries with new understanding and revisions to acceptable behaviour. look through the dark ages and in the time of Atillah the Hun, the time of the barbarian, vikings, the spanish inquisitors, these things are now seen as wrong for one reason or an other why is that? because morality has evolved (weather religion played a role or not that is ones own choice and decision) but even the basic acceptable behaviour has changed in the past few centuries.... one could say that moral order (as it is seen in current times) evolved with the human race.

other examples are with pack animals if one in the pack (pride herd or what not) does something unacceptable they are shunned by the rest (ex-communicated if you will) so there is a natural moral order there as well (true you may look at the same thing and say damn god thought of every thing but I personally see it as a natural occouring phenomina)

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

I certainly don't see the Spanish inquisiton as wrong, maybe you do. It had its abuses but it wasn't a terrible idea.

As for morality evolving... umm ... no. I totally reject that notion. Also, something has to be higher because the LAW has to be higher! If it isn't binding upon us it is no law at all, and it can only be binding upon us if it is above us, and it can only be above us if something greater than us created it.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Basically UD at this point we come to an impass where we have to agree to disagree because with this we are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. plain and simple... you have your own ideas about morality and natural (in your case supernatural) order. I mean there is really nothing more to say now is there?

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Did man really evolve over the centuries? Or was did a God-given
knowledge of the world one is born into once come standard with
the human race? The human only uses about 4%[?] of
his/her brain, if I remember correctly.( Which I may not,
nevertheless, it is a very small amount) Why all the excess?
A mistake of evolution? An untapped gift of evolution?
A strength given by evolution, but hampered by the short
lifespan of a human? (Which would make evolution contradictory
to itself in that it gives gifts that cannot be used, delivering
a blow to the idea that all present life on earth is a result of
"survival of the fittest". Why make humans incredibly genius,
and then kill them young?) Or possibley this complies with
the Biblical account of mankind being fallen. This decline in
human thought and understanding would cast some cold water
on the recently arisen theory that there never was a higher being.

From S8int.com

SUDDEN APPEARANCE:
Are you aware that "ALL CULTURES BEGAN SUDDENLY" and were fully developed? A long preliminary period is not supported by archaeology. Before cities on earth, there was nothing. There was no transition whatsoever between the ancient civilizations and any primitive forebearers. They were at their peak from the beginning. :

...Great cities, enormous temples, pyramids of overwhelming size. Colossal statues with tremendous expressive power. Luxurious tunnels and tombs. Splendid streets flanked by magnificent sculpture, perfect drainage systems. A decimal system at the very start. A ready-made writing, already perfected. A well established naming system (in which each Pharaoh had as many as five names). Society already divided into specialist classes. An army, civil service and hierarchy minutely organized. A court exhibiting all the indications of well-defined precedence and form. Egypt came from a clearly established civilization.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence is that,1 Each of the first civilizations appeared suddenly, already fully developed. 2) That a connection existed between them. 3) Their footprints led back to the Middle East mountains where Noah and his family left the Ark. :

The sudden appearance of civilization is itself a memorial to history's one great catastrophe. More importantly, the flood is a historical event of tremendous testimonial importance to modern man...... :

Ancient Maps:
....hard evidence that shows the ancient's knowledge of planet earth as seen through their cartographers eyes was far more sophisticated than we have previously supposed. Their maps are surprisingly accurate and reveal knowledge of parts of the earth that were not known until very recently. They also show profound changes have taken place in man's lifetime since the flood, especially at the poles as you shall see. :

Maps drawn from the 11th to the 17th century were obviously copied from maps probably drawn thousands of years before. Some maps show Greenland and Antarctica free of ice. (The Piri Reis Map from 1513 shows Antartica):

HAD TO BE COPIES
Obviously these maps..had to have been copied from earlier sources. They display a scientific achievement far surpassing the abilities of the navigators and map-makers of the Renaissance, Middle Ages, the Arab world, or any ancient geographers. THEY HAD TO BE THE PRODUCT OF AN UNKNOWN PEOPLE ANTEDATING RECOGNIZED HISTORY.--end of quote

" Science supports the Bible. That's just how it is. On the other hand, there's the theory of Evolution which is not science. What sustains it? FAITH !Science as Religion. One has to believe that all matter is self created, that this matter in turn created intelligence and; in spite of the fact that it has never been seen, that this inorganic self-creating matter then created life in opposition to observed science. All of this in violation of the 1st and 2nd law of Physics, probability theory, biogenesis and common sense.

