home
RSS
February 25th, 2011
10:24 AM ET

Church leader reverses stance on HIV, reaches out to those affected

HIV is a curse from God. That's what Patricia Sawo used to tell others as a church leader in Kitale, Kenya.

"I thought it was a moral issue and a punishment for the disobedient," Sawo remembers.

Then one morning in 1999, Sawo awoke to find her body covered in shingles, a rash commonly associated with HIV. Scared and upset, she cried in the bathroom for two hours. A test soon confirmed her fears: She was HIV-positive.

"I couldn't believe it," said Sawo, now 45. "It was, 'Oh my God, how could this happen to me?' "

Read the full story
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Africa • HIV • Kenya

soundoff (235 Responses)
  1. Challenger

    Challenger

    evolvedDNA

    challenge.. you do not understand evolution and are just spouting ID website stories. the eye, blood clotting have all been adressed many times

    evolved Dna...Care to expound on your statement, other then that it has just "been addressed" many times? I am open to learning, got anything new on this?

    February 27, 2011 at 9:17 am |
    • Eric G.

      @Challenger: For your review.

      In 1997 Russell Doolittle, on whose work Behe based much of the blood-clotting discussion in Darwin's Black Box, wrote a rebuttal to the statements about irreducible complexity of certain systems. In particular, Doolittle mentioned the issue of the blood clotting in his "A Delicate Balance". Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three out of 26 blood clotting factors, yet still has a workable blood clotting system. According to Doolittle, this defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

      February 27, 2011 at 10:16 am |
    • evolvedDNA

      challenger.. check out the many websites that discuss the eye.. evolution never predicted the eye would "come into being" as a complete working device.. it was very gradual..and is where it is at this time. Evolution is still going on..it never stops... how do you think that microbes become immune to our antibiotics? or pesticides become ineffective. You appear to have an enquiring mind.. use it to understand the world the way it is and try not to be drawn into the supernatural world.. nature and evolution, the universe is far more interesting when you remove the myths.. Dont be scared off .read Richard Dawkins..Greatest Show on Earth) Jerry Coyne ( Why Evoluton is true)...It explains and offfers evidence to the questions you posed...

      February 27, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
  2. Challenger

    Aezel

    Can YOU prove that Michael Behe is wrong?

    February 27, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • Eric G.

      We are still waiting for Mr. Behe to present verifiable evidence that he is right. If he cannot, or will not provide verifiable evidence to support his theory, there is nothing to prove wrong.

      His refusal to identify the nature of the constant (intelligent designer) in his theory makes it impossible for his claims to be verified.

      The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

      February 27, 2011 at 10:21 am |
  3. Challenger

    Aezel

    Ah yes, Michael Behe, the pseudo-scientific moron that is the utter laughing stock of real scientists everywhere.

    A "moron" in who's eyes, those who like yourself, consider your 100% right, even though at this point evolution without a creator is just a theory, and not even a scientific fact?

    February 27, 2011 at 9:13 am |
  4. Challenger

    evolvedDNA

    challenge.. you do not understand evolution and are just spouting ID website stories. the eye, blood clotting have all been adressed many times. What scientific puplications have printed peer reviewed articles debunking evolution? i understand that evolution puts a big dent in intelligent design. Do you think that we are the result of some hyperintelligent being manufacturing us... I would ask for a guarantee .. what about the postrate gland.. why did god want to make it keep growing? the spine is far from perfect..we are not even designed to walk up right. Evolution is far from perfect, and we show it.

    InvolvedDNA Evolution is just a THEORY...still not a proven scientific fact. I am submitting what is against evolution. The way the information is obtained, is not important (websites..lots here use them) as long as it is accurate and reliable. Just as you state, evolution is far from perfect, and we show it.
    Yes, but that does not stop you from insisting it is the ONLY way. You said it puts a big dent in intelligent design..I say, no, it really does not. Many noted scolars, biologists, and others disagree with your statemnet as well.

