Richard Stallman looks back at 25 years of the GNU project

[LinuxMint-4]

Richard Stallman looks back at 25 years of the GNU project
By Bruce Byfield on September 26, 2008 (5:00:00 PM)

http://www.linux.com/feature/147983

On September 27, 1983, Richard M. Stallman announced his intention to found the GNU project in order to build a free operating system. Now, 25 years later, the Free Software Foundation is marking the anniversary of the announcement with a month-long celebration. Looking back at the last quarter century, Stallman expresses some guarded satisfaction with the growth of the free software movement, but also some bemusement about how it has grown more complex as it has faced new challenges from within and without, and an awareness of how far it still has to go to reach its goals.

As Stallman remembers events, the GNU project started small, with "something like three, maybe four" developers besides himself. "But, once we started to release programs that people could use, that attracted more developers."

Stallman has written and discussed many times how he started the GNU project out of his growing concern over the rise of proprietary software, starting with a compiler and moving on to GNU Emacs, the program with which he is most closely associated. Originally, he says, "Our emphasis was on recruiting people to write free software. We didn't even have the core of a system, so the challenge was to write that. But it was written in the absence of any attempt to stop us. It was simply a task of programming."

[Richard M. Stallman. Click to enlarge] Richard M. Stallman. Click to enlarge

Still, from the start, the project had to look beyond mere development if it were to accomplish its goals. Its first programs were released under what Stallman calls "an early version of a copyleft license," and in 1989, he produced the first version of the GNU General Public License, which was followed by the second in 1992.

Asked if he found the growing need to consider licensing and legal issues a difficult shift in his thinking, Stallman is matter-of-fact. "It just had to be done. It was just so clear that I had to do this that I did it. I'm not going to claim that I did the best imaginable job of it, but it was no problem at all."

Much of the growing concern over legal matters was a result of new obstacles to free software, such as the efforts to copyright interfaces that was at the heart of the famous Lotus vs. Borland case and the rise of software patents in the mid-1990s.

Another issue was what Stallman calls "secret hardware" -- hardware that uses proprietary drivers and BIOSes. "In the 1980s, it never occurred to me that hardware would be sold by companies that would refuse to tell us how to use it. I was really surprised when I found out about that in the 1990s. In the 1980s, it was still normal practice to document everything in the hardware."

More recently, issues such as proprietary formats and so-called digital rights management (which Stallman refers to as digital restrictions management) have become threats to free software. "It seems that every time that we make progress in some areas, a new kind of obstacle arises or a new social phenomenon systematically builds up opposition to free software," Stallman says ruefully.

In facing these challenges, Stallman suggests, the free software movement has not so much shifted its philosophical and political opinions or its tactics, so much as clarified them. For example, Stallman admits that "It took some years before I saw the need to carefully and firmly distinguish between free as in price and free as in freedom. Although, when I look at the specific decisions I made back then, I was always making them in terms of that distinction, but I didn't have the distinction explicit. I had somewhere inside me the right idea, and was drawing conclusions from it, but I hadn't learned to express it in a sharp and clear way."

Another issue that arose in the 1990s, he says, was that "People started asking me whether these ideas applied to anything other than software. So, I thought and I concluded that other practical works that serve factual purposes in life ought to be free, such as educational and reference works." Artistic works may not be free, in Stallman's thinking, although he believes that, at a minimum, "you must be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies."

These are all large issues, and Stallman's voice sounds faintly surprised as he looks back at the history of GNU. "It looks like I did a whole lot of fairly effective things back then," he says. "But, in a sense, things have got harder since then. Back then, all we had to do was write programs."
The state of free software today

In Stallman's estimation, free software has reached the state where it is starting to be considered a serious alternative. Unfortunately, he says, people "still consider proprietary software as an alternative, too. In fact, most of them still use that. Even most users of the GNU + Linux system still use proprietary programs, because there are free software developers who don't care about the ethical ideals of free software. Probably they describe themselves as open source supporters, and they let in non-free software. They don't see it as unacceptable. They see it purely as a matter of what is convenient."

