Personal Statement no-no's

[soonerpillow]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So there are good PS's, boring ones, and bad ones. What (as far as topically) could make your PS bad?

I was told by my Pre-Med advisor not to put anything controversial (ethics, religion, etc.)in your PS or application. But what if something like that is integral to your reasons for becoming a doctor? Would, for example, mentioning God (or whomever) in your PS turn people off or hurt your chances?😕

What would be some other things you shouldn't mention in your PS?

 

[randomlogik]

just make sure you don't have a problem talking indepth about what you put in your ps. many interviews are based primarily on what you write.

 

[UCLAMAN]

if you feel it is important in your decision to become a doctor then perhaps you should include it. however, i caution you that adcoms are going to want hard evidence that you are truly committed to medicine via your extra curricular activities. so don't just say something like..."God called me to medicine so i am applying and want to go to medical school." that won't carry any weight IMO. You need to back whatever you talk about in your essay with actual experiences. I think thats why most people caution against using religion. But as long as you have experiences and if they somehow tie in to religion then i'd say its ok to talk about God. May even help you if you apply to a school like Loma Linda. Just remember, your personal statement is supposed to get you into medical school and outline your intangibles that would make you a great candidate. You better make a good connection between God and medicine and the experiences you have had that draw you to medicine.

And definitely don't write about how you are a convicted felon or anything.

good luck!

 

[Allygator89]

Regardless of the topic, keep it natural and do NOT make any mistakes.

 

[geromine]

I would agree with you counselor. Just don't mention anything that people may have disagreements over. God, abortion, gun control, etc are usually big no no's. If you want to say that you were really active in church, and that your experiences there motivated you to become a doctor that's fine. But if you say that I want to become a doctor to carry out god's will or something like that, wouldn't look too good unless you're applying to a place like loma linda or georgetown or other schools with religious affiliations, and even then you want to make sure that your argument is convincing.
Another reason for this is that most, but perhaps not all, medical schools and admissions personnel want you to show, through your experiences, how you develped a passion for and the motivation to become a doctor. Rather than telling them your thought processes, you should talk about your life experiences. Show, rather than tell. I can not envision a discussion of God where you can actually "show".
In the end however, what matters is that you are honest with yourself and with the schools your applying to with regards to your motivations. If a school were to frown upon your ideology and reject you because of it, then PERHAPS you'd be better off going elsewhere. You just have to make that determination for yourself.

 

[soonerpillow]

okay, to be more specific (and personal),

while I was trying to decide what I wanted to do with my life, I went on a fishing trip and there decided that I wanted to be a doctor, on the trip, I feel that God endorsed my decision in a neat way. I asked God for a direct (tangible) response and I got one. This may sound corny to you, but it was a big deal for me. In making that decision, I drew upon past experiences (hospital volunteer work and clinical research), and since then have explored the medical field and gained more experience to back up my decision. So, it's not exactly like, "God told me to," and then I applied to medical school. But I also feel like without God's endorsement, my motivation and focus might not have been so great. (I mean, what more motivation can you have than knowing that the God of the Universe wants you to be a doctor?).

so that's the specifics. I think my experience makes for a really good story (which is encouraged in PSs to make them more interesting). But I can also back it up with more experience, I think. What do you think?

 

[Premed2003]

Your story sounds like it's from someone during the Middle Ages (before the Enlightenment when people realized that these miracles from God don't exist.) But if that's your personal story, use it. I think a lot of admissions people are going to laugh though. Why not be safe instead of sorry? Can't you just write your story without God coming down and announcing to you that you should be a doctor?

I'm curious. Don't you realize that it's your mind that told you to be a doctor, not God sending this divine message to you.

 

[UCLAMAN]

as real as it may be...i must admit that i think it would sound sorta cheesy if you intro'd your ps with that.

basically you are saying God provided your spark to investigate the field of medicine. and he did this out of all places during a camping trip? was anything medically related going on?