    You deny intelligent design, but believe in a series of happenings that came from nothing to create a perfect senario. When in fact, intelligent design and evolution go hand in hand, It seems to me that alot of people are just mis informed and uneducated on facts from both areas.
    It also seems that some people use evolution minus intelligent design, just to have a basis, to dismiss the God of the bible? Not saying all do, but alot do.
    Look at human birth. It takes two people, one bearing sperm and one bearing an egg. to create a baby. The baby has a perfect system within its body to live and function. Two things collectively dependant upon one another to create that life. The female body carrys the baby for nine months, at which time the body knows the baby is fully formed and dispels it.
    During that nine months, the baby is given a perfect set of condtions for to grow and develope. What does that tell you?
    Was that a condition formed by evolution? No, it was not.

    The you ask why didn't God do certain things...he did, he set the path of creation for all the evolving things. Perhaps the answer lies in your evolution not yet being "perfect". Someday, as science continues to make discoveries, you may have the answer to that question.

    February 27, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • evolvedDNA

      Challenger.. evolution is not a theory in the way you understand it... remember gravity.. thats also a theory but dont go jumping off of a cliff any time soon... it does work. You have not presented any evidence to refute evolutuon and neither has Behe.. he has an opinion but has not managed to prove it. Some of your statements regarding babies tell me you have a lot to understand about evolution..It is true as of yet we do not know what started it all..Abiogenesis. But to claim that it was god is untruthful.. as you have no evidence..we could have been sneezed into existance by a giant goat.. who knows.. you can guess if you want and claim it is truth I would rather have evidence. Then of course.. where did the designer come from and who made him and so on...russian doll syndrome.

      February 27, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
  5. Challenger

    Both people contributed:

    Magic

    GodLover,

    That the Earth "hangs on nothing" was a simple observation by these primitive people... they looked up/around/over and didn't see any strings, ropes, vines or other supporting mechanisms. In another place they talk about the Earth being set upon 4 pillars.

    They had the scientific knowledge of today's 10 year-olds.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
    HotAirAce

    And they may have looked at the moon and noticed no strings, or turtles, there either.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |

    Where you aware, before making your statements?? Where did the myth come from?:

    The ancient Greeks had no shortage of creation myths, with many elements taken from the Babylonian model. Two poets, Homer and Hesiod, described the Greek religious system, with its national gods in charge, while living in a royal court full of intrigues and lu-sts.

    In his version Hesiod saw the origin of the universe as deriving from the chaos, the vastness, of space that produced the first goddess, Gaea (earth). She created Uranus (heaven), who became her husband, and they produced many lesser gods. The division between heaven and earth occ-urred when one of their sons, Cronus, in a fit of jealousy attacked his father Uranus. Zeus, the one who became the chief god, was born from the irate Cronus and his wife Rhea.

    Sadly, the only surviving writings about Christianity from the first centuries after the apostles come mainly from men steeped in Greek thought and philosophy. These were Justin Martyr (110-165), Clement (160-220), Origen (185-254) and Augustine (354-430), all former disciples of the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. In this way Greek philosophy entered the Roman church and formed much of its theology.

    "The problem with Gentile Christians," notes church historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, "was not only their lack of familiarity with Scripture, but also their excessive fascination with their Greek philosophical speculations, which conditioned their understanding of Biblical truths. While Jewish Christians often erred in the direction of legalism, Gentile Christians often erred in the direction of philosophical speculations which sundered Christianity from its historical roots" (God's Festivals in Scripture and History, 1995, pp. 102-103).

    In particular, Origen and Augustine began to interpret much of the book of Genesis as allegory. They viewed the Genesis account as filled with symbolic fictional figures representing truth, human conduct or experience. Gradually, this allegorical method became the norm in the Catholic understanding of much of Genesis. These misconceptions were to heavily influence church authorities down through the years.

    But is Professor Dawkins' as-sumption true? Is the Genesis record a fairy tale little different from those of other ancient cultures?

    Some 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians of Mesopotamia left accounts of their creation myths inscribed on cuneiform tablets. The Sumerians conceived of the earth as flat and the sky as a canopy of clouds and stars. They believed earth and sky were created by two gods: An, the male sky god, and Ki, the female earth god.

    These two gave birth to a mult-itude of other gods, each with a particular power and responsibility over some aspect of the created realm (such as lightning, trees, mountains, illness, etc.). They lived in a kingly court in heaven, with An, the supreme god, surrounded by four subordinate creator gods. Below them were a council of seven gods and, finally, the 50 remaining minor gods.