For example, he cites the existence of drivers in the Linux kernel that require proprietary firmware. "For a long time, I just went on thinking that, even though Torvalds doesn't agree with the free software movement, at least we have a free kernel. But then I found that proprietary firmware was being put into the source code of Linux. So, in fact, Linux as released by Torvalds is not free software."

Such circumstances mean that the free software movement is "still quite a distance from the total liberation of cyberspace. We should have free software to do any job that anyone has to do," Stallman says. "If the question is, what would be complete achievement of our goals, well, this is it: complete free software and free documentation in a world where the writing of proprietary software no longer seems reasonable or plausible, and nobody would be foolish enough to use it if it existed."
New challenges

Stallman declines to speculate on what will happen in the future, except to say that he expects new challenges will continue to arise. "Microsoft is still quite wealthy and powerful, and still using its money to create new obstacles for us. At the same time, we face the new problems of non-free software in Web applications -- both with proprietary software installed via browsers, and with Web servers themselves."

Another major concern is mobile devices. "This is an interesting example of how new problems can arise with new technology," Stallman says. "Ten years ago, I looked at cell phones, and there was no issue of free or proprietary software, because no one could install software in cell phones. But I looked at it, and said that this was Big Brother's dream: Wherever you go, they know where you are.

"Then I found out that, once they became programmable, that it was possible to turn them on remotely to listen to people. But, in the last few years, cell phones have become more powerful and turned into computers on which people can install software, so, as a result, the free software issue is relevant to them, also. And, as it happens, addressing that issue helps us address surveillance and tracking as well. If you have free software, then the phone is controlled by users, and it is possible to tell it not to send any remote signals. Also, there's at least a good chance that it will have security and won't let someone turn it on remotely."

Such issues help to explain why, in the last few years, the free software movement has become increasingly activist and attempted to make common cause with other social activists. These days, "we are not needed so much for simple free software development, because so many other people on doing. On the other hand, we saw threats like digital restrictions management that look like they would basically forbid free software, and we couldn't fight digital restrictions management just by programming."

Unfortunately, Stallman notes, "People who support human rights or a better society for most people don't realize that there's even an issue of supporting free software. And this is partly because open source has been so successful in hiding our existence. In the US, the propaganda that denies any solution to problems other than business solutions is very strong. It only thinks in terms of profit, and takes for granted that everything must yield to that."

In fact, Stallman's main criticism of the first 25 years of free software seems to be that the emphasis on user freedom was not more strongly emphasized from the first. "In the '90s, writing free software took off," he says, "but usually not accompanied by concern for the freedom that free software can give you. So now, our community is weak and vulnerable in various ways, because of lack of attention to this.

"That's why I decided that the most important thing we could do is call attention to this issue of user freedoms, and thus build up a large group of people determined to defend freedom. People sometimes warn me that I'm going to be preaching to the choir, quote-unquote, but actually most of our choir has never even heard of the ideas of the movement. So it's very useful to speak to people who are involved in the free software movement in some way, but who often don't realize that there is any idea in it beyond the idea of open source."

Clearly, Stallman believes that free software still has a long way to go. Yet, in talking about the last 25 years, he firmly denies being discouraged by the gap between reality and his goals. In fact, he says that, "in the rest of life, things are totally discouraging. The US basically seems to have made China its model, and practices every kind of disgusting thing you can imagine. It's a strange thing, but at least in the area of free software, we're making progress, whereas in all other areas of human rights, the world is getting worse. When I started it, I didn't think that things would be getting worse for human rights in general except in the field of software. So it's ironic and surprising that we're making progress in software, while the framework of other human rights is collapsing around us into fascism."

[jturning]

I agree with him on everything I've read so far in is manifesto (still reading). We owe him a lot for the community of Free Software we now enjoy, and we wouldn't have GNU/Linux without his vision and those that followed. And the GPL was genious.

But after hearing Richard on Gutsy Geeks, I disagree with him politically and religiously. I was alarmed at his repugnant statements about Sarah Palin and Christianity. For a man of science and higher learning, I was wondering what he thought of the Big Bang Theory and what clearly was the creation of our universe. I still agree with him when it comes to our government spying on us and human rights issues around the world. But many of the ills in the world can only be understood and fought if you know the true nature and source of evil.

