white lies (santa, easter bunny tooth fairy and other evils)

Sal - posted on 04/22/2011 ( 186 moms have responded )

1,816

16

33

again this is inspired by the vegi thread.....
i was stunned by the people who said that "lying" to their kids about santa the bunny and tooth fairy was damaging to their kids as they would feel decieved.......i just don;t get it.....i do think that lying to you children bad, i mean. i don;t want my kids to be decietful and dishonest, in our house if someone is caught in a lie, big or small the punishment is usually more for the lying not the original act (for example if i am stopping tv it will be one day for the act, 2 days for the lie about it) i just don;t see the connection between santa, veggies hidden in cake, yes that is a great painting, tell nanna how much you love the t-shirt she gave you, and lying to them.....and i can't see how these small things are damaging to their personal growth, for example my son bought me the ugliest makeup purse one christmas (about 4-5 ago), it was shinny gold, but it had a little terrier dog on the zip, i told him i loved the doggy.....just recently i was getting something out of it and he said "you still have that" and i said "yes and it has grown on me, since to gold has faded it is quiet nice, i thought it was so ugly when you gave it to me" he was upset for maybe 10 seconds, then laughted saying poor mums you put up with so many crappy presents to make us happy, he got it, he didn;t feel decieved just appreciated the fact i'd done it to make him feel good......our family rule was always santa /easter bunny/tooth fairy all stop comming when you stop believing, and if you don;t believe you are old enough to join to fun of making christmas special and magic for the little ones, and no one i know has ever been damaged by this rule, and i cherish the magic of childhood...whats wrong with that......

***this isn't for those who's religion doesn't have christmas and easter but for those who say it is deception

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jodi - posted on 04/24/2011

26,328

36

3891

"I say to each their own. IMO "

But if you have no problem with your children telling other people's children that their parents are lying to them, it really ISN'T "each to their own" is it? It is your children choosing to quash the beliefs of other children in favour of their own beliefs........

Noreen - posted on 04/25/2011

914

16

77

Not to get off topic, but why can't God have created a world where it could evolve to survive. Things are constantly evolving and changing. For instance, it is proven that the world used to have one land mass and it broke apart. You can put the maps together like a puzzle. Or what about Elephants?! Asian Elephants have short smaller ears then African Elephants do because Asian Elephants are covered by the forrest and don't need extra shade like the African Elephants do. The African's have obvioiusly evolved to have bigger ears for sun protection. I am not saying we came from monkeys, but life does evolve. Just saying :)

Charlie - posted on 04/25/2011

11,203

111

401

"jenny, the soul is what animates the body....see touch feel ect... our soul lives for all eternity. it does not die. our body is a vehicle for the soul. "

Then what animates an animal ? you do know they see , hear , feel ....you do know they contain energy just like us human species ?

'Animal' is a word with a certain biological definition. "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

We are all of that although the evolution of our minds and egos sees ourselves as something higher , we are top of the food chain but it doesnt mean we arent animals .

Sprituality is a concept we use we have no deifinitive evidence that animals are not spiritual either but we do know many animals bare characteristics not too unsimilar from our own "morals " , they have a sense of right and wrong just like us all though lack the impulse control of humans .

Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.

Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.

But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.

Prof Bekoff believes morals developed in animals to help regulate behaviour in social groups of animals such as wolves and primates.

He claims that these rules help to control fighting within the group and encourage co-operative behaviour.

Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans.

Other findings have also suggested that some animals may even be capable of showing empathy with the suffering of other species.

Human morality was not formed from scratch, but grew out of our primate psychology. Primate psychology has ancient roots, and other animals show many of the same tendencies and have an intense sociality

Jenny - posted on 04/24/2011

4,426

16

126

I don't debate in metaphor.

While the bible contains historical figures and places it is no more proof of god than Harry Potter is proof of wizards since we have proof of London, owls and subways.

Jodi - posted on 04/24/2011

26,328

36

3891

You do realise, Danielle, that there are parts of the Bible which are fictional and not meant to be taken literally?

This conversation has been closed to further comments

186 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

I'm going to have to check it out. That was piss funny!

Not to say I didn't love your MP vid too, because I'm a huge Python fan. :-)

[deleted account]

Krista, what movie is that from? I've gotta see it! I was laughing so hard my tea came out my nose.

[deleted account]

Precisely, Lady Jane! That's funny your mum still makes you hunt for your basket. :-) I think we forget how to be kids all too often. What harm will come of believing in a story/fable based on a true person or not? Isn't it a nice idea to teach kids about charity through the Santa story?

Billie, I'm sad for those kids who heard that story from your MIL. Usually when times are tough, people do their best to shelter kids from having to carry the burden.

I couldn't read much of that cut and paste job, but would like to have the source(s) cited not only so the credit is given, but also to be able to read and research on my own the credibility of the source. And Johnny's right. It should be given the longest post award.

LadyJane - posted on 04/26/2011

162

7

1

There is a legend that Santa Clause came from a real person by the name of St. Nicholas who was a carver who made wooden animals for children as presents. It was said that the legend of Santa Claus came from the fact that many couldn't say his whole name and shortened it to St. Claus, which then became Santa Claus. I do teach my kids about Santa, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, etc. It helps develop their imaginary skills and who knows these skills may make them into movie producers, etc. A life without creativity or imaginations, most likely will be quite a dull boring place after awhile. Even in the Bible it talked about how Moses made snakes appear from his staff, a river split into 2 sides for people to walk through... Now scientists have investigated the river story and actually said it was quite possible the river could have been parted in the middle but think it more likely happened due to a low tide or something of that nature. For me, I wasn't there, and no matter what evidence scientists find or not find, still doesn't really answer if it really happened or not. I don't know how the legend of Easter Bunny or the Tooth fairy came about, but it makes my kids happy and I love watching their face light up when they have to search all over the house looking for their Easter Baskets. My mom actually even makes me and my brother look for ours too. I see no issue at all with this. I don't think of it as lying but using our imaginations to help our children have great dreams and fairytales. Without imaginations, there would have never been a Disneyland, there would be no movies, only documentaries and trust me, it is rare that I get excited about watching a documentary as much as I would watching a true classic movie including those in which are clearly impossible yet enjoyable. Anyone remember the movie about an invisible rabbit named Harvey!? This guy had the head doctor believing in this rabbit by the time the movie was over. Is that really so bad? Do children really need to grow up and adults before they're adults? Children should believe in some fairytale at some point in their lives, even if it is a character other than Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. Even the Bible has stories in it that may be considered fairytale for some. I read the bible but I don't take it literally, especially since those books have been translated so many times by so many others that sometimes you wonder what would happen if you find the originals in their pre-translated form and none of them were what ended up in the bible.