    All physical occ-urrences could be interpreted by the priests as the result of the particular mood or whim of one of these gods. They could be placated by offerings and sacrifices. Although these deities were considered immortal, their supposed conduct was anything but divine. They were depicted as often fighting among themselves, full of petty envies and lusts and subject to hunger and even death.

    A few centuries later the Babylonians conquered the Sumerians and modified these myths to exalt their own civilization. Now it was the Babylonian god Marduk who was in charge; he formed the heavens and earth by slaying a sea monster goddess, Tiamat. According to the Babylonian creation account:

    "The god Apsu and the goddess Tiamat made other gods. Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea. Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea's son Marduk. Marduk split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth. Then Marduk, with Ea's aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu" (Life: How Did It Get Here? 1985, p. 35).

    Does this kind of bizarre tale bear any resemblance to the biblical account of creation? Not at all. The first civilizations of the Fertile Crescent had similar creation accounts, but the only one free of outrageous myth and with a moral and perfect God is the biblical version.

    In contrast to the crude polytheistic struggles found in such ancient myths, the Genesis account is smooth, systematic, rational and—yes—scientific.

    Notice astrophysicist Hugh Ross' reaction on first reading the biblical account of creation: "The [Bible's] distinctives struck me immediately. It was simple, direct, and specific. I was amazed with the quant-ity of historical and scientific references and with the detail in them.

    "It took me a whole evening just to investigate the first chapter. Instead of another bizarre creation myth, here was a journal-like record of the earth's initial conditions—correctly described from the standpoint of astrophysics and geophysics—followed by a summary of the sequence of changes through which Earth came to be inhabited by living things and ultimately by humans.

    "The account was simple, elegant, and scientifically acc-urate. From what I understood to be the stated viewpoint of an observer on Earth's surface, both the order and the description of creation events perfectly matched the established record of nature. I was amazed" (The Creator and the Cosmos, 1993, p. 15).

    Consider an admission from The Columbia History of the World: "Indeed, our best cu-rrent knowledge, lacking the poetic magic of scripture, seems in a way less believable than the account in the Bible" (John Garraty and Peter G–ay, editors, 1972, p. 3).

    It is natural to conclude, as nations gradually distanced themselves from the true Creator God and sank into immorality and polytheism, that their understanding of the creation became corr-upted and eventually was used to prop up their political, social, philosophical and religious outlooks.

    Vernon Bla-ckmore and Andrew Page write: "Today the difference between Genesis and the Babylonian account is evident. The first speaks of one God creating the world and mankind by his own command; the other describes chaos and war among many gods, after which one god, Marduk, fashions humanity from clay and blood. The spiritual depth and dignity of Genesis far surpasses the polytheistic ideas of Babylon. Yet until the complete story had been reconstructed, incautious scholars talked of the Bible account being a copy of that from Babylonia. Certainly, they argued, Genesis should be consigned to the category of legend, and its writing was dated long after Moses to the time Israel was held captive in Babylon.

    "Much of nineteenth-century liberalism has now been shown as excessive. The Old Testament is not a poor reflection of more ancient Babylonian or Canaanite tales. There are more differences than similarities between the texts. The opening chapters of Genesis stand unique. Nevertheless, many scholars still use the category of myth in relation to some of the biblical material" (Evolution: The Great Debate, 1989, p. 130).

    Sorry, Magic, it cannot be explained away by your conclusive myth factor.

    "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
    and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7

    How did Job know that? Was he hanging off a star by a string? Use common sense and reasearch things before making comments that have no basis. Science even recognizes that the bible correctly identified the fact, it was susupended by gravity.

    Hot Air....that is a far reaching statement. Again, folly.

    I posted links for you people to read and educate yourselves.

    Could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that we have done just that. The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.

    If God created man, we have no right to ignore Him. If man created God, we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away with. In that case we are free to act as though God doesn't exist, free to dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong and how we will choose to live.

    Which is the myth—God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (quoted by Federer, p. 61).

    http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/creation-evolution-society.asp

    February 27, 2011 at 8:42 am |
  6. Aezel

    "Oh my god, how could this happen to me?"