But I still support him when it comes to Free Software.

Bugz

[greggh]

But after hearing Richard on Gutsy Geeks, I disagree with him politically and religiously. I was alarmed at his repugnant statements about Sarah Palin and Christianity.

What were his statements that you found repugnant?

But many of the ills in the world can only be understood and fought if you know the true nature and source of evil.

Do you know what that "true nature and source of evil" is?

[jturning]

What were his statements that you found repugnant?

"The Republicans nominated a vice presidential candidate that is a religious crackpot who wants to teach her church doctrines instead of biology..." Richard Stallman

More is in the radio interview below. Frankly he goes on a rant about biology and evolution showing his liberal views. It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution that Christianity. I do believe in microevolution, but do not believe in macro-evolution. Suffice it to say that science is not opposed to God if indeed God exists and created our universe.

http://gutsygeeks.com/

Do you know what that "true nature and source of evil" is?

Satan and the angels that follow him who rebelled against God. When you examine what goes on around the world it shows a level of evil that goes beyond anything man could do alone. Having studied philosophy in college, the breadth of evil in the world was never explained.

The Origin, Work, and Destiny of Satan

Ezekiel 28:12–19 tells us that God created Satan as a beautiful and eminent angel, a being as real as any of us. The devil lusted after God’s place and position and so rebelled against the Creator, who subsequently cast him and his co-conspirators to earth. Here he set up a counterfeit kingdom in order that he might reign as the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4).

Satan uses deception and division to ensnare believers. He works tirelessly to tempt us, hoping that we will fall into sin, thereby damaging our relationship with God and ruining our witness for Christ. He also desires to keep unbelievers away from the saving grace of Jesus Christ, thereby destroying them. Jesus called him a murderer and the father of lies (John 8:44), and as such, he instigates pain, sorrow and death all over the world. When Satan speaks, he accuses and deceives. He condemns, antagonizes, and confuses us in an attempt to fill us with doubt and despair.

http://www.intouch.org/site/c.dhKHIXPKIuE/b.2558021/k.3218/Life_Principle_18__What_the_Bible_Says__Satan.htm

Bugz

[Patrick]

While I respect what RMS has done for the F/OSS movement I have to be honest I don't like his politics or his total disrespect of other people's beliefs. The guy is an asshole. Just my honest opinion.

[Wally Balljacker]

It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution that Christianity.

Bullshit. Christianity is based purely on faith. There is no rational reason to believe the Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter until it can be substantiated. Science is exactly the opposite of faith. Does it require faith to accept gravity? Does it require faith to accept the fact that the Earth is spherical? Of course not. Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and gravity are based on mountains of evidence.

Do you know what that "true nature and source of evil" is?

God is the original source of evil. God created Satan, therefore God is either evil, or in fact, not omniscient (all knowing). If God was omniscient he would have known Satan was going to rebel, and he could have never created Satan in the first place. Try swallowing that one.

Also, if God was truly all-powerful, God could simply destroy Satan. Why doesn't he do this? Either God is in fact truly evil, or he is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

[MattKingUSA]

It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution that Christianity.

Bullshit. Christianity is based purely on faith. There is no rational reason to believe the Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter until it can be substantiated. Science is exactly the opposite of faith. Does it require faith to accept gravity? Does it require faith to accept the fact that the Earth is spherical? Of course not. Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and gravity are based on mountains of evidence.

Do you know what that "true nature and source of evil" is?

God is the original source of evil. God created Satan, therefore God is either evil, or in fact, not omniscient (all knowing). If God was omniscient he would have known Satan was going to rebel, and he could have never created Satan in the first place. Try swallowing that one.

Also, if God was truly all-powerful, God could simply destroy Satan. Why doesn't he do this? Either God is in fact truly evil, or he is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I have to agree, faith is the evidence of things not seen. And I recall reading that one day God will destroy Satan in a fight that would mark the end of the world. But I also recall that the day of this occurrence is being postponed in an attempt to redeem man.

[greggh]

It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution that Christianity.