OhJessie - posted on 04/26/2011

318

0

13

I was a tad selfish when it came to Santa Claus (as much as I loved it as a kid; and no, I never felt betrayed by my parents in any way for that) - with my own kids we kind of always "winkingly" referred to Santa...so we all "knew" it was a pleasant and fun fiction, but we pretended together that it was real. It was a nice compromise. That way we still got credit for most of the gifts but there was always that element of imagination and magic that came of pretending fairly seriously that a couple of things under that tree were surprise gifts from the jolly old elf in the red suit. It's fun.

Kate CP - posted on 04/26/2011

8,942

36

754

"You drink water? Like outta the toilet?"

GOD I love that movie. xD

Krista - posted on 04/26/2011

12,562

16

842

But Johnny, everything in the Bible is the absolute TRUTH! I know, because it said so in the Bible!

Plus, it's got what plants crave...

Johnny - posted on 04/26/2011

8,686

26

318

I believe we should verify if that cut & paste post wins the prize for the longest post ever. Yikes! My brain hurts after forcing myself to read through it. I can not even be bothered to rebut it point by point, but to simply say, reading things like that just deeply reinforces my non-belief. Not because they make me angry or frustrated, but because when analyzed carefully, they make no logical sense.

To believe that it is important to know the word of the bible, one has to either believe that the bible is the word of god or have an interest in understanding it academically. I fall in the latter category. I've read the entire thing. Not once during it, nor that post, did I even slightly start to see it as anything but a work of fiction.

That's the problem, you are trying to use a book that non-believers see as fictional fables to prove that what is said in the book is the truth. It continues to be one of the world's most ridiculous circular arguments. It is just like me trying to prove to you that Santa exists by showing you the Santa in the mall when you know that the mall Santa is really just an old guy trying to make a few bucks to supplement his pension. Only a young child should be using that sort of reasoning.

I really do understand and I have no issue with people choosing not to participate in telling children that the Easter Bunny, Santa, et al are true. As long as they are not out there actively trying to ruin it for other kids. I don't think it leads to sad, non-imaginative childhoods or unhappy holiday festivities. I can even understand why parents choose to tell their kids that those creatures aren't real. If it does not mesh with your worldview or faith, no one should have to tell their kids a story just to please others. We do not expect Jewish children, or Muslim children or Buddhist children to be told these stories. So why would it be more distressing for other kids? My neighbors growing up were Jewish. I knew they didn't believe in Santa Claus and it didn't cause me the slightest doubts about his existence. They just did things differently. I do have a hard time understanding why it is that telling kids about the Easter Bunny would threaten their belief in Jesus. I managed to still believe in Santa while not believing in god or the Easter Bunny.

If a kid is starting to have doubts, I do think it is wrong to outright lie to them and try to perpetuate a myth. That may indeed lead to mistrust. There is a difference between helping to create a little magic in a child's life and ignoring their own personal development & growth of their own sense of reality.

Well, I wrote for quite some time. I don't think I've managed to challenge the previously held record, but at least they were my own thoughts. Developed without any assistance from google, any book, or that handy cut & paste function.

Tara - posted on 04/26/2011

2,567

14

107

My kids have always believed that these characters exist because we believe in them, they exist in our imaginations. Although for the longest time the "easter bunny and the tooth fairy" have been the "easter mummy" the "tooth mummy" but santa still lives on each year in their imaginations and in their whimsical creative minds. And I don't lie. I tell them "santa exists as long as you believe he exists, he lives in your imagination". But once they actually ask me about him as a person coming into our home at night to deliver presents etc. I don't perpetuate a lie, I tell them the truth but in a way that allows them to keep the magic alive not just for their siblings but for themselves for a little while longer.

Alexis - posted on 04/26/2011

632

21

21

@ Cathy.......exactly, but the kid that is doing that is being dis-respectful and mean, which is a different issue than playing along with a fantasy or not, or your child having to keep quite or not. However if a child says the easter bunny left me a basket and my son says no, the easter bunny doesnt exist then I am not going to blame him for telling the truth or his point of view as long as it doesnt become dis-respectful. However to keep a 6 year old's point of view or opinion to themselves is not easy, and not something that I want to teach my child to do. Be respectful and have tact, yes, keep quite about his opinions or beliefs when the subject is brought up, no.

Alexis - posted on 04/26/2011

632

21

21

@ Jodi, I do not participate in the fantasy of Santa clause, easter bunny etc. My son will know of them and I will explain why they exist (there is accurate history of how these characters came to be). I will also explain any religious connections to the holidays (Many of the holidays have multiple religious connections). I will not encourage him to go out and denounce these characters but I will not make him lie to others. If someone asks him about Santa or the topic comes up and he repeats a story of where Santa came from but that we don't believe he actually comes to our house and that ruins another kids fantasy I will not allow my son to be blamed for that. I will not teach my child to lie for your fantasy, I will teach him to be respectful and respect others beliefs and point of views but not to just be quite or lie about his. We are huge on using our imagination and reading\watching fiction and if he wants to pretend Santa exist then thats fine, but I won't make believe he exists.