    Well, it happened to her because instead of being educated, and learning the REAL scientific facts about HIV and how to protect herself against it, she depended on an imaginary made-up man in the sky to protect her from it because she followed his moral rules. Sorry to say, her getting HIV was pretty much a sure-thing almost at that point in a country that infected. Ignorance didn't turn out to be so blissful this time around huh?

    February 27, 2011 at 1:36 am |
  7. Challenge

    Heaven Scent
    These are proofs against evolution...read before commenting "babble"

    February 27, 2011 at 12:34 am |
    • SeanNJ

      Such a sad person, a sad existence. My sympathies.

      February 27, 2011 at 1:01 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Romans 3:3-4
      Romans 9:13-23
      Matthew 7:6
      1 Timothy 6:20-21
      1 Corinthians 1:14-21
      1 Corinthians 3:19-20
      Jude 4

      February 27, 2011 at 2:13 am |
  8. Challenge

    Francis Hitching comments on the bo-mbardier beetle's defense system: "The chain of events that could have led to the evolution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological explanation on a simple step-by-step basis. The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles. The problem of evolutionary novelties is quite widely accepted among biologists . . . In every case, the difficulty is compounded by the lack of fossil evidence. The first time that the plant, creature, or or-gan appears, it is in its finished state, so to speak" (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 68).

    Nevertheless, evolutionist Richard Dawkins tries to dismiss the complex features of the bo-mbardier beetle by simply saying: "As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bo-mbardier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That's often how evolution works" (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 87).

    This is not a convincing explanation at all for Dr. Behe, who has studied this beetle's components down to their molecular level. "Dawkins' explanation for the evolution of the system," he says, "rests on the fact that the system's elements 'happened to be around' . . . But Dawkins has not explained how hydrogen peroxide and quinones came to be secreted together at very high concentration into one compartment that is connected . . . to a second compartment that contains enzymes necessary for the rapid reaction of the chemicals" (Behe, p. 34).

    Now that the whole defense system of the beetle has been thoroughly studied, even if the chemicals "happened to be around," this elaborate chemical cannon would not work without everything from the molecular level up working together and at exactly the right time. Dawkins' argument is as absurd as saying that if gunpowder, a fuse, a barrel and a cannonb-all "happened to be around," eventually they would as-semble themselves, with the ingredients carefully loaded in the right sizes and proportions, and then go off at the right direction without blowing themselves up somewhere along the way. No, all the components had to be carefully and intelligently arranged in order to function.

    Professor Behe notes: "Some evolutionary biologists—like Richard Dawkins—have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish . . . Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level all the 'details' become critical. If a molecular nut or bolt is missing, then the whole system can crash" (p. 65).

    February 27, 2011 at 12:32 am |
    • Aezel

      Ah yes, Michael Behe, the pseudo-scientific moron that is the utter laughing stock of real scientists everywhere.

      February 27, 2011 at 1:38 am |
    • HotAirAce

      It is not clear who concocted the gunpowder, fuse, barrel bit above, but if you and/or Behe don't understand the differences between animate and inanimate objects, you have no credibility and should not be discussing science in any way.

      February 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  9. Challenge

    Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle
    One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or person) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the right way—as in the genetic blood disorder hemophilia—the process fails, and the victim bleeds to death.

    How can complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn't work at all.

    At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. When blood clots, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.

    For evolution to have led to this astounding phenomenon, multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation of how this is possible.

    February 27, 2011 at 12:22 am |
  10. Challenge

    Jesus said that "the lamp of the body is the eye" (Matthew 6:22).

    The human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain.

    The essential problem for Darwinists is how so many intricate components could have independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn't function perfectly, nothing would work at all.

    Think about it. Partial transitional structures are no aid to a creature's survival and may even be a hindrance. If they are a hindrance, no further gradual development would occ-ur because the creature would, according to advocates of natural selection, be less apt to survive than the other creatures around him. What good is half a wing or an eye without a retina? Consequently, either such structures as feathered wings must have appeared all at once, either by absurdly implausible massive mutations ("hopeful monsters," as scientists refer to such hypothetical creatures) or by creation.

    "Now it is quite evident," says Francis Hitching, "that if the slightest thing goes wrong en route—if the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong—then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all.

    "So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements? Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?

    "Small wonder that it troubled Darwin. 'To this day the eye makes me shudder,' [Darwin] wrote to his botanist friend Asa Gray in February, 1860" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 86).

    Incredible as the eye is, consider that we have not one but two of them. This matched pair, coupled with an interpretive center in the brain, allows us to determine distances to the objects we see. Our eyes also have the ability to focus automatically by elongating or compressing themselves. They are also inset beneath a bony brow that, along with automatic shutters in the form of eyelids, provide protection for these intricate and delicate or=gans.

    Darwin should have considered two passages in the Bible. "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both," wrote King Solomon (Proverbs 20:12). And Psalm 94:9 asks: "He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?"

    The same can be said of the brain, nose, palate and dozens of other complex and highly developed or-gans in any human being or animal. It would take a quantum leap of faith to think all this just evolved. Yet that is commonly taught and accepted.

    After reviewing the improbability of such or-gans arising in nature from an evolutionary process, Professor H.S. Lipson, a member of the British Inst-itute of Physics, wrote in 1980: "We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140).

    February 27, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • evolvedDNA

      challenge.. you do not understand evolution and are just spouting ID website stories. the eye, blood clotting have all been adressed many times. What scientific puplications have printed peer reviewed articles debunking evolution? i understand that evolution puts a big dent in intelligent design. Do you think that we are the result of some hyperintelligent being manufacturing us... I would ask for a guarantee .. what about the postrate gland.. why did god want to make it keep growing? the spine is far from perfect..we are not even designed to walk up right. Evolution is far from perfect, and we show it.

      February 27, 2011 at 1:22 am |
  11. HeavenSent

    1 Corinthians 11:2-3

    2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the or-din-ances, as I delivered them to you.
    3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Amen.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
  12. HeavenSent

    Colossians 3:16-25

    16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and ad-monish-ing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
    17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
    18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
    19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
    20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleas-ing unto the Lord.
    21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be di-s-couraged.
    22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the fle-sh; not with eyes-ervice, as men-pleasers; but in single-ness of heart, fear-ing God:
    23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heart-i-ly, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
    24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inher-i-tance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
    25 But he that do-eth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no re-spect of persons.

    Amen.

    February 26, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
  13. Challenge

    The fossil record has been thoroughly explored and doc-u-mented. Darwin's excuse of "extreme imperfection of the geological record" is no longer credible.

    How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton, a med-ical doctor and biological researcher, writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).

    He explains that "of the 329 living families of terrestrial verteb-rates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent" (Denton, p. 189).

    In other words, almost 88 percent of the varieties of mammals, reptiles and amphibians populating earth have been found in the fossil record. How many transitional forms, then, have been found? ". . . Although each of these cla-sses [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species.Not a single undisputed 'missing link' has been found in all the expo-sed rocks of the Earth's crust despite the most careful and extensive searches" (Milton, pp. 253-254, emphasis added).

    If Darwin's theory were true, transitional creatures such as invertebrates with partially developed backbones, fish with rudimentary legs, reptiles with primitive wings and innumerable creatures with semievolved ana-tomical features should be the rule, scattered throughout the fossil strata. But they are no

    February 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Challenge,

      It appears to me you can more than hold your own against the atheistic and evolutionary arguments. I see no one around to debate you! I think you scared them off! 🙂

      February 26, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • Eric G.

      Scared me off? Steve, my good friend, you know me better than that.

      For your review, a paper on Mr. Denton's book. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

      By the way, genetic mapping has rendered the fossil record to window dressing.

      February 26, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Eric G.
      Scared me off? Steve, my good friend, you know me better than that. For your review, a paper on Mr. Denton's book. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html By the way, genetic mapping has rendered the fossil record to window dressing.
      ------
      I've been busted! You got me Eric G!

      February 26, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
  14. Challenge

    What about fossil proofs?
    At times various fossil species have been presented as firm proof of evolution at work. Perhaps the most famous is the supposed evolution of the horse as presented in many biology textbooks. But is this portrayal really what it is claimed to be?