Bullshit. Christianity is based purely on faith. There is no rational reason to believe the Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter until it can be substantiated. Science is exactly the opposite of faith. Does it require faith to accept gravity? Does it require faith to accept the fact that the Earth is spherical? Of course not. Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and gravity are based on mountains of evidence.

Do you know what that "true nature and source of evil" is?

God is the original source of evil. God created Satan, therefore God is either evil, or in fact, not omniscient (all knowing). If God was omniscient he would have known Satan was going to rebel, and he could have never created Satan in the first place. Try swallowing that one.

Also, if God was truly all-powerful, God could simply destroy Satan. Why doesn't he do this? Either God is in fact truly evil, or he is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I have to agree, faith is the evidence of things not seen. And I recall reading that one day God will destroy Satan in a fight that would mark the end of the world. But I also recall that the day of this occurrence is being postponed in an attempt to redeem man.

I don't think the fight is going to be between God and Satan. If I remember correctly from the South Park episode, it is going to be between Jesus and Satan. Ahhh, but this is why I try not to argue about Religion with those that know the truth about it. I'm just not willing to put the time and serious thought into keeping up with this rigorous field of objective knowledge of the world. I guess I'm just lazy.

[allix]

I always find it strange how far creationism has gone in the usa?
What is it about your population that believes in this shit?

Recently the church of england apologised to Darwin .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... .evolution

They also have a article on their site about evolution.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin

My personal view on religion is that as long as its separated from the state , people can worship and believe in what they wish.
It makes many people feel comfortable and gives them a purpose in life which is not a bad thing.
My atheist views are not always respected but i won't disrespect a religious persons out of revenge, i see that counter-productive..

[Patrick]

Seeing how this is turning into a bashing session I'm moving it to anything goes.

[MattKingUSA]

I always find it strange how far creationism has gone in the usa?
What is it about your population that believes in this shit?

Well, part of how this country was founded was based on biblical beliefs. No'one had an issue with it then if it if was for the simple fact that if our rights are believed to have been given to us by God than they are beyond the reach of man to take away. This guarantees that our simple God given rights are preserved.

Even if our population doesn't believe it, and a lot don't, it still secures that our rights cannot be taken by the state.

At least I would hope so. But you never know. If someone doesn't believe what I just explained than we could loose our rights. But as long as we trust in God in this country than our rights should be preserved.

There are many further explanations for this in the founding documents for the current government in the USA.

[jturning]

Christianity is based purely on faith. There is no rational reason to believe the Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter until it can be substantiated. Science is exactly the opposite of faith. Does it require faith to accept gravity? Does it require faith to accept the fact that the Earth is spherical? Of course not. Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and gravity are based on mountains of evidence.

We left your cursing out.

We have faith in God and the promises he's made, but we're not left to wonder. God shows His existence in how he works in our lives and by answering our prayers. And by how we can observe God working in other people's lives. And by teaching us His ways while we follow. I can look back over my life and see many times where God worked in my life. And God is shown by what has been created.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Look at the magic of the human body. It's an incredible chemical machine. Even with our science and intelligence we're still in the dark about how much of it works. Most of our medical treatments are simply to treat symptoms until the body heals itself, or to give it help in relation to bone mending.

Like I said before, if this universe was created by God, then science would affirm this after science has run it's course and we have a meaningful collection of observational and experimental data. Explain the Big Bang Theory from your atheist perspective? The universe being created from a point of energy, the expanding universe, the background microwave energy in all directions. Science would appear to tell us that this universe was indeed created about 13 billions years ago. Science of course is limited by our understanding and technology, as we can not look back before the Big Bang. And we can't see beyond the time that light requires to get here.

If you would like to have a debate over microevolution and macro-evolution and what science actually says let me know. Evolution is a theory which has not been proven, and I think you'd be surprised by what evidence is actually not there to support it. That's why I say belief in Evolution takes faith.

God is the original source of evil. God created Satan, therefore God is either evil, or in fact, not omniscient (all knowing). If God was omniscient he would have known Satan was going to rebel, and he could have never created Satan in the first place. Try swallowing that one.