This leads and has to some extraordinary explanatory contortions, strange suppositions and sleight of hand. For example, since catastrophic events in our history would lend too much credence to the truth of the Flood of Noah, those theories are avoided. It is thought and promoted that man has evolved both physically and technologically from the primitive to the modern on a uniform basis. Given that presupposition, what do you do as a scientist when you encounter ancient artifacts or items produced by antique high technology?

As a scientist, you’d better be careful what you say or risk ridicule and professional suicide. As a result one can wind up convincing oneself, other scientific disciplines and the public that these things can be explained by elbow grease or some other arcane theory which is best not examined too closely.(That's how items like true optical lenses get described as "worship artifacts"--because everyone knows the ancients didn't have optical lenses). See True Suppressions

If the Bible account is true, evidence in the form of archeological artifacts and the like Should be occasionally found in the fossil and archeological record--and they are!


On subsequent pages we discuss some of the evidence that indicates that what we've been told by science may not be entirely accurate. One note of caution: this information comes from a variety of sources with a variety of beliefs and ideas behind them. Our viewpoint is that of Christians who belief that there is one God and that He created the universe at some time in the past nowhere near millions or billions of years ago. Exactly how long ago is besides the point. We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale. If you believe differently perhaps we can agree that what we're being told about origins and the past is seriously flawed.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

http://www.s8int.com/page2.html

The Human Skull in Ancient Rock

Right: Evolution Takes a Hit
Scientists fear evidence that man is as old as coal Photo Right:Hard evidence for hard hearts? Solid rock proof for hard heads? Smithsonian squelching evidence again?

"Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we really are and how we really got here. An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rock-like hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in Pennsylvania.

Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was formed during the Carboniferous -- a minimum of 280 million years ago -- it means that man has existed multi-millions of years before the ... insectivore from whom the evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.

However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful disdainful influence -- deceit, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy -- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental truth about ourselves." ...Ed Conrad

Additional Info:Quoted from Anomalies and Enigmas Forum

"Aside from the evidence of bones, evidence of human occupation of this area in Carboniferous times included one particularly strange item: a petrified handle of some sort of a tool.

This item was totally petrified and appeared almost to be made of coal; "coalified" might be a better term. Other than that, it appeared entirely similar to and entirely as well-made as any normal handle to an axe or sledge hammer of our own day and evinced a fairly high level of technology. The grain structure of a wooden handle was there.

It appears that the bones in all cases were there first, that the shale formed up around the bones, and that the bone was then gradually replaced with minerals being carried into the cavities they left by water.

The human femur bone we saw was very large; I would guess that its owner was eight or nine feet tall.(see "Giants" Page 6) Other than that it entirely resembled a normal femur bone from a man about my size which we had along with us for comparison in photos. ...

Vine (an author) has also claimed that the American Indian was here in America from the beginning, his most recent book, "Red Earth, White Lies", strongly challenging the standard Bering land bridge thesis. I should think that what I saw would shatter the Bering land bridge thesis for anybody with lingering doubts.

The experiences which Ed Conrad has had in trying to present these findings to scientists are entirely in line with what I would expect, given what experience has taught me about scientists in these fields. He has had several writeups in local and regional papers, including one in the Reding Eagle which indicates that all relevant tests have been done, and that all favor Conrad's claims.

Conrad has had several prominent scientists agree to the validity of his claims, and yet these had their own schedules and projects and none were willing to attempt to take any of these findings and do anything with them, and attempts to deal with the Smithsonian and with major universities has been much like beating his head against a tree and, as of the last four or five years, he had simply given up. That, of course, was in the age just prior to the age of the WWW page...