I think adcoms may have a hard time digesting this. the "god spark intro" sounds like its from the bible.

I say go ahead and write about it if its important...just make it brief...just as an intro and something to tie back to at the end...it sounds very "tall tales-like".....just do your best not to make it sound like a parable form the bible and definitely keep it brief. you want the ps to elaborate on your experiences and how they show you would be a great contribution to medicine. you don't want to be elaborating too much on your camping trip as having a message from god doesn't really show how you would be a great contribution to medicine IMO.

good luck!

 

[UCLAMAN]

just keep in mind i guess that if the person reading your ps is not religious ...that the intro will soundy like some sort of joke. they would probably say in their mind.."a sign from god? thats a new one." may help them remember you may help them dismiss you.

good luck!

 

[sacrament]

If you want to be upfront and "in-your-face" with regards to your religious hallucination, that's fine, but keep in mind that the great majority of people reading your statement (yes, including interviewers) are going to think you're either a fruitcake or a shameless liar. I would strongly advise against it.

 

[geromine]

I agree with previous posters. I guess it is possible to write your story to get a different response from readers but the way you describe the situation leads me to believe that you should omit the story altogether. Any intelligent person (regardless of religious affiliation) will undoubtedly question your interpretation of this "tangible response." Most of the people in the medical profession and undoubtedly the people on adcoms are members of the scientific community and are therefore inclined to see good reasoning behind arguments. Unfortunately, no matter how you spin it, there is no way for you to convince them that the tangible response was from god and even if you did, you can not provide enough reasons to prove that this sign is an "endorsement" of your career choice.

There are times when you have to be less than truthful in order to elicit the needed response from your readers or your audience and this is one of those times.

Of course it is completely possible that I'm mistaken about this, but my personal assessment is that you should not put the focus of your essay on this topic. You may mention your religiousity briefly in a sentence or two but do not use it to explain your motivation and find another story to open your ps with.
Good luck in the process.

 

[Nefertari]

Definitely restrain from resorting to "cliched" inspirational anecdotes @ why medicine, i.e. "since I was five, and my (close relative) was diagnosed with cancer . . . ." (many apps beat this to death, so the adcoms become a bit numbed by it). I agree that spiritual "signs" might also fall into this category.

Basically, try not to write anything that 5000 other folks might also write. You can do this by writing @ your own unique experiences/background and in what ways they motivated you to consider medicine. Since everyone has unique experiences, you can keep it original by sticking to this and trying to incorporate as many concrete examples from your life as you can.

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by soonerpillow
I feel that God endorsed my decision in a neat way. I asked God for a direct (tangible) response and I got one. This may sound corny to you, but it was a big deal for me. In making that decision, I drew upon past experiences (hospital volunteer work and clinical research), and since then have explored the medical field and gained more experience to back up my decision.

Soonerpillow,

I feel you have a great story. But, I would have to agree with the previous posters in some aspects. Remember, you alone have the power to portray to them (adm. commit.) who you are. Be very careful if you do decide to add this story. Word it carefully so that you will get more of a general audience. If you need help wording this, I could try and help. PM me if you want.
-Steve

ps: good advice Nefertari!🙂

 

[ramonmcguire]

I would omit the God/fishing story. Regardless of your deep convictions, it sounds too flaky. No offense meant.

 

[ashkan33]

Originally posted by UCLAMAN
And definitely don't write about how you are a convicted felon or anything.

i was talking about this with my this ad com guy that came to my school the other week. he said read an essay that started off with, "i didn't want to rob him, but i had to". and then the idiot goes on and on about how he had a felony conviction but now he's a different person....i don't think it made a difference though. he said it was an automatic REJECTION!