Also, if God was truly all-powerful, God could simply destroy Satan. Why doesn't he do this? Either God is in fact truly evil, or he is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Got created angels and us with the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves. We are not computers running a program, and God didn't want that. This whole existence is for God to sort out those that want to follow Him and have a relationship with Him from those that do not. Though we have choice, there are some limitations put in place or else we would have probably destroyed ourselves already.

And time is a limitation of this universe and covered in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. God exists outside of this universe and outside of time as we know it. He knew exactly how this was all going to play out and even gave us the outcome in the book of Revelation. Any non-believer would do well to at least investigate what Christianity is before boldly opposing it.

For the uninitiated, I'll break down the whole Bible for you, as it is one plan from beginning to end. God set aside a people, Israel, and prepared them spiritually for his coming. God then came to earth as a man born from a woman. As a man Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but He was God in the flesh here on earth, a flesh and blood man like the rest of us. Jesus then chose disciples and taught them about His Father and what was to come. This was God here on earth teaching man about Himself directly while healing the sick, raising the dead, showing His power. God being perfect, and man sinful, God in his justice would have to condemn all of mankind. We just don't measure up to God's standards, but God made another way. He took what should have been our penalty on Himself when he was crucified. Our loving God paid our punishment Himself and all we have to do is believe in Jesus and what he did for us on the cross. And as our promise Jesus was raised from the dead, the first of many. After Jesus returned to the disciples he ascended to Heaven and the disciples continued His work, teaching everyone about what Jesus has done for us and how we are to follow Him. The book of Revelation tells you exactly how the story ends.

All would be wise to read the book of Revelation, because you just might see it start happening in your lifetime. The bottom line is for you to choose, eternity with God, or eternity separated from Him. God is Love and every good thing comes from Him, so the consequences of this decision are great.

Bugz

[greggh]

Christianity is based purely on faith. There is no rational reason to believe the Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter until it can be substantiated. Science is exactly the opposite of faith. Does it require faith to accept gravity? Does it require faith to accept the fact that the Earth is spherical? Of course not. Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and gravity are based on mountains of evidence.

We left your cursing out.

Just wondering who this "we" is. Is jturning more than one person? Is it a committee of some sort?

That's it. I'm not going to argue with you (or your committee) about whether or not it's a wise idea to have the State sanction the teaching of religious beliefs in public schools. I've found from experience that it's not productive to have those kinds of rational discussions with people that bring angels and Satan to the table.

[Wally Balljacker]

We have faith in God and the promises he's made, but we're not left to wonder. God shows His existence in how he works in our lives and by answering our prayers. And by how we can observe God working in other people's lives. And by teaching us His ways while we follow. I can look back over my life and see many times where God worked in my life. And God is shown by what has been created.

Prove it.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Prove it.

Look at the magic of the human body. It's an incredible chemical machine. Even with our science and intelligence we're still in the dark about how much of it works. Most of our medical treatments are simply to treat symptoms until the body heals itself, or to give it help in relation to bone mending.

How is this justification for God belief? Just because there are questions we don't currently have answers to, that doesn't justify turning to the supernatural. If we are ignorant of something, why should we fill that lack of knowledge with supernatural fluff that can't be tested? To make us feel better? To give us a false sense of understanding and security? No thanks. I'm happy saying "I don't know", as opposed to "magic man in the sky must have done it!"

If you would like to have a debate over microevolution and macro-evolution and what science actually says let me know. Evolution is a theory which has not been proven, and I think you'd be surprised by what evidence is actually not there to support it. That's why I say belief in Evolution takes faith.

Evolution is a theory AND fact. It doesn't require faith to accept facts.

Got created angels and us with the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves. We are not computers running a program, and God didn't want that. This whole existence is for God to sort out those that want to follow Him and have a relationship with Him from those that do not. Though we have choice, there are some limitations put in place or else we would have probably destroyed ourselves already.

What reason do I have to believe this?

God exists outside of this universe and outside of time as we know it.

What reason do I have to believe this?

God is Love

What a crock. What kind of loving God punishes people for infinity for finite crimes? That isn't love, it's hate, and it's downright evil. No crime is worthy of eternal punishment.