Minnie - posted on 04/26/2011

7,076

9

786

Seriously....why not reply point by point instead of posting a diatribe that left me falling asleep a paragraph into it? That was a sermon, not a response to debate.



But honestly confirms my personal experience that many fundamental Christians only open the top of their heads and have the stuff spooned into them and then they spew it out.

~Jennifer - posted on 04/26/2011

4,164

61

365

Danielle....can you restate that in your own words without copying from the internet?

It's had to believe the 'faith' of someone that copies and pastes to prove their convictions.





Edit: Sorry,tara....posted b4 i saw your warning....but I'm still leaving my comment.

...........delete if you must.

Billie - posted on 04/26/2011

246

5

20

I couldn't even finish reading your post, sorry. I just have to say that I'm tired of parents taking away these very simple joys from their children. I see them as a way to boost our kid's imaginations and to have fun! I was floored Christmas 2008 that I spent with my brother's in-laws. I was pregnant with #1, my husband was deployed, and I had lost my mother less than a month prior so I really appreciated the company for christmas. What floored me was his mother-in-law sat down all the kids and explained to them that santa didn't buy any presents, the adults worked hard to buy them all. I WAS SO ANGRY!! It's not the kid's fault that people are losing jobs and so forth, why would you take away that special time for them just because YOU want to be praised for doing your job and being a grand-parent???

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE TODAY????!!! My parents kept up with holiday fictional characters until we were old enough to figure out they weren't real ourselves. Why would someone want to take that joy away from the children?? I don't understand it, I really don't.

Esther - posted on 04/26/2011

3,513

32

144

I also wanted to add that those many interpretations In the bible were made by people in the early first century who, because of the time they lived in, lacked a lot of knowledge we now have access to thanks to science. They were therefore more prone to interpret events as "divine" as they were unable to explain them any other way. Just like the Greeks once interpreted thunder and lightning as Zeuss having a temper tantrum, while we now know that in fact the sudden increase in pressure and temperature from lightning produces rapid expansion of the air surrounding and in turn, this expansion of air creates a sonic shock wave which produces the sound of thunder.

Jenni - posted on 04/26/2011

5,928

34

373

I was just about to say what Krista said better than how I could have said it. ;)

Esther - posted on 04/26/2011

3,513

32

144

If that screed was indeed intended to be a rebuttal of my original post about contradictions in the bible, it failed miserably. Genealogy is a matter of fact - not interpretation, so at least one side (quite possibly both) got it wrong. God is either merciful or he orders the murder of infants.



You did make a great point about interpretation though. The bible is rife with interpretations. Which combined with many translations makes believing the bible literally such a ridiculous idea.

Krista - posted on 04/26/2011

12,562

16

842

@Jodi: That IS the sticky wicket, isn't it? If you don't want to "lie" to your kids about Santa and the Easter Bunny, then you have to figure out how to make sure that they don't spoil it for all of the other kids. But how to do that without turning THEM into "liars"?

I guess it's like any other philosophical difference. We're raising our kids without religion, but I'm certainly going to advise them against going around and telling other kids that the Christian god is not real. So this is sort of a similar situation, and I think that each family has to figure out how to handle it and how to raise their kids to be sensitive to others' beliefs while remaining true to their principles.

Jodi - posted on 04/26/2011

26,328

36

3891

Tracey, I think it evolved when I questioned about reading fiction to our kids, and therefore, but allowing our children to read fiction, we are essentially telling SOME lies of sorts to our children somehow......and the rest is history :P

But I do stand by that. I really don't have issue with anyone choosing not to do Santa and Easter Bunny. I could care less, really, UNLESS it affects MY child's beliefs. In which case, you ALSO need to make sure your children respect the beliefs of others, and how do you do that unless you encourage your children to lie in some way (even if only by omission).

Tara - posted on 04/26/2011

2,567

14

107

****Mod Warning***
Please stay on track ladies.
If a debate about evolution is desired, please start a new thread regarding that topic of debate and let's leave this one to the Easter Bunny et Al.
:)Tara DM mod

Merry - posted on 04/26/2011

9,274

169

248

Wow, that was overkill. :/ don't let one person ruin your image of all of us wwho believe in Jesus. *shakes head*

[deleted account]

Nice cut/paste job. Tell me what books written by biologists who know that evolution is accurate have you read? Why did your cut/paste job repeat very old arguments such as 'fossils are the strongest evidence" when that is absolutely a lie. DNA has long supplanted fossils for various reasons. So again, I ask what books about evolution by so-called evolutionists have you read?

Sneaky - posted on 04/26/2011

1,170

33

130

I should read responses before posting - how did this become an evolution debate??? Is evolution a 'lie' too?

Sneaky - posted on 04/26/2011

1,170

33

130

My kids lie all the time - today my five year old told me that her friend Randall (he is imaginary) went dancing with her friend Olivia (she is imaginary too). I guess I have to stamp out all that imagination and pretending and 'lying' now before she starts to get confused about what reality actually is and goes to hell (an imaginary place). Oh well, at least she will not be lonely there because I will certainly be waiting for her!

Jodi - posted on 04/26/2011

26,328

36

3891

" If evolution is responsible for all the vast creations in space and the endless varieties of species of life on the innumerable planets, then why is the law not working today?"

"Is it not strange that the process has been at a standstill for the period man has been on earth to observe evolution at work? Is it not strange that man has not produced one example of change from one species to another, not even to the losing of the monkey tail and hair?"

This is where I would like to point out your lack of basic knowledge about evolution, because while we are continually evolving, a significant, noticable change can take many thousands (or tens of thousands) of years. You are not going to see any noticeable changes in a mere 10,000 years, our DNA is far to complex for that to happen.