Conrad has previously assumed that his findings indicated man's presence on Earth in the accepted period of the Carboniferous age, i.e. almost 300 million years ago, and his writings in some of the documents noted here reflect that.

The evidence seems to suggest one of three possibilities:

1. humans/hominids were around in the Carboniferous period, conventionally dated to 300m (million) years ago.
2. The Carboniferous period is vastly more recent than conventionally dated.
3. The evidence is the result of an elaborate hoax.


I rule possibility 3 out from my own direct observations; the femur bone embedded in shale along with other petrified bone embedded in shale boulders could not possibly be faked. Item 1 does not strike me as plausible for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that no complex species such as ours has ever lasted that long.

I thus see the second possibility as the only viable one, and would recommend the section of Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval" titled "Collapsing Schemes" as a starting point for anybody seeking further information.

It would appear that all of the dating schemes we are familiar with are simply FUBAR, standard army jargon meaning "Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition". Either of possibilities 1 and 2 above should cause major grief for evolutionists; the one requires man to be here long before monkeys or apes were, the other indicates there hasn't been time for evolution."--Endquote



http://www.s8int.com/page3.html
The Baalbek Monolithic Stones

Right: The Baalbek Stones. Click Photo for more

This column was hewn as one solid piece and weighs 1200 tons. It's two cousins are in place in the base of the "Temple of Jupiter" and weigh in at over 1000 tons. (The "Temple of Jupiter" is pictured in the banner on the top right of this page and in the photo on the left.)

"The temple is one of the largest stone structures in the world. Some 26 feet above the structure's base are found three of the largest stones ever employed by man.

Each of these stones measures 10 feet thick, 13 feet high, and is over 60 feet long. Knowing the density of limestone permits weight estimates of over 1.2 million pounds. Some people with impressive engineering skills cut, dressed, and moved these immense stone blocks from a quarry 3/4 of a mile away.

A walk to this quarry introduces the observer to the Monolith, an even larger block of limestone: 13 feet, 5 inches; 15 feet, 6 inches; and 69 feet, 11 inches. The Monolith weighs in at over 2,000,000 pounds. In comparison, the largest stones used in the Great Pyramid tip the scales at only 400,000 pounds..."Science Frontiers Online

Notice the man perched on the column and another standing at the base. Forget the ancient airplanes, the ancient helicopters the world maps--this alone should set the; standard, straightline, primitive man-to-advanced man, and then to civilization, "scientific" dogma on its ear.

There is no way that this stone can be explained by the science and history they teach us in school. No technology existing today could move this stone much less transport it from where it was quarried, nor lift it upon its 23 foot foundation.** (Actually, it appears moving such a monolith is on the edge but within current technology--Benjamin K., a Christian engineer informs us that Mammoet, and another company; Lampson Cranes-- & perhaps a few others have machines that could do the job.)

The pre-existing stone foundation upon which the Romans built their temple at the site is 1/2 mile long on one side. No one knows who built it.

There are no historical records although the local folks think it is a Pre-flood City originally built by Cain--after his banishment. Photo from See also Mysteries of the Bible.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

http://www.s8int.com/page3.html

Ancient Precision Stone Cutting

The object on the left is thought to be an Aztec artifact of some antiquity. (photo from mysteries of ancient cultures;) Do you believe that these earplugs, made from obsidian, a fragile glass, were made by hand with primitive tools and sand as an abrasive? These objects can only have been made with advanced machining tools. Look at them; less than a millimeter thick and perfectly symmetrical. And why did they need earplugs anyway?

The kind of precision stone cutting and even stone transportation associated with the Egyptian pyramids cannot be explained by the use of the primitive technology available to the Egyptians.

In fact, the technology of the older pyramids is probably beyond the Egyptians ability. The thing is, this "stone technology" problem turns up all over the world.