What kind of loving God allows evil all over the world. What kind of loving God allows Katrina, 9/11, the Holocaust, the Dark Ages, global warming, plagues, tsunamis, droughts, famine, disease, etc, etc?

Based on that, God is either apathetic towards Human affairs, evil, or non-existent. Yeah, time to go worship...

[jturning]

How is this justification for God belief? Just because there are questions we don't currently have answers to, that doesn't justify turning to the supernatural. If we are ignorant of something, why should we fill that lack of knowledge with supernatural fluff that can't be tested? To make us feel better? To give us a false sense of understanding and security? No thanks. I'm happy saying "I don't know", as opposed to "magic man in the sky must have done it!"

I believe because it's has been documented for us in a series of books together known as the Bible. History backs up the story within the books, and even a secular Jewish historian documented Jesus and his crucifixion. God didn't want us to be ignorant and gave us all the information we needed in written form. As a fact the Bible is the best selling book of all time, and estimated to have sold over 6 billion copies between 1816 to 1992. If the Bible was tracked on the best seller list it would be a rare week when it would not be number 1.

Evolution is a theory AND fact. It doesn't require faith to accept facts.

BTW, I brought up the human body in reference to intelligent design. Have you ever watched an animal after it gave birth, and seen how it instinctively knows what to do in raising it's young. It's as though the animal has been programmed to know exactly what to do without being taught. There are things that go beyond evolution when you look at the world and the many wondrous creatures in it.

Books have been written, but this site has a good overview of the science of Evolution compared to the theory.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionists usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.....

Got created angels and us with the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves. We are not computers running a program, and God didn't want that. This whole existence is for God to sort out those that want to follow Him and have a relationship with Him from those that do not. Though we have choice, there are some limitations put in place or else we would have probably destroyed ourselves already.

What reason do I have to believe this?

God exists outside of this universe and outside of time as we know it.

What reason do I have to believe this?

That book I menioned called the Bible covers all of this.

God is Love

What a crock. What kind of loving God punishes people for infinity for finite crimes? That isn't love, it's hate, and it's downright evil. No crime is worthy of eternal punishment.

What kind of loving God allows evil all over the world. What kind of loving God allows Katrina, 9/11, the Holocaust, the Dark Ages, global warming, plagues, tsunamis, droughts, famine, disease, etc, etc?

Based on that, God is either apathetic towards Human affairs, evil, or non-existent. Yeah, time to go worship...

God loves us beyond human understanding, but we live in a fallen sinful world. In a world where man has free will, evil is an inevitable consequence. And suffering helps get people's attention to bring about faith, appreciate the good, influence others. Sometimes it is God's judgement or discipline, but only God can answer specifically why he allows certain things to happen. But he gives us this promise, "all things God works for the good of those who love him" (Romans 8:28).

I ask this, if you have no belief in God, what is the purpose of this life? How are you planning on living your life? Is our existence on this tiny rock in the universe just some freak of nature with no value? Man's time is short as our sun is only believed to have about 4.5 billion years left before fusion breaks down and it expands destroying the earth. In about 126,000 years a nearby binary system's stars will collide due to gravity waves decaying their orbits releasing enough gamma radiation to destroy life on earth. The universe is a dangerous place, yet we are kept safe here for this time. Is this just a fluke?

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, so let me take a stab. Take the atom, mostly empty space, electrons orbiting neutrons and protons. So in effect everything in this universe is mostly empty space (exception of collapsed dead stars of course), perfectly balanced forces making it all work as something real, solid and observable. Now Christianity teaches us that we are spirits, and in a worldly view we're spirits inhabiting these chemical machines mostly made up of empty space in this universe of mostly empty space. So think of this existence as a type of simulation if you will. If it makes it easier for you to picture, imagine us all in our pods plugged into the Matrix. Now the purpose of this simulation was for our creator to introduce Himself to us and find out which of us want to follow Him and have a personal relationship with Him. Now within the simulation things seem real and tragic at times, but it is just the simulation. We're really all safe in our pods plugged into the Matrix. Once this simulation has run its course we'll all exit our pods and enter our real existence based on how we chose here in the simulation. So investigate and choose wisely.

Bugz