You are correct in pointing out that we have not evolved out of our body hair, or our tailbone, both of which are now unnecessary. If anything, these are PROOF of the existence of evolution. These together with goosebumps (another unnecessary human response), wisdom teeth, a remnant (non-working) 3rd eyelid, the appendix and junk DNA (I'm sure there are more). ALL of these things once had a purpose in our lives before we evolved into our modern lifestyles, many of them have evolved to a degree (for instance, our jaws are now too small for the wisdom teeth that once were a necessity for the diet we ate).

Eventually, we will evolve. For instance, some people do have a LOT more hair than others. Some people do not EVER grow wisdom teeth. Over many thousands of generations, these will eventually be bred OUT of our species, or will adapt in accordance with our new needs.

Anyway, this is not a discussion about evolution. Unless I can add that our cultural beliefs also evolve over time, but at a much quicker rate. 2000 years ago, the Bible didn't exist. Look at that for cultural evolution!!

Sal - posted on 04/26/2011

1,816

16

33

hmmm well that was the longest single thread i have never read...i skimmed, probally more respect than it warrented, the ladies here who debate with intellegence and common sence about their religous beliefs must be so sadened to have people making it seem so narrow and ignoarant....and jodi i suspect you are right she doesn;t quiet fathom the basics of evolution ( i kind of feel like noreen on this one over millions of years stuff just changes to a better model) if one doesn't quiet have a grip on what the vatican is (or who if i am to follow an earlier statement which i am truely a little confused about) how can a complext theory like eveolution possible be clear

Jodi - posted on 04/25/2011

26,328

36

3891

I don't think she quite understands the theory of evolution. while I haven't read the entire post, a simple glance through it shows that she has absolutely no basic understanding of the evolutionary process.

Kate CP - posted on 04/25/2011

8,942

36

754

"...All this is quite remarkable in view of the fact that there are over 2,000,000 different species of plant and animal life..."

That we KNOW of. There are THOUSANDS of species of plants and animals and insects that we have probably never seen before and never will because of where they are located on the earth. We *still* have uncharted ground on our planet. So no duh the missing link is still missing. Just because it's missing doesn't mean it can't exist. That's like saying your car keys are missing therefor your car can't exist.

Kate CP - posted on 04/25/2011

8,942

36

754

"...Jesus the Christ? He didn’t believe in evolution..."

NO SHIT?! Holy mother of God! You mean he didn't believe in something that wasn't thought of for thousands of years after his death?!

WELL BUTTER MY BUTT AND CALL ME A BISCUIT!!!

Ah dun thank yew cun-ver-tud meh!

*rolls eyes*

Charlie - posted on 04/25/2011

11,203

111

401

That is the single most ludicrous thing I have ever read ( yes ladies more so than the veggie thread )



I could write the sky is green but hard , solid evidence proves otherwise .....and you said you didnt read fiction *tsk tsk*

Danielle - posted on 04/25/2011

99

4

1

esther, getting back to you as i said i would.

now the new testament (so called contradiction) you stated of the geniology: the new testament and events are recorded of different authors portraying different events/happenings from different views. say you were at the zoo. you recorded what the giraffe did in a book, but another saw the same giraffe, and recorded what they saw differently.



as far as the old testiment scripture, They were under the law and many crimes and offences resulted in death back then, we are, in the new testament, and under a different form of grace.



((((((((((so many people have commented on evolution..must you see and open your eyes! ))))))))))



1. It is a law of nature that nothing reproduces anything greater than itself. If this is true of all species today, of which we have millions of examples, then it was true originally. The vast creations of matter and life had to come into existence by a superior power, not an inferior force. One thing is certain: intelligence could not have come from any number of molecules of unintelligence. The most that has ever been done or can possibly be done is to demonstrate the law of improvement of a species through breeding and cultivation. No new species has been or can be produced by such law. If left alone the plants and animals would degenerate, not improve themselves in any degree, as seen in point 7 below. Therefore we must conclude that no amount of unintelligent matter could produce intelligent beings—anything higher than itself. The intelligent and innumerable self-producing creatures—each with its own eternal and consistent traits, distinct flavors, and infinite combinations of chemicals—could never be the product of unintelligent matter. Each one of the millions of creatures that reproduce their own kind by fixed and eternal laws must be the work of an all-powerful and all-wise Creator.







2. The Bible declares (10 times in Gen. 1) that everything created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind. No one thing could break this law and produce any other kind (Gen. 1: 20-28). 1,660 years later it had not been broken (Gen. 7:14). Now, after more than 6,000 years the law of reproduction is still unbroken. The sponge is still a sponge and has not become an oyster, octopus, turtle, frog, fish, or crab. None of these have ever reproduced anything except their own kind. No lowly earthworm has ever turned into a spider, scorpion, lizard, tortoise, snake, or crocodile. No bug, bird, or animal has ever changed from its own kind or reproduced another kind which was fertile and could produce a new kind. The crossing of an ass and a mare, for instance, will produce a mule which cannot reproduce itself. No monkey has ever produced a man and the missing link is still missing and always will be.







All this is quite remarkable in view of the fact that there are over 2,000,000 different species of plant and animal life. Each species proves the law of reproduction established by God—after his own kind. There are more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Species of beetles number 250,000; butterflies and moths 10,000; shellfish 80,000; snails 80,000; arachnids 60,000; flies 40,000; barnacles, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp 25,000; fish 20,000; bees 10,000; wasps 10,000; worms 9,000; ants 5,000; birds 1,200; and cockroaches 1,000. There are also many species of larger animals, and over 180,000 species of plants. Species of fungi number 100,000; algae 20,000; mosses 20,000; corals 5,000; and sponges 3,000, besides many other species of living things.







All species exist in great variety, and the so-called proofs of evolutionists are merely variations, or minor changes within the same species. Out of billions of living organisms and fossils there is no evidence of the slightest tendency to evolve out of the original kind to which each belongs. There is only evidence of development and normal growth; but these are not evolution. Improvement of a species and new varieties within the species are not evolution. The theory of evolution teaches transmutation a change in nature, substance, form, and alteration of essence by a slow and gradual mutation from one species to another, and from the lower to the higher. This has never been done, nor can it be done. In nature we find endless variety within each species, but no change from one species to another. Without a change of species there can be no evolution. God has made life so that it interbreeds in closely related variations; and when interbreeding is attempted between different kinds of species it is found that there is a gulf which cannot be crossed.







Life multiplies abundantly. One bacterium in 24 hours can produce 281.5 trillion descendants. A fly can lay 500 eggs in a season, each of which can develop into a fly capable of laying 500 eggs of its own. If all eggs hatched and survived the original fly would have enough descendants in 6 months to cover the earth with flies, to a depth of about 50 feet. A common potato bug is capable of producing 60,000 offspring in a season; a single sunfish lays 30,000,000 eggs a season; an oyster 100,000,000; a codfish 10,000,000; a toad 20,000; spiders have 2,000 babies in one cocoon; a loggerhead turtle lays 1,000 eggs at a time; and a pair of meadow mice could produce 1,000,000 offspring in a year. An elm tree produces 1,584,000,000 seeds and a barley seed 18,000 grains. But out of the billions of yearly reproductions of nature, not one monkey's tail has been produced by anything except a monkey. There is no proof of man in various stages from a molecule to a monkey, or from a monkey to a man!







3. There can be no evolution without the power of reproduction in living things. Since reproduction is a prior condition to evolution, it cannot be a product of it. Hence, we face the logical necessity for the creation of life and its power of continued reproduction. The power of reproduction is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. An egg cannot produce an egg. It is also true that the egg is not improvable by itself. Improvement can come only in and through the mature form. Therefore, the parent-form of life must have been created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which offspring alone can come.







4. Science has proven that dead matter cannot generate life; life can only come from preexisting life. When test tubes were filled with hay and other organic matter, when all life germs were completely destroyed, when the tube was hermetically sealed to exclude outer air, and while it was absolutely free of living germs, not one vestige of life appeared. The attempt to get the living out of the dead completely failed. The theory of spontaneous generation of evolutionists has had to be given up. It is now recognized that life can only come from life. All life is dependent upon other life: the lower upon the higher; the simple upon the complex; the powerless upon the powerful; the impersonal upon the personal; the unintelligent upon the intelligent; the nonexisting upon the existing; the natural upon the spiritual; the temporary upon the eternal. Nothing can come from nothing or be produced by nothing.







5. The argument of evolution from embryology that embryos of different forms of life are somewhat alike so they must have come from a common ancestor—has utterly failed, as have the theories of natural selection, and the survival of the fittest. The similarity of embryos and their fast development to full growth are contrary to the principles of the evolutionary hypothesis. The chief foundation of evolution is that of a slow and tedious process over millions and millions of years. The evolution teachers have to argue this due to the fact that no single example of evolution from one species to another can be cited. Human and other embryos pass through various stages of growth very rapidly. In some cases growth is miraculously rapid. Thus, evolutionists are forced to believe in miracles, which they deny in other fields but sustain in their own, in the effort to prove their claims. It is now known that there are radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates (backboned animals) and invertebrates (animals without backbones), which would not be if all things had a common ancestor. Some similarity among embryos of all forms of life should be expected, since all start individually from a single life-germ or a combination of two.







If a botanist were asked the difference between an oak, a palm tree, and a lichen, he would declare that they are separated by the broadest line of classification. But if the germs of these plants were placed before him to choose one from the other, he could not do it. Under the most powerful microscope they would yield no clue. If analyzed by the chemist they would still keep their secret. The same is true of the life germ of various animals and man. No one can tell which is which. What makes the little speck grow in the millions of different creatures? What is there which the eye cannot see that determines which of the many creatures it shall be? Only a personal and infinite intelligent Being could make such unfailing laws of reproduction—after his kind.







6. It is further argued that man and monkey are so similar that they must have come from a common ancestor. This is neither sound logic nor sound science. Resemblance proves nothing but resemblance. Similarity proves nothing but similarity. Resemblance and similarity run throughout all nature in things that have no connection with each other. Resemblance or similarity on some points is to be expected even though we accept creation by God. Such only magnifies the fact of an intelligent operator. This is true whether it is the Creator or a manufacturer in a factory. The wheel is the same in the wagon, car, locomotive, and plane. But such similarity does not prove that the wagon evolved into an automobile, then into a locomotive, and finally into a plane.







All animals and men have the same kind of faculties to breathe, eat food, and perform other bodily functions, but no such similarity proves close relationship. God made them thus so that all could exist alike in the same air and on similar foods. The dissimilarities between man and lower animals not only in body, but also in brain, spirit and soul faculties-prove that they are NOT vitally related. The differences between man and monkey are so wide that any single bodily part is sufficient in itself to prove whether it is a part of man or monkey.







Evolutionists themselves confirm this fact by their promptness in deciding whether a bone is from a monkey or a man. There are hundreds of differences between the bodies of men and apes, and thousands of mental, moral, spiritual, and habitual differences between them which prove evolution of man from apes or lower life impossible.







7. Degeneration. The similarities between man and lower animals could be used to prove a process of degeneration from man more than a process of evolution to man. The Bible teaches that God made man before He made land animals—on day 6. Therefore, man came first and then the monkey (Gen. 2:7, 19-25). Darwin's argument that plants and animals have within themselves tendencies to vary of their own accord in all directions to an unlimited degree, has been disproved many times. Mendel's experiments prove conclusively that plants and animals, even under man's selective skill in breeding, do not tend to vary in all directions and to an unlimited degree; but that the variations are within strict limits and work according to fixed laws producing unvarying results. The theory of natural selection and of inheritance of acquired characters has failed of proof. The forms of vegetables, plants, and animals that man succeeds in improving by human selection and cultivation revert rapidly to type as soon as man's directing skill is removed. In all man's selection and cultivation he can work only within the limits of the species. No change into new species has been produced either by natural or artificial selection. The iron law of sterility stands guard at the far frontiers of the species and everything continues to reproduce after his kind.







There is a certain potency of development implanted in all things, but such potential powers are led out into actual development or improvement not through resident forces, as evolution teaches, but only through outside intervention and intelligent help. Man can develop the wild rose into the American Beauty, or the wild pony into the Kentucky thoroughbred, by selection, better environment, breeding, etc., but it is most significant that these improvements do not continue to increase, or even persist, when things are left to themselves. The rose reverts to a wild rose if left alone, and the horse begins to go back to its degenerated type once man's skill is omitted.







If one takes a flock of highly developed pigeons, with all their shades of color and variety of markings, and turns them loose in the forest to see if they will improve or degenerate, he will find in a few years that they have all returned to one type. Compelled by an unfailing natural law, all will revert to common colors instead of being a variety with beautiful markings. Improvements brought about by care and selection in breeding will be gone, proving the law of evolution a failure.







The same thing will happen to man. If he neglects himself he will revert to a worse and lower type of man—like those who have been discovered on desert islands or in jungles. If the mind is neglected it will degenerate into imbecility and ignorance. Solitary confinement has the power to unmake men's minds and leave them idiots. If the conscience is neglected it will run off into lawlessness and sin. The soul that is neglected will go into ruin and depravity.







Only 3 possibilities are before us: balance, improvement only to a certain degree, or degeneration. The Bible question is: How shall we escape if we neglect (Heb. 2: 1-4)? These 3 possibilities face every man. He has a desire to better himself and yet he is constantly beset with a gravitation to sin and the law of death working in his very being. We say that nature is full of life, but in reality it is full of death. Plant life and animal life are kept alive by a temporary endowment which gives power over the elements that cause death. Withdraw the elements of life and the true nature will be revealed. Life is merely the suspension of these destructive powers the sum total of the functions that resist death. Spiritual life is the same—the sum total of the functions that resist sin. If we neglect the use of these powers death will result. A man falling 500 ft. is as good as dead the first foot of the fall. So it is with the man who does not properly use the powers to live. One who continues to neglect life is dead. If we neglect, degeneration sets in. If we use the powers of life to resist sin, we live.







To use the argument that savages are more like monkeys than civilized men is no proof of evolution; it is proof of degeneration. Man fell from original sinlessness and the highest degree of intelligence to the present status. Adam had more intelligence the day he was created than all men together have now. He could name all things, and all men today who learn all their lives cannot yet do this (Gen. 2:19).







Degeneration explains the present uncivilized parts of the world, and the so-called cave men-the Peking man, the Heidelberg, the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon man and others. All problems between true science and the Bible can be solved by the facts of degeneration.







8. Fossil remains have been referred to as one of the strongest proofs of evolution. But evolutionists themselves acknowledge that this proof is extremely fragmentary, limited, and obscure due to the fact of only a few fossil remains. Hence, they are forced to guess without proof. The missing links between man and monkey have never been found. The manufactured bones of prehistoric men are fakes. The Piltdown man, for example, was no man at all. The story is that in a gravel pit in Sussex, Eng., near Piltdown Common, 2 or 3 bits of a skull bone, a piece of jawbone, and a tooth were found by different persons in different places in different years. From these few scrapes scientists constructed the Piltdown man and named it the Dawn-man of the dateless past. From the same bones another later type was made by another team of scientists. Finally it was acknowledged that the jawbone and tooth did not belong to the skull, but were those of a chimpanzee. The Java-man was built in Java from a skull bone, leg bone, 2 molars, and plaster-of-Paris; the Heidelberg-man was built in Germany from a jawbone which was unquestionably human; the Peking-man of China was made from human skull, fragments found in a cave, in 1929; the Swanscombe-man of England was made from the back and one side of a woman's skull; the Fontechevade-man of France was made from a part of a skull; the first Neanderthal-man was made from a skull cap in Germany, which one great German pathologist declared to be the cranium of an idiot; the Australopithecus Africanus-man of Africa was made from an ape skull found with a number of other ape skulls and bones in Africa; and the Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, the Nebraska-man, was made from a single pig tooth said to be 1 million years old. Pictures of these man-made specimens have been the so-called proof shown in school textbooks. Some educators in the name of science are passing such hoaxes upon innocent children!







9. The old geological scheme to prove evolution has also been repudiated. Instead of the older rocks being found at the bottom and the younger rocks at the top, as would be the case if evolution were true, it is often the opposite. This kills the evolution-theory of natural building up of the strata. Sound science is quickly disproving this old geological scheme proposing that the earth is a gazillion years old (more than say, 10,000 years old – see point 14 below).







10. The fact of a universal flood (Noah's), can easily explain the fossil remains being where they are. This accounts for fossil remains being found deep in the earth underneath many layers of solid rock. Such things never would have been there without the flood, what it caused, and judgment of God.







It is evident that many fossils came from a great catastrophe, being entombed in the strata instead of being slowly buried by sedimentation over millions of years. We read of whole schools of fish covering large fields which have been found with every indication of a violent and sudden death. They are not in a relaxed position but often with their head twisted around to their tails and every fin extended—the position a fish dies in when overtaken by an enemy or some catastrophe. Historians tell us that the earth has undergone one great and indescribable catastrophe. This happened at Noah's flood or from what it caused.







That the earth was divided in the days of Peleg is clear from Gen. 10:25. Such a shaking up of the entire earth, as well as the flood catastrophe of Noah's time, could have caused fossils to become deeply submerged.