The picture on the right is from Sacsayhuaman, probably an ancient stone fortress in excess of 2000 years old. Some of these stones are 10 feet high or more. Notice their irregular forms. They have been fitted together in an extremely precise manner which we would be hard pressed to duplicate with modern technology; much less the primitive technology supposedly available.

Click photo for more

The impressive architecture of the subterranean Hypogeum is more than 6000 years old. To try to force its existence into the current paradyme, scientist claim that its stone age builders built the huge underground structure using only "antler picks and stone mallets!"

That's enough to make milk come out your nose (if you happened to be drinking it when you heard it).

Today, a diamond drill can cut through granite at a rate only 1/500 of that achieved by the Builders of the Great pyramid (sonic drills?) according to expert Christopher Dunn. His eye-opening article shows what happens when a technology expert tries to swallow ridiculous theories put forth by non-technologists in order to support uniformism and the current scientific dogma. An excerpt from his site--Petrie was a well known early Egyptian archeologist;

"Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are the most clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify the knowledge and technology existing in pre-history.

The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole.

It was not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons who had done the trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote:

"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."

After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feed-rate for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this feedrate. Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly."

More info on this topic from these two sites:

Advanced Machinery in Ancient Egypt by Christopher Dunn
Mysteries of the Ancient Cultures

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Egyptian Anomalies

Left is another interesting enigmatic "out of place" Egyptian artifact

"At the Hathor Temple in Dendera, Egypt, several intriguing glyphs are depicting strange scenes. In the opinion of a classical archeologist, there is hardly anything out of ordinary in the scenes. The explanation of the glyphs stirred some passion amongst amateurs and experts alike.

But then something curious happened: the book got noticed by electrical engineers. As a group of professionals who could not care less about what other experts think, they commented on the picture with an unequivocal 'wow!'

Ivan Sanderson gives an example of analysis in an already mentioned publication, "Investigating the Unexplained" done by an electromagnetics engineer, who knew nothing about the history or mythology of ancient Egyptians. It is necessary to quote him verbatim for contextual meaning:

"The items, as depicted, are most fascinating; certain elements, especially the cables, are virtually an exact copy of engineering illustrations as currently used. The cable is shown as very heavy, and striated, indicating a bundle of many conductors, rather than a single high voltage cable.

As a matter of fact, a single high voltage cable would be much thinner; if the insulation was required to be that heavy for extreme high voltages, or moderately high voltages at high currents, rest assured that no technician would be holding the associated device. Corona leakage would 'get' him most swiftly.

The supporting stands would be much taller and heavier to withstand such voltages. It is much more likely that the cable is, as stated, a multi-conductor, wrapped and insulated with an outer jacket. If this were a 'light bulb', the maximum size of both would be explainable by heavy current demands; but high voltage of such a size would not be required.

It would seem to follow that moderately high voltages are in use; a connector is obviously employed; some type of supporting base to glass seal seems apparent."

The monkey with knives in hand on the right of the picture is a glypth that supposedly coveys; danger for the uninitiated.

Obviously, these technologies did not belong to the Egyptians, if they are legitimate artifacts. We'd know if the Egyptians tooled around in helicopters and airplanes, or routinely used electric power. Note that the bas relief objects at Abydos were reported to have been found underneath newer, Egyptian artifacts.

All artifacts from the previous pre-flood age would not have been destroyed in the flood. If our civilization were wiped out in a worldwide flood, what artifacts would remain for post flood civilizations to find--and possibly use or revere? Skyscrapers, cars, metal objects? What if those men could not guess what their original uses were but incorporated them somehow as "sacred" objects or objects to recreate in art etc.?

Consider the Sphinx. New data concerning the WATER EROSION on the Sphinx indicates that it may be much older than previously thought--built by a civilization much older than Egypt's.

We still today can't replicate the technology of the "4th dynasty" pyramids. "Egyptologists thought (some still do) that the Sphinx was built during the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. However this theory has more recently been challenged.