    Notice what Professor Eldredge has to say about this classic "proof" of evolution: "George Gaylord Simpson spent a considerable segment of his career on horse evolution. His overall conclusion: Horse evolution was by no means the simple, linear and straightforward affair it was made out to be . . . Horse evolution did not proceed in one single series, from step A to step B and so forth, culminating in modern, single-toed large horses. Horse evolution, to Simpson, seemed much more bu-shy, with lots of species alive at any one time—species that differed quite a bit from one another, and which had variable numbers of toes, size of teeth, and so forth.

    "In other words, it is easy, and all too tempting, to survey the fossil history of a group and select examples that seem best to exemplify linear change through time . . . But picking out just those species that exemplify intermediate stages along a trend, while ignoring all other species that don't seem to fit in as well, is something else again. The picture is distorted. The actual evolutionary pattern isn't fully represented" (p. 131).

    Eldredge in effect admits that paleontologists picked and chose which species they thought fit best with their theory and ignored the rest. George G-aylord Simpson himself was more blu-nt: "The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium [a fossil species thought to be the ancestor of the horse] into Equus [the modern horse], so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature" (Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119).

    February 26, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Yes, Darwin and the rest of those folks found fossils remains and claimed them to be early man. When in reality, they are the fossils of chimps and apes (LOL) and sold this to the public and made millions messing with the minds of our youth.

      Did I tell you they were all members of the BT Barnum crew?

      February 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • evolvedDNA

      heavensent..unlike religion, science does not lie and claim it has all truths. You are closer to apes than you believe..DNA evidence can prove it..As your understanding of life and its evolution is narrow, it would be to much to go into here.. you came out of Africa like the rest of us..unless you emerged from some cosmic egg from heaven? If evolution has been proven wrong.. list the puplications..

      February 27, 2011 at 1:33 am |
  15. Challenge

    The deceptive, smoke-and-mirror language of evolution revolves largely around the cla-ssification of living species. Darwinists attempt to explain natural relationships they observe in the animal and plant world by categorizing animal and plant life according to physical similarities. It could be said that Darwin's theory is nothing more than educated observance of the obvious; that is, the conclusion that most animals appear to be related to one another because most animals have one or more characteristics in common.

    For instance, you might have a superficial classification of whales, penguins and sharks in a group classified as aquatic
    animals. You might also have birds, bats and bees grouped as flying creatures. These are not the final classifications because there are many other obvious differences. The Darwinist approach, however, is to use the obvious general similarities to show, not that animals were merely alike in many ways, but that they were related to each other by descent from common ancestors.

    Professor Johnson expresses it this way: "Darwin proposed a naturalistic explanation for the essentialist features of the living world that was so stunning in its logical appeal that it conquered the scientific world even while doubts remained about some important parts of his theory. He theorized that the discontinuous groups of the living world were the descendants of long-extinct common ancestors. Relatively closely related groups (like reptiles, birds, and mammals) shared a relatively recent common ancestor; all vertebrates shared a more ancient common ancestor; and all animals shared a still more ancient common ancestor. He then proposed that the ancestors must have been linked to their descendants by long chains of transitional intermediates, also extinct" (p. 64).

    Evolutionists exercise selective perception when looking at the evidence—rather like deciding whether to view half a glass of water as half empty or half full. They choose to dwell on similarities rather than differences. By doing so they lead you away from the truth of the matter: that similarities are evidence of a common Designer behind the structure and function of the life-forms. Each species of animal was created and designed to exist and thrive in a particular way. Darwin and the subsequent proponents of the evolutionary view of life focused on similarities within the major classifications of animals and drew the as-sumption that those similarities prove that all animals are related to one another through common ancestors.

    However, there are major differences in the life-forms on earth. If, as evolution supposes, all life-forms had common ancestors and chains of intermediates linking those ancestors, the fossil record should overflow with many such intermediate forms between species. But as we have already seen, paleontologists themselves admit it shows no such thing.

    Simple life-forms?
    Since the fossil record does not support the traditional evolutionary view, what does it show?

    We have already seen how several well-known paleontologists admit that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life-forms. As Stephen Jay Gould puts it, "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and 'fully formed'" (Gould, pp. 13-14).

    When we sweep away the evolutionary bias inherent in most presentations of the fossil record, we find that the record does not show a gradual ascent from simple to complex. Consider some of the earliest fossils found, those of bacteria. What is interesting about bacteria is that they are not simple or-ganisms at all.

    http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/creation-evolution-fossil-record.asp

    February 26, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Darwin, as the rest of the new inventors of existance, read God's wisdom (the Bible) then tried to convert every one away from Jesus' truth.

      No Brainer, 101 for the entry way into the NWO.

      February 26, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
  16. Challenge

    "Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator . . . In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator."

    — Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), NASA director and father of the American space program

    February 26, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
    • evolvedDNA

      Challenge.. DNA evidence does not back you up..it can be traced back to the earliest times. You mention a designer.. who is he god perhaps.. tell us where he came from or how he came into existence. them we can move forward.. It is possible that there is room for god to have started the entire thing on its course. " Dr" Bebe has no peer reviewed material and has not disproved evolution at all. if you read Richard Dawkins book, and some others you will see your questions are answered in rational way..Intelligent design has been debunked.. it is junk science.

      February 27, 2011 at 1:06 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Being a rocket scientist (a physicist largely on very observable and repeatable phenomena) does not by itself qualify one to be a biologist, cosmologist, theoretical physicist or an expert in any of the other natural sciences that evolution and understanding the very small and the very large requires. I'll go with a Stephen Hawkin or Richard Dawkins, not to mention Einstein, over WvB every time, except when the subject is rocketry, and even then, I would discount any scientist biased by a belief in imaginary beigs.

      February 27, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
  17. Challenge

    Here is an interesting read, for all of you who want to "prove" God. Read it all, then come back and lets debate. Fair?

    http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/creation-evolution-society.asp

    February 26, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      You read that babble instead of reading God's truth as is written in Romans 1:21-32 and Revelation 13:4-9.

      Lions and tigers and bears, oh why?

      February 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      It's cra.p. Creationist apologist in disguise as a fence-sitter.

      February 27, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • Geri

      HotAirAce

      @Eric G.

      I believe I understand your perspective and agree with it. Part of the truth that believers have a hard time with is "The End" – accepting that this life is all there is and that we can make the most of it, in the most positive for all sense, no gods required.

      Hot Air...That statement just proves how much you DON"T understand. For us, "the end" as you put it, is in fact, "The Beginning". Don't you know that you won't live till you die?

      Or do you think your alive now? Oh yes, I forgot...you breathe, which can be seen, and tested. You smell, touch, hear, and so on...thats living? Provable by medical science,yes?

      Well, what can I say, except you are believing by faith, that when you die, that is all there is. Since no one has died, and come back to tell about it, you can only have "faith" that it will be your end. ...as in all the feely. touchy things cease.
      I would like to see the look on your face when that shout rings out,lol.

      February 28, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
  18. Anglican

    My brothers and sisters, we live on earth and not in heaven. Seek God, find God, and hold on to that faith. Faith leads to love and hope. May God have mercy on all, and I mean all, of us. Peace.

    February 26, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • evolvedDNA

      Anglican...We are all human beings.. hang on to that and work together. love is not exclusive to belief in any supernatural being. We are indeed on earth, so lets make the most of it and look forward to life and living... see beauty in nature.. and as i have mentioned before feel connected to the universe because you are...in the iron in your blood.. manufactured in the supernovae of stars long since dead, and billions of miles away. At the atomic level we are all immensely old.. almost as old as the uiniverse...who knows where your atoms were or who they were before you came into existence..

      February 27, 2011 at 12:47 am |
  19. Reality

    A 21st century update on the three Abrahamic religions:

    1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

    "New Torah For Modern Minds

    Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

    Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

    The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment.

    2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan se-cts.

    The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hit-ti-tes, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
    earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

    For added "pizz-azz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "fil-icider".

    Current RCC problems:

    Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

    3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:

    Adu-lterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

    4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

    This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

    And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

    Current crises:

    The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

    February 26, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Romans 1:21-32

      Revelation 13:4-9

      February 26, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
  20. Eric G.