 

[abw]

I don't necessarily think it's bad to include God in your personal statement, but keep two things in mind:

1. It's going to really open you up to a lot during the interview. Interviewers can't ask you stuff about religion unless you mention it first in your p.s. I interviewed at one school that's really straight forward, in general, with interviewers. One of the girls in my group came out looking like she was going to cry because her interviewer started asking her questions like "well do you think it's right to play god, isn't that assuming too much power" "would god really approve of you doing this technique" "how do you know" "how do you know it's right" etc.

2. If you do decide to put it in, I would try to do one of two things - either accent that God is in your life through your activities (i.e. help in church therefore know you like to work with people) or start with sort of a joke about it then say - but seriously and describe with a more toned down version. This way the reader knows when you're joking and when you're being honest about your feelings and it also gives the idea a little more levity.

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

Haha some funny stuff here.

 

[zer0el]

first of all, the fact that other posters are mocking ur belief in God is ridiculously immature. we're not here to debate about religion so stop belittling his beliefs.

anyway, altho i didn't mention it in my PS, i did include God as a factor in my life and pursuit of medicine in my secondary essays. i didn't include God in my PS because i heard it would be frowned upon by adcoms. later, i decided to put it in my essays since i figured what the heck, that's really who i was and i wanted adcoms to see this. ive been accepted to 7 med schools so obviously this wasnt a problem. interestingly enough, none of my interviewers asked me about my religious beliefs.

if u really feel a conviction to include it, go for it. take a lot of time wording it tho.

and to the person who asked how the OP knew it was God that was telling him to be a doc and not his mind. how do u know it wasn't God that was influencing his mind?

 

[Smurfette]

As a student interviewer of applicants, I can tell you that on many occasions, the AMCAS essay made me dislike the person before I even met them (usually the dislike disappeared a few minutes into the interview). The things that irritated me (take with a grain of salt, I am just an interviewer and not an ADCOM member):

1. Spelling and grammatical errors. 80% of those I interviewed had typos in their AMCAS application. About 20% of those were significant; I don't know how anyone could miss these errors, partial sentences, etc.---which then made it look like they didn't even bother to edit before submitting it. Think of how many people look at these! Have others help you edit!

2. People who start their essays with "I've always wanted to be a doctor" or variations thereof. This does NOT make you stand out. In fact, it makes you really un-original. Start off with a story on how you played with stethoscopes at age 2, or how your Boy Scout First Aid training came in handy when your friend fell down a ravine...but avoid using the cheesy lines everyone else uses.

3. Gratuitous namedropping. I don't care WHO your parent/aunt/teacher/neighbor is, I am interviewing you. If you met someone famous and the story pertains to your desire to go into medicine, feel free to include it. But don't start a sentence with "After a discussion with my neighbor, Stephen King, I decided to work at an AIDS clinic....". If it sounds like you threw the name in there simply to impress someone, you just make yourself sound pretentious.

3a. Gratuitous namedropping of someone affiliated with the med school. (actually an interview problem, not PS, but I feel it's worth mentioning). This happened to another student interviewer at my school....an applicant said he was friends with Student X, who was from his hometown. Lo and behold, upon exiting the interview, student X walks by. Interviewer, Interviewee and student X have a brief conversation, with no acknowledgement of Interviewee and student X recognizing each other. Later, Interviewer asks student X if he knew Interviewee. Student X had never even heard of him. Whoops, gotcha!

4. Using words found only in Webster's. I have had well over twenty years of formal education. If I need a dictionary to translate your essay, you look as if you are trying too hard to impress, not to mention pissing off the people reading the essay. An occasional "unique" word is not a big deal, but if you are using words that NO ONE uses, and string them together in one mega-sentence, I will seriously contemplate your ability to talk with patients on their level. One guy used words deemed "archaic" in my dictionary that didn't appear in my roommate's dictionary at all.

5. Writing abstractly. Do not try to give your PS "higher meaning". I need to be able to FOLLOW your thoughts as expressed in your essay. After a certain period of time, I will give up trying to understand what you've written. Don't write in bits and pieces, and don't write a PS as if you are Yoda, an existentialist or any other author with a complicated grammatical style.

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by Smurfette
Do not try to give your PS "higher meaning". Don't write in bits and pieces, and don't write a PS as if you are Yoda, an existentialist or any other author with a complicated grammatical style.

LOL--Yup, better to keep it down to earth and simple.

 

[lola]

i don't think it matters so much what your topic is as long as your ps is well written. i'd stay away from the god thing b/c you are likely to turn off a lot of people (and it's also not a very good reason to want to go into medicine in my opinion -- you should want to be a doctor for other reasons), but i think most topics are appropriate if they truly guided your decision to become a doctor. as cliche as it sounds, i chose to write about a close relative having cancer and have gotten 8 interviews with a 27m mcat and am not a urm.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by zer0el
first of all, the fact that other posters are mocking ur belief in God is ridiculously immature. we're not here to debate about religion so stop belittling his beliefs.

anyway, altho i didn't mention it in my PS, i did include God as a factor in my life and pursuit of medicine in my secondary essays. i didn't include God in my PS because i heard it would be frowned upon by adcoms. later, i decided to put it in my essays since i figured what the heck, that's really who i was and i wanted adcoms to see this. ive been accepted to 7 med schools so obviously this wasnt a problem. interestingly enough, none of my interviewers asked me about my religious beliefs.

if u really feel a conviction to include it, go for it. take a lot of time wording it tho.

and to the person who asked how the OP knew it was God that was telling him to be a doc and not his mind. how do u know it wasn't God that was influencing his mind?

Well, let's not be closed-minded here... how we do know it wasn't Satan influencing his mind? Or, let's say, the ghost of Christmas past?

Adam Corolla of LoveLine fame has a fantastic rant about religion which I won't be able to do justice to, but it goes something like this: our society normally doesn't humor crazy people. When folks say they've been kidnapped by aliens and given the secrets of cold fusion and now they're back to save the world... we put them in mental hospitals and treat them. But when people say that an invisible man spoke to them and told them they need to become a doctor (or free the French from English rule or whatever) we accept it, and not only do we accept it, we're supposed to be impressed by it, nod our head enthusiastically and say "That's Fantastic! I wish I had a similar relationship with an omnipotent invisible friend!" And the people who don't accept this are the ridiculously immature ones?!? Really? Well personally I don't care what religious beliefs you possess, as long as you don't show up on my doorstep at 7 AM on a Sunday and try to talk to me about it, just like I don't like it when crazy people accoust me on the street and try to tell me about giant lizards. To each their own, if your religion makes you happy then that's all well and fine. But you HAVE to be prepared to accept the consequences of admitting these things to the people who REALLY control your destiny, i.e. the admissions people.

It's bizarre to me that this is the 21st century and STILL there are going to be tons of people who read this and immediately despise me because I won't humor their immense personality quirk.

 

[zer0el]

Sacrament-

have u ever read that book "case for christ"? probably not, but i found it intriguing how most debates between well-known atheists and theologians result in the theologians winning the debates. im sure these atheists had more arguments than u ever will. but i digress.

in ur reference to close-mindedness...Premed2003 came out with this fantastic line: "Don't you realize that it's your mind that told you to be a doctor, not God sending this divine message to you." i would say that hes pretty close minded, would u not agree? in fact, my being a Christian does not make me any more close minded than u being an atheist.

u obviously have no idea what Christianity is about anyway since u lump those who show up at ur doorstop in the morning with mainstream Christians. thats like the rest of the world saying we're racist because the LAPD beat up rodney king. as far as preaching, the atheists on this thread, including u, do a pretty good job of that. my claim that there is a God is no more preachy than ur claim that God is a hoax and that those who are religious should be regarded as crazy.

what i find most offensive of all is ur implication that i and others who believe in God are somehow delusional (our "immense personality quirk" is how u put it). obviously this is because u have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no God, that our DNA developed through a random process, and that the Bible is full of lies (the last one should be a simple challenge for you). please, enlighten me with ur wisdom as u are obviously not delusional.

 

[zer0el]

u know what, my bad. sorry for hijacking ur thread OP. this is not the place to debate over religion.

 

[Moskeeto]

if it makes you feel better sacrament, i thought your post was funny.

and zer0el, if you're sorry about hijacking the thread, go back and delete your post.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by zer0el
Sacrament-

have u ever read that book "case for christ"? probably not, but i found it intriguing how most debates between well-known atheists and theologians result in the theologians winning the debates. im sure these atheists had more arguments than u ever will. but i digress.

Imagine that, a book called "Case for Christ" that comes down on the side of God. I'd like a single reference of a case where "well-known atheists and theologians" have debated and there was actually a clear-cut "winner." I'm sure any religious person watching the debate (e.g. the author of "Case for Christ") would walk away thinking "The Lord was with those theologians, and they surely won that debate" just as any atheist or agnostic watching the debate walked away with an equal and opposite view of the outcome. Unless, of course, you mean to say that all the atheists spontaneously converted and were saved.

in ur reference to close-mindedness...Premed2003 came out with this fantastic line: "Don't you realize that it's your mind that told you to be a doctor, not God sending this divine message to you." i would say that hes pretty close minded, would u not agree? in fact, my being a Christian does not make me any more close minded than u being an atheist.

I in fact would NOT agree. I also don't believe in ghosts, psychic powers, or conspiracy theories involving Freemasons and international corporations, and I really don't think this makes me close-minded, it makes me sane.

u obviously have no idea what Christianity is about anyway since u lump those who show up at ur doorstop in the morning with mainstream Christians. thats like the rest of the world saying we're racist because the LAPD beat up rodney king. as far as preaching, the atheists on this thread, including u, do a pretty good job of that. my claim that there is a God is no more preachy than ur claim that God is a hoax and that those who are religious should be regarded as crazy.

You have a valid point here, which is that there are degrees of religious behavior. I appreciate that you aren't showing up at my doorstep.

what i find most offensive of all is ur implication that i and others who believe in God are somehow delusional (our "immense personality quirk" is how u put it). obviously this is because u have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no God, that our DNA developed through a random process, and that the Bible is full of lies (the last one should be a simple challenge for you). please, enlighten me with ur wisdom as u are obviously not delusional.

What I find most offensive of all is your inability to type out the entire, huge word "your."
First of all, the Bible IS full of lies. The world is older than a couple thousand years, a man named Noah certainly didn't cram hundreds of thousands of animals onto a homemaid ship, leprosy can't be spread by clothing, homosexuals shouldn't be stoned to death, etc. etc. etc. And second, of course I can't disprove the existence of God. I also can't disprove the existence of all the invisible, massless, chemically-inert goblins running around my apartment (which also produce no electromagnetic field). When it comes to things like these goblins, I'm afraid that the burden of proof lies on the believers.

 

[CD]

Sacrament,
Actually there have been MANY debates between athiests and those who beleive in God. In almost every case the case for the existance of a God was made. Unfortunately I can only name one of them off the top of my head. The debate occured between William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler (athiest) . Frank Zindler was chosen to be the spokesperson by the American Atheists Inc. In the end there was no contest. (I quote) Among those who had entered the auditorium as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics and overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been most compelling. Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Incidentally, nobody became an athiest. A tape of the debate entitled "Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point? may be obtained from Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
--Decide for yourself how compelling the facts are.

As for the age of the earth. Carbon dating is the usual method for determining the age. However there are several assumptions made with carbon dating. One is that the current rate of decay has been constant throughout the ages. This may be an accurate assumption, but since no one knows for sure, it also may be in error. It could also be thought that there may have been a different environment on the earth in it's early days that caused decay to occur faster (in fact there is evidence to this effect....radio halo's and their shape being elliptical in several flood plaines but I won't go into the technical data). Another assumption is that the earth began with a full alotment of carbon 13 (or other method). What is to say that the earth wasn't "Created" with some of the carbon 13 already expended? In otherwords dating could be likened to a candle that is burning at a certain rate. In order to determine how long the candle has been burning you must assume the candle has burnt at the same rate throughout it's life (candle burning may be slowed down by cold) and you must assume the candle was a certain height to begin with.

Now for Noah. You are correct that there would be no way for all the kinds of animals alive today to have been present on the Ark. However, if you look at each SPECIES of animal it is entirely possible. It is entirely possible to contain all the genetic variability of each species within a single pair of creatures. Given the dimentions of the Ark, all the genetic material present currently on the earth could have been contained in those animals present....no one said they had to be full sized adults. (actually this is something that has facinated me for years and I did some research on the possibility....genetic possibilities etc)

I've currently run out of time to address the other issues.....my kids need put to bed. I'll attempt to come back after my final tomorrow.

 

[soonerpillow]

Hey guys,
Thanks for the input. I really do appreciate it.

On a side note:
I think it's cool that we have a diversity of opinion in this forum. If we could keep it civil, diversity can lead to fruitful discussion and everyone learning something. But if it just leads to name calling, nothing happens but hate.

 

[FitnessModelMD]

i just think its funny how atheists and agnostics spend theyre whole lifes preaching , fighting and being so outspoken against something they truly belive doesnt exist..lol..that to me is a MAJOR personality "quirk"!

 

[Mistress S]

Sacrament...truly hilarious posts

To the posters trying to "prove" that the bible is true: why are you wasting your time? The bible is full of things that make absolutely no sense and cannot be proven: virgin birth, rising from the dead, life after death, etc. The very definition of faith is believing in things for which you don't have evidence. If you have faith in the bible and this gets you through life, fine; but please don't try to prove to the rest of us the scientific veracity of your claims when ultimately these things are articles of faith. True believers don't need these proofs to confirm their faith, and atheists like myself find them sorely lacking and certainly insufficient reason to convert, so what's the point?

 

[sacrament]

If atheists ever lose debates with theologians, it is because they become so frustrated by their opponent's unwavering dedication to an old book of fairy tales that they throw their hands in the air and go get a beer. Of course it isn't worth responding to this post, because no matter what proof you offer up to a true Christian about the inaccuracies of the Bible, they eventually fall back on "Well it must be true because it's in the Bible and that's the word of God." Nevertheless...

Originally posted by CD
Sacrament,
Actually there have been MANY debates between athiests and those who beleive in God. In almost every case the case for the existance of a God was made. Unfortunately I can only name one of them off the top of my head. The debate occured between William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler (athiest) . Frank Zindler was chosen to be the spokesperson by the American Atheists Inc. In the end there was no contest. (I quote) Among those who had entered the auditorium as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics and overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been most compelling. Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Incidentally, nobody became an athiest. A tape of the debate entitled "Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point? may be obtained from Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
--Decide for yourself how compelling the facts are.

For every reference you point me to, I can point you to another. For every "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis (which, yes, I've read) there is a "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russel. Maybe you didn't fully appreciate a similar comment I made in an earlier reply. I don't have the time to look it up, but I would bet good American dollars that the book you reference is published by a Christian press. I can point you to several books about the efficacy of witchcraft. It must be true, it's right there on the page.

As for the age of the earth. Carbon dating is the usual method for determining the age. However there are several assumptions made with carbon dating. One is that the current rate of decay has been constant throughout the ages. This may be an accurate assumption, but since no one knows for sure, it also may be in error. It could also be thought that there may have been a different environment on the earth in it's early days that caused decay to occur faster (in fact there is evidence to this effect....radio halo's and their shape being elliptical in several flood plaines but I won't go into the technical data). Another assumption is that the earth began with a full alotment of carbon 13 (or other method). What is to say that the earth wasn't "Created" with some of the carbon 13 already expended? In otherwords dating could be likened to a candle that is burning at a certain rate. In order to determine how long the candle has been burning you must assume the candle has burnt at the same rate throughout it's life (candle burning may be slowed down by cold) and you must assume the candle was a certain height to begin with.

The arguments you make are old and popular among creationists, and have been refuted several times over. Like you, I don't have time to go into technical detail, but, for example, the constancy of radioactive decay is not the least bit in doubt, because it is based on fundamental properties of matter. Alpha decay, for instance, is based upon quantum tunneling through a potential barrier. These things don't change, not based on atmospheric differences, not based on anything. (Unless of course God changes them, which I suppose I can't argue. Therein lies the brilliance of the Christian debate: ANYTHING can be explained by the phrase "God did it." I especially like this old one: why do we have dinosaur bones even though dinosaur weren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible? Satan put them there to confuse us. I've heard this more than once, and it makes me want to scream.)
Not to mention the other methods of dating the earth, such as all of the cosmological evidence pointing toward the extreme age of the universe as a whole.

Now for Noah. You are correct that there would be no way for all the kinds of animals alive today to have been present on the Ark. However, if you look at each SPECIES of animal it is entirely possible. It is entirely possible to contain all the genetic variability of each species within a single pair of creatures. Given the dimentions of the Ark, all the genetic material present currently on the earth could have been contained in those animals present....no one said they had to be full sized adults. (actually this is something that has facinated me for years and I did some research on the possibility....genetic possibilities etc)

I can't believe I just read this. Do you know how many species of animals there are? Assuming Noah was ingenious enough to construct such a giant ark, and was able to capture each and every animal (of course, God could just have dropped them into the ark...), and was able to store enough food and clean water for all of them, (I can't believe I'm even having this argument with what I suppose is a grown adult), and none of them died in confinement, it would STILL be impossible to recreate the genetic diversity we have today in just a few thousand years. Evolution works on a much longer scale than that. I don't know what kind of research you did (all books from Zondervan, perhaps?) but you should review your methods.

I've currently run out of time to address the other issues.....my kids need put to bed. I'll attempt to come back after my final tomorrow.

Go for it, but I've said my last word on the subject. I don't have time for such incredibly ridiculous conversations. And they make me sad, anyway.
Except I want to say to "FitnessModelMD": you've got to be joking. Atheists spending more time preaching than religious people?!? Spending their whole lives fighting about religion? Who in the world are you thinking of? These few posts I've written in the last couple days constitute about 95% of my life's effort in this arena, and most atheists and agnostics are just like me in that respect. I've never seen an atheists preaching on a street corner. An atheist has never come to my door to talk to me about rationality. There are no atheist TV shows on obscure channels trying to raise money for atheism. There are no atheist missionaries heading out to foreign lands to rid them of God. I've never seen atheist fanatics picketing or boycotting anything. I've never heard of a war fought solely over atheism. There is none of that.

 

[JlazyMD]

In some ways religion represents a form of brainwashing. Those raised in religious families are taught from a very young age the universal truths and tenets if their religion, and taught not to question them. For example, a good friend of mine from high school was Mormon, he was the smartest guy in our class, good at math-- a rational guy. Yet he firmly believed that Joseph Smith uncovered golden tablets from God in New Hamphire. I was curious about his story, did a class report on Joseph Smith, found out basically every historian thinks the story is bogus, no evidence of the tablets, etc. I tried to reason with my friend, but he didn't want to talk about it.

You don't have to look further than Elizabeth Smart to see how a rational mind can be brainwashed into believing and doing irrational things.

Not to mitigate the positive aspects of religion; most lay down a excellent moral foundation and encourage charitabiliy etc. But as sacrament mentioned, religious zealots are responsible for a lot of what is bad in the world as well.