In contrast to the older pyramids, "3rd" dynasty pyramids were built with blocks manageably small enough to be moved by 5 or 6 men. 5th and 6th dynasty pyramids which are supposed to be more advanced, were so poorly built that most of them today amount to little more than large piles of rubble.

Fourth dynasty pyramids at Giza (where the Sphinx is also to be found) however, have survived thousands of years relatively intact--and the blocks are so large that it is difficult to understand how they were moved."

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Bagdad Battery

Right, a "working" 2000+ year old battery.

The ancient battery in the Baghdad Museum, as well as those others which were unearthed in Iraq, are all dated from the Parthian occupation between 248 BCE and 226 CE. However,a Dr. Konig, the discoverer also found copper vases plated with silver in the Baghdad Museum, excavated from Sumerian sites in southern Iraq, dating back to at least 2500 BCE.

When the vases were lightly tapped, a blue patina or film separated from the surface, which is characteristic of silver electroplated onto copper base. It would appear then that the Parthians inherited their batteries from one of the earliest known civilizations.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Neanderthal Skull With "Bullet Hole" Behind Ear

An Auroch is an large, extinct "buffalo like" animal. Many skeletons of this extinct type have been found in Europe.

What is remarkable about one in particular in the Moscow Museum of Paleontology is that it has a bullet hole in its skull. The hole is round, without radial cracks that would result from slower projectiles like spears and arrows. The only known projectile that leaves this kind of smooth, round hole without radial cracks is a bullet because of its velocity.


I mention the auroch first because of a possible objection that can be raised. If it is indeed a bullet hole, perhaps the skeleton was shot many, many years after the animals' death. The problem here is that the auroch survived the wound and lived long enough for unmistakable calcification to appear at the site of the injury.

How did an animal that became extinct supposedly thousands and thousands of years ago come by a "modern" bullet hole in its skull

A similar round, clean, smooth hole without radial cracks was found in the skull of a "Neanderthal" man found in the early 1920's in Rhodesia. The man supposedly died over 40,000 years ago.

The skull is currently at the British Museum. The skull was found more than fifty feet below ground level. In addition to the hole consistent only with that made by a bullet, the other side of the skull was blown out from the inside!

Now, a word about this photo. There aren't that many Neanderthal skulls in "captivity". I heard about this alleged bullet hole several years ago and I knew that it was a particular skull at the British Museum. I found this photo several years ago and I think it is important to say that the museum made no mention of the bullet hole at all.

It was simply one of the photos of the skull. I think that bears a lttle on its authenticity--it did not purport to be a picture of a skull with a bullet hole. That fact is something that the anthropologists apparently overlooked. Cuozzo, in his book, Buried Alive mentions actually getting his hands on the skull.

Of course, there are alternative explanations given for the hole, but it appears to have been the fatal wound and nothing we know of makes that kind of wound except a bullet---or perhaps a small meteorite, presumably traveling horizontally to the ground.

On the one hand, you have Paleontologists offering alternative scenarios for the hole, and on the other you have a German forensic scientist who examined the skull who states categorically that the wound could have come only from a bullet because of the velocity neccessary to produce the characteristics of the wound. One assumes that the forensic scientist would have some experience with bullet holes that perhaps an anthropologist or a paleoentolist may not have.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html
The London Artifact

From the Creation Evidence Museum. Follow the link to learn more. This is a hammer made from an alloy of iron which is very modern in technology, which is encased in "100 million" year old rock (according to geologists) which has formed around it.

You know the drill: fake; lousy geological aging techniques; or lousy evolutionary timeframes? I say perhaps a pre-flood relic given that the technology is modern yet it is encased in rock at least a couple of thousand years old.

"This ancient tool has a simple form, similar to the type of hammer that is still common in Germany today. The handle now is a very hard petrified crystal with an intact structure. It was possible to ascertain that the interior of the handle had partly turned into porous coal.

There is no way to scientifically explain this combination of carbonization and petrification. I have not heard of a similar piece, found anywhere in the world. Two very different processes must have occurred simultaneously or in short succession. Crystal petrifaction requires an ecosphere of running water whereas for the development of porous coal, one could, for example, assume that fire was the necessary agent. Water and fire, it goes without saying, are two very different and mutually exclusive elements.

The analysis of the subsiding of the Flood, to be undertaken at a later point in this book, will explain what now looks like a contradiction. The outer layers of the hammer handle reminded me of the petrified stumps and piles of wood I had seen earlier at the "Petrified Forest National Park" in Arizona, on a visit in 1988.

The exhibits there, pieces of the cut up piles of wood, had completely petrified and displayed a homogenous crystal structure. I do not know of one piece discovered in that park to contain a coal interior comparable to that of the fossil hammer. The age of the trees there is officially estimated at between 100 and 200 million years.

Wood petrifies when it is buried in silt deposited by flooding rivers or seas and silicates, such as are found in volcanic ash, dissolve and impregnate it. These substances replace the hydrogen and oxygen portions in the wood and begin the petrifaction process by silicification. This may produce very solid opal or quartz minerals. The final product is approximately 5 times as heavy as common pine wood.

This short description of the hammer handle should make it obvious that the fossil hammer must be authentic and very ancient. In spite of all our modern technical abilities, it has never been possible to produce petrified wood with porous coal inside.

It therefore is out of the question that such a hammer could be a hoax. I must clearly emphasize this point, as most artifacts which contradict the accepted view of the world we are accustomed to, are accused of being forgeries. Our traditional

schools of thought, however, are at a loss to explain this hammer.

Petrified wood, and therefore this ancient tool, is supposed to be at least 140 million years old. Official scientific authorities, however, say that humans capable of manufacturing high quality tools have only existed for a few recent millenia. Something concerning these datings and the enormous time intervals of the geological era must be erroneous.

Is humanity really many millions of years old or is it a young species? Did the processes of rock formation take place more recently than is believed?

Examination of the hammer.

Before I look into these questions, I would like to give a more detailed description of the hammerhead's characteristics in order to make the full extent of the mystery clear.

Detailed research was carried out independently of one another by two different institutes. John Mackay, Director of Australia's "Creation Science Foundation", analyzed the hammer thoroughly during his visit to the United States.

A number of Australian metallurgists, as well as those working at the respected metallurgic Institute "Batelle Memorial Laboratory" in Columbus, Ohio (USA), took part in these analyses.

Sophisticated electron microscopes served to examine the structure and composition of the steel the hammerhead was made of.

The results of the examinations were as mysterious as they were bewildering. The hammerhead, chemically speaking, consisted of 96.6 % iron, 2.6 % chlorine, and 0.74 sulphur. Incredibly, this material is almost entirely solid iron!

Other additives or impurities were not detectable. Non-destructive testing methods of steel quality comprise x-ray examination, magnetic testing as well as ultrasonic detection. X-rays showed no evidence of inclusions or irregularities in the hammerhead steel. This means, it was tempered and hardened in some way.

In general, chemically genuine and unworked steel is rather soft. The even structure determined, however, suggests that this hard steel that was manufactured by some sophisticated technology. The results of the examination are as sensational as they are unbelievable. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of steel manufacturing knows that every modern steel-making process, inevitably leads to carbon or silicon impurities! I emphasize the word inevitably. Steel production without these impurities is simply unthinkable!

No other known ingredients used for refinement such as copper, titanium, manganese, cobalt, or molybdenum, vanadium, wolfram or nickel could be traced. We employ these and other elements in steel manufacturing to achieve different properties needed for different fields of application.

The high quantity of the chlorine in the fossil hammerhead is remarkable, as well. Chlorine plays no part in modern steel manufacturing. It is not used at all today, so it is impossible to produce the high steel quality of the type found here by today's manufacturing methods.

This leads us to the question; who manufactured this hammer and when? Based on the standpoint of accepted research and science, it is impossible for this hammer to exist, much less to have ever been manufactured. For the reasons given, it is thus out of the question that we are dealing with a "hoax" hammerhead.

Much the same has been shown concerning the hammer handle. Two forgery-proof materials for which we have no scientific explanation, combined in one tool.

This is extraordinary evidence of a very different history of earth and humankind! If our school teachings are correct, there is no other conclusion than that an alien visiting earth must have lost the hammer.

Still, I have one other more logical explanation to offer and I will present it in the further course of this book: My explanation, however, is not in accordance with traditional scientific theory. The fossil hammer shows still more peculiar features. In breaking open the hammer's original stone enclosure in 1934, the upper edge of the metal head was damaged, leaving a small notch. The inside of the notch revealed a shiny silvery surface.

Until today, more than 60 years later, the color of the notch has not changed. No traces of rust are perceptible. The relatively high concentration of chlorine combined with a total absence of carbon, which would cause corrosion by reacting with oxygen, may be responsible for this phenomenon...." Hans Zillner in his book: Darwin's Mistake

"20,000 to 100,000" Year Old Metal "Screws"

Thousands of spiral, screwlike objects sized as small as 1/10,000th of an inch have been found beginning in the early-nineties and are still being found by gold miners in the Ural mountains in Russia.

These metal items found in depths from 3 to 40 feet are thought to be 20 thousand plus years old.

Dr Matveyeva who has studied the objects: “The layer which contains the spiral shaped objects is characterised as gravel and detritus deposits … From their orientation these layers can be dated to 100,000 years and correspond to lower regions of the Mikulinsk horizon of the upper Pleistocene.”

In plain language the Pleistocene is the previous geological epoch, which began about 2 million years ago and ended around 10,000 years ago.

Contrary to what some commentators believe however, we don't think that these objects are extraterrestrial in origin. Rather we think their origin is very terrestrial, the vestiges of a former hi tech civilisation, the evidence of which will become increasing apparent over the coming years.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html
Ancient Metal Pipes in Chinese Lake and Mountain


The widespread news of mysterious iron pipes at the foot of Mount Baigong, located in the depths of the Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province, has roused concern from related departments.

What is astonishing is inside for there is a half-pipe about 40 centimeters in diameter tilting from the top to the inner end of the cave. Another pipe of the same diameter goes into the earth with only its top visible above the ground.

At the opening of the cave there are a dozen pipes at the diameter between 10 and 40 centimeters run into the mount straightly, showing high fixing technique.

About 80 meters away from the caves is the shimmering Toson Lake, on whose beach 40 meters away, many iron pipes can be found scattered on sands and rocks. They run in the east-west direction with a diameter between 2 and 4.5 centimeters. They are of various strange shapes and the thinnest is like a toothpick, but not blocked inside after years of sand movement.


More strange is that there are also some pipes in the lake, some reaching above water surface and some buried below, with similar shapes and thickness with those on the beach.

DELINGHA (QINGHAI), -- A group of nine Chinese scientists will go to west China's Qinghai Province this month to closely examine the relics....

..According to Qin Jianwen, head of the publicity department of the Delingha government, the scraps were once taken to a local smeltery for analysis. The result shows that they are made up of 30 percent ferric oxide with a large amount of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide. Eight percent of the content could not be identified.

"The large content of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide is a result of long interaction between iron and sandstone, which means the pipes must be very old," said Liu Shaolin, the engineer who did the analysis.

"This result has made the site even more mysterious," Qin said."Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain."

Parts of two Stories originally published by:

Xinhua News Agency, China - June 19,2002,June 25, 2002


I could go on and on like this... My point is, that if ancient civilizations
knew as much/more than we do, then perhaps there is some truth to
at least one religion.

Re: Atheism growing in America
 

Well then, what created the universe and all existance? Evolution? Pure
chance?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.


"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists' Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.


"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.


"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.


"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither 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."—*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.


"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.


"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.


"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.


"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."—*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).


"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).



"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.



"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.



"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy."—*R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982).

*Lessel says that *Sagan's boastful declarations about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).