    It has been a while, and I am still waiting for the verifiable evidence that believers claim to have to prove their God's existence.

    To those who are new to the Belief Blog, please be prepared for a rational, logical debate. You will be called out for false logic. No circular arguments will be tolerated.

    The level of civility you display in making your case will determine the level of civility you receive in response.

    February 26, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Eric G., seek and ye shall find. It's been posted on many of the previous articles but, obviously, you're too busy being smug mocking God, that you never allow anyone's writings of what they've learned from His teachings sink in. It's as if someone wanted to teach you a different language, but because you're comfortable with English you refute anything they try to teach, mock them and insist they speak with you in English or the discussion ends.

      February 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @HeavenSent: I have asked you to provide the verifiable evidence you claim to have. You then attack me for being smug, mocking your God and mocking believers.

      Please provide the verifiable evidence for review in whatever language you wish. Please be prepared to have your evidence questioned. This is not an attack on your beliefs, but rather an attempt to validate your claims.

      Or, you can take your normal position of "victim" and claim that the evidence cannot be understood by others.

      February 26, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I do believe HeavenScent and a couple of others owe us a list of unambiguous and verifiable biblical prophecies. And rofliamsmarterthanyou (or something similar) was going to post a definitive proof of god's existence. None have supported their claims as of about 12 hours ago, and I don't believe they will ever deliver because as any sane person knows, there are no gods!

      February 26, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @HotAirAce: I only ask for honest dialog. To cut right to the chase, I would like to know from believers if the path to truth is important to their world view. You cannot use the word "faith" when discussing truth. If truth is important, you would want verification. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

      I am very interested in how believers reconcile their "faith" with the search for "truth". Those words are mutually exclusive, unless their faith is more important to them than truth.

      I find that most believers want faith. Truth is hard. Truth requires honesty. I am just trying to find a believer that can rationally prove that I am wrong.

      February 26, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @Eric G.

      I believe I understand your perspective and agree with it. Part of the truth that believers have a hard time with is "The End" – accepting that this life is all there is and that we can make the most of it, in the most positive for all sense, no gods required.

      February 26, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Now you want to act civilized? I couldn't tell from all the former blogs. As for His teachings, go back to all the previous articles and copy what was written. Just because you non-believers don't under our language, doesn't mean His wisdom isn't in the scriptures.

      Just a thought, what if stonning back then means someone stoned, out of it, never to learn because they're too busy being lazy, shiftless, munching instead of working ... and today parents/teachers/co-workers/bosses aren't thrilled with the person not applying themselves in today's society? God does work in mysterious ways .... stonned of yesterday and stonned of today. I wonder what the future generations will think of all our uses of the language?

      February 26, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HotAirAce, here's a few for starters ... the sun rises in the East and sets in the West ... every day. Isn't that a miracle and prophesy? It rains, the skies cloud up, the rivers run and the oceans flow. All miracles and all prophesies that happen over and over again. Look at all flowers, the trees, the birds, the animals. Did you make them? No. I didn't think so. Still another miracle and a prophesy that if man and women become one ... A new baby is born.

      Prophesies of the Bible. Here's one, but I don't have time right now to get you the scripture ... but, it's that at end of days women will become more affluent at murder than men. Can you guess what year this prophecy was written?

      Prophesy that end of days famine will rise.

      According to you Eric G, you are your own god. Disproving your theory.

      Gotta go. I won't be on until whenever.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @HeavenSent: Don't be upset because you were defeated in previous debates. I do not need to point out the lack of honesty and reason in your posts to the followers of these blogs.

      Please provide the verifiable evidence. This is now the third time I have asked. Here is a hint for you. Using the Bible as a factual reference supporting the theory that your God exists is a circular argument and is not acceptable in a mature debate.

      Please stop your ranting and provide the verifiable evidence or admit that you can't. To respond in any other way is dishonest.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @HeavenScent

      You are confusing naturally occurring events with biblical prophecy. The closest you got to answering the question was mentioning end times and then running away. I would have thought a thumper of your renown would have a list of verifiable and unambiguous biblical prophecies at hand, and be keenly tracking events that allