: : OK, lets get things straight here. I´m not going to lean on any one side but i do belive there could be a God. It is very probable that life evolved by itself in an unrandom way but still but still subject to change. What does that mean? It was only a question of time before life became. Life is totally based on matter and so we need to find the reason for matters existance. I belive in the big bang theory, as an origin for your modern universe, but someone or something has had to create the singularity which exploded. Therefore there is room in science for "The ultimate creator of the universe" only he didn´t create the universe in it´s current form. If someone will argue with me on that one (And i hope someone does)i don´t want any quote´s from the bible. The bible is written by gews and cristian men and has no proven truth execpt for vague historical descriptions and backrounds. And i want no replies from funny guyes.

: bzrd here: What evidence is there to suggest that "life is totally based on matter"? What about "cause and effect" with regard to big bang cosmolgy? On May 15, 1948, the United Nations formally recognized Israel; read Isaiah Chapter 66 vs. 8-10.

As far as the state of Isreal, it is much easier to follow a prewritten script (prophecy) than to create something new, all you have to do is work at it, sometimes for a long time, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with proving that god exists. As far as the united nations is concerned, they also recognize the lone religion of chrisianity by having the papal state (rome) as a U.N representative, talk about onesidedness! Is it any wonder Ireal was recognized, with this kind of offical infuence? Why was palestine not recognized during this exact same diplomatic effort? The offical explanation is becuase they refused to submit to certain requirements, but in reality these requirements would in effect say that thier religion was subordinate to christianity by defualt. The powers that be knew this and played the game toward this end. Oh, such a conspiricy, well explain any other reason, other than the official one that is! Another example of what the U.N represents is shown by thier involvement in Kuait, and non -involvement in Rwanda. It was purely of economic and strategic value as far as Kuait, although always the humanitarian side is displayed as the main purpose, yet when genocide was occuring and brutal detail of the horror of slaughtering children in the street were occuring all over this country (on U.N. intelligence films) we kept it classified and the missions of the U.N. were only to get foriegn citezens out. There are films (the discovery channel has them) that show how the U.N. actually contributed to this slaughter, although they do not state it in such a way. 1. The people were hiding in the forests... 2.The U.N. came to rescue foreign citezens... 3. This military force attracted those in hiding.. 4. These refugees gathered around the areas where the U.N. troops were... 5. The U.N. troops knew this and waited until they were about to leave before telling them they were leaving... 6. Those who were armed with all manner of knives, pitchforks, clubs and many other weapons used in these gruesome slaughters were within view of the U.N. troops and those they had attracted to a concentrated area.. 7. All who were there, troops, killers and soon to be victims knew what would happen if they left... 8. The U.N. troops said they could not protect these (worlds people) helpless men, mostly women and children, they were sorry, but no orders? 10. They left... 11. The people were slauhtered... 12. Mass graves (when buried at all) were found 13. The media showed some and gave reasons for our great government systems compassion... The President of the United States Flew in after all this had been cleaned up, said a few words to those peoples leader, gave his condolences, said this should not happen, never left the airport, and was airborn again within a few hours of landing. So, to think that we are cared about by our government becuase we are human, or even citezens (if they would'nt be forced by public outrage) is to be living in a fantasy world, the government cares about this much for those who fight thier wars for them, disposable tools. And I have heard the arguments such as: then why is the Veterans administration the biggest funded agency... Most of that goes to fund the agency itself, the veterans are secondary to the institution in most respects... But I guess overall, more good comes out of all this than harm?