The Arctic regions give clear evidence of a sudden calamity. In their extensive fields of fossilized and frozen mammoths, where multitudes of giant creatures have been found, some were discovered with their stomachs full of undigested food, and some with their mouths full as well. This shows that they were feeding quietly when the crisis came and were destroyed with suddenness. That the Arctic regions had tropical climate when these beasts were destroyed seems true, for they had tropical food in their mouths. Evidently they were frozen immediately when God withheld the sun from shining during Noah's flood, and/or what then happened as a result of this event (Gen. 1: 2; Isa. 14: 12-14; Jer. 4: 23-26; Ez. 28: 11-17; Ps. 104: 6-9; 2 Pet. 3: 5-7).





11. Regarding Noah's flood, God commanded male and female of every species to be kept alive in the ark to replenish the earth after his kind when the flood was over (Gen. 6: 18-22; 7: 2-16). Had the evolutionists been right, this would have been unnecessary. Noah could have merely saved a couple of molecules, turned them loose after the flood, an eventually we could have the innumerable living things again in all their varieties!







12. If evolution is responsible for all the vast creations in space and the endless varieties of species of life on the innumerable planets, then why is the law not working today? And why do we not have actual and unquestionable examples of the various stages of evolution from the lowest to the highest forms of life? If evolution ever worked, it should be working today so that every form or stage of development could be seen as proof that the lower forms of life will eventually be the higher in the ages to come. Is it not strange that the process has been at a standstill for the period man has been on earth to observe evolution at work? Is it not strange that man has not produced one example of change from one species to another, not even to the losing of the monkey tail and hair? And again, if people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?





13. There is evidence now that the whole world and all in it are degenerating and moving toward some climax or judgment and re-creation, instead of evolving upward into higher and better forms. In chemistry which is closest to the deeper facts and forces of inanimate matter and life, there is no evidence of a surge upward. Not only are the laws of chemical affinity static and unchangeable as to their operations, but there is a disintegrating tendency downward instead of upward that seems to characterize all matter. The tendency of atoms of high atomic weight to break up into other atoms of lower weight seems to be the universal tendency of all matter. Scientists declare that this is also true in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.







14. The evolution theory is not only absurd—its so-called proofs are so contradictory that they cause increasing doubt. Tyndal says that the world began in a fire-mist that contracted as it became cold; but Spencer says it was a cold-cloud that became heated and contracted. The age of man is estimated anywhere from 550 million to 6 million years. The age of the earth is estimated anywhere from 10 billion to 10 million years. This proves nothing but the unreliability of data, which is used in the effort to prove diverse conclusions.







15. The Bible in its entirety condemns the theories of both cosmic and organic evolution. It declares in no uncertain terms that God created all the material and moral creations, the animate and inanimate things, and that He is the first and last cause of all existing universes and the things therein. The Bible declares: God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1: 1; Ps. 8: 1-9; 19: 1-7; 102: 25-27; Isa. 45: 18); God created great whales and every living creature (Gen. 1: 20); God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them (Gen. 1: 26-28; 2: 7, 19-25; 5: 1-2; 9: 6); all things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made (Jn. 1: 3); God created all things by Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) (Eph. 3: 9; Col. 1: 15-18); the upholding of all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1: 3); Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev. 4: 11).









Jesus said unto them, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6). To argue that the Christian can accept evolution on the grounds that the Bible is not to be taken literally, is a surrender to the foes of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and all Christian teachings. The theory therefore is anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Bible, anti-Christian, and and-intelligence.

Mrs. - posted on 04/25/2011

1,767

6

30

Apparently, my father used to climb up on the roof of our old, battered Victorian house, ring bells, stomp and say, "Ho, ho, ho!"



The sad part is, none of us ever heard it. I guess he wasn't loud enough.

[deleted account]

@Laura H, I get what you're saying. I remember being a kid (who still believed in the Easter Bunny) and going on egg hunts where it was announced that an adult at an Easter party was going to hide eggs. I never believed the bunny hid eggs, because my parents didn't do the whole egg thing and I only experienced it at parties, but I believed that the basket that "suddenly" appeared on the coffee table was from the Easter Bunny. My parents would put the basket on the table after I'd gone to sleep, of course, but my little brain deduced that the bunny did it! It was the same with Santa. There were presents under the tree and on Christmas Day, lo' and behold, there were surprisingly MORE presents there, wrapped in different paper. Who did that? Santa! My parents never said it was these beings who did these things, they just let me think whatever I wanted to think.

It sounds like you are just going to go with it, more or less. His exposure will be minimal, but with the amount of stuff out there he's bound to come across some of it. Even just the cartoons at that time of year (which I miss since we don't get them in Australia). I can see your position though, and totally respect it. Incidentally, my 2 yr old hasn't really got an imagination for such things yet either and my 4 yr old has only just started coming out with this stuff this year because he's not really exposed to much of it either.

But dig this.... our neighbour really went all out for their girls. Their mum had made a couple of giant rabbit footprint templates out of old x-rays (we are given our x-rays here) and she would put them on the floor and sprinkle a little flour around them, so it looked like a flour covered rabbit came hopping through their kitchen. For Christmas, she would help her girls make "reindeer food" to leave outside for Santa's reindeer, but she would also make reindeer POO to sprinkle around the area where the food was so that it would look like the reindeer came, ate and pooped. They also left out a glass of beer and a couple biscuits for Santa, which was always consumed (on ya' dad! lol). Now THAT is going all out, and way more effort than I would bother doing to keep the lie going.

Charlie - posted on 04/25/2011

11,203

111

401

I think the point being made was that if your child chooses to run with the concept it shouldnt be up to the parent to crush that , children will naturally develop past that stage but why ruin it ? If they dont get into it then so be it .

In a nutshell it is about the child NOT the parent .

Alexis - posted on 04/25/2011

632

21

21

In response to those that think that by not playing along with the fantasy of the easter bunny\santa etc, we are taking the magic out of our kids lives, I have to say that is very untrue. To a child everything in this world is new and explaining how things work in reality can be just as magical, in fact by showing\explaining to them how things really work and not hyping them up on fantasy they may never lose the magic of life and the world around them. When a child learns that something they though was so magical like santa, isnt real it could reduce their hope for what the world could be. Im not saying that this destroys our kids, and they do get over the fact that none of these characters are real, but to say those of us that don't play along are taking away the the magic in our childs life isn't true.

Noreen - posted on 04/25/2011

914

16

77

HHmmm.... I am in no means brainwashing my kids, (well I am about breast are only meant for Bfing, nothing else) and I am not afraid of them not believing in Jesus either. I just think it would be very confusing for them and very hypocrital on my part to tell them all 3 is real, when imo, only one is real..

[deleted account]

plus teaching kids about white lies is also giving them a valuable skill to take into life. I mean you can't go into a job interview you don't really want (but have too) and tell the interviewer that. My son is two, and loves the fact that the easter bunny left this trail of eggs in his house just for him! It's a little sad that these people don't want to keep a little magic in their kids lives.

Sal - posted on 04/25/2011

1,816

16

33

i feel that a lot of people demand their children follow their own beliefs, you are not happy for them to reach this point by themselves , i wouldn;t want my kids to blindly believe insomething just because i said, to truly believe in something you have to reach that conclusion for your self, and when it is challanged to remain faithful is better than to be never challanged and remain ingorant to other views. If you are so scared that santa is going to make your kids stop believing in jesus your faith is on pretty shaky ground..

Noreen - posted on 04/25/2011

914

16

77

Sal- No they do not think it is the 3 wise men. They know it is Mommy and Daddy playing Santa Claus. As for the rest of what you said. What?! I have no idea what you are talking about!

Sal - posted on 04/25/2011

1,816

16

33

noreen, do your kids know you put the 3 extra presents under the tree or do they think the 3 wise men bring them (you seem kind of sensible so i'm guessing they know you do) but if not isn;t 3 wise men dropping them off just the same as santa,
and i just don;t see how santa can make jesus seem less real to your kids, if jesus is real ( i believe the person was real,i belive he was a great man, a wonderful teacher, he died for his beliefs and that was wrong but son of god stuff, virgin mary, walking on water etc not so much) and you give your kids the tools and the evidence to make decisions themselves they aren't going fall far from the tree (or cross if you like), but do you want your kids to blindly and dogmatically follow your views and never truely find christ for them selves, i feel that unless you have reached the conclusion that jesus and the church is real for you you don;t believe in them any more than in santa clause, and santa is a much more real figure to kids anyway, he is in the shopping centers, he is there every year dropping stuff off to the kids every year and that is real to kids, and i also see that st nicholas (the orginal figure) was a real man who created a legacy that i follow and while the commercialisation of the season is way too much, the spirit of giving to family freinds and strangers alike is a wonderful thing...

Noreen - posted on 04/25/2011

914

16

77

Krista E- I know they will question God and Jesus at some point in their life and I am ok with it. They will find their own way and their own beliefs. But while they are little, I will teach them my beliefs and tell them about other religions and tell them why I believe in what I do. :)

Johnny - posted on 04/25/2011

8,686

26

318

@ Jen. I love infidel.org. Great resource! And I can't help but love that website name.

Johnny - posted on 04/25/2011

8,686

26

318

My father used to tell me all sorts of crazy, fantastical tall tales. Entertaining stories about the man who lived in our tree and washed our car at night to how the escalators only go in one direction and the stores close at night so they can put all the stairs from the attic back in the basement and vice versa. Over the years, I developed the ability to understand fiction vs. reality. I had actually decided that there probably was no god before I'd decided that Santa wasn't real. I do not recall every really buying into the Easter bunny thing. My parents still talk about these make-believe beings, including the car wash fairy, as if they are real to this day. We all know they aren't. It's fun and entertainment, just like a good fiction book, a lovely poem, or a painting from one's imagination. These are the things that bring joy in life.

After all these years of made-up stories, I still trust my father, perhaps more than anyone else. He tells stories, that does not make him a dishonest, deceitful, liar.

For me, as an agnostic, I just can not help but find it amusing when people are so concerned that finding out the truth about fictional characters and stories will make children doubt their faith. It makes me wonder that deep down every really knows that it is just another fairy tale designed to teach us moral lessons and expand our brains a bit.

Krista - posted on 04/25/2011

12,562

16

842

@Noreen: You do realize that it's very possible that they'll question that ANYWAY, right?

I mean heck, if you're going to look at it that way, then you've basically cut yourself off from telling them ANY fibs whatsoever, because of your reasoning that they'll find out about one fib, and automatically mistrust anything and everything else you've ever told them.

Noreen - posted on 04/25/2011

914

16

77

My children know that Santa, Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy are pretend. Our reasoning for not "lieing" to them is because if I told them that Santa, Easter Bunny, and Jesus where all real, even if you don't see them, then when they are older, they are going to find out that Santa and Bunny aren't real, what if they question if Jesus is real too?? We focus the holiday's around the true meaning of the holiday, Jesus. On Christmas Eve we read the Birth Story of Jesus and talk about his birth using a child's nativity set. We talk about the story of the 3 wise men each leaving a gift for Jesus. In the morning when they wake up, they have 3 presents each under the tree that where not their the night before. On Easter we talk they wake up a few gifts in their baskets (this year I couldn't find them thanks to moving from SC-CA so their gifts where on the table). After playing with their gifts, we went to church, and talked about church on our way home and then prepared for our Easter dinner. After everyone left and before bed, we read Jesus's death story using Ressurection Eggs. They still get the joy of the other children with getting gifts and pretending Santa and Easter Bunny came. But they know that the real meaning behind this is for HIM.

I promise I am not a crazy Christian or anything. I have no judgement for other parents who choose to do differently with their children. This is just my reasoning. :)

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms