From: Robert R***
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:18:51 EST
Subject: Spiritual Reality Therapy

Dear Darwin Bedford:

I noticed that you are looking for concreteness in human life.  You seem to try to base your theory on only what is proven to be true.  This becomes a problem in your statement:

Language evolved as a means of communication between humans.
Words, the basic elements of language, were developed by our ancestors and many of these words in one form or another are still in use today, while new words are constantly entering our linguistic data base.

Evolution is not a proven fact.  It takes much faith to believe in evolution, with the fact that there are no transitional phases found in the fossil records, among other things.  In fact there is no proof that the earth has been here 4.5 billion years, only theory.  DR Walt Brown, in the book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (, states:

Children as young as seven months understand grammatical rules.a
Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.b Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.c) Apes have not demonstrated these skills in the wild and do not pass them on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but apparently all human groups have language.d If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex.e Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.f (See Figure 137 on page 255.)

And further about speech:

Speech is uniquely human.a
Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds. Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.b Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

The complex quilting of the close you are wearing were crafted by a creator.  You would not expect such a complex form of size, color, quilting, and texture to be a random act of nature.  Mount Rushmore was carved by men, a very complex work of art, but you would not expect to find it as a work of nature, without a creator.  In the same way, the smallest one celled organism is made up of numerous complex structures, with the life it contains not duplicable by man--would you expect for this to naturally occur in nature, or by the hand of a creator?

The assumptions of Spiritual Reality Therapy actually requires more faith than believing in a creator or God.  By your own theory, would this make having this much faith in something that is just myth a pathology?

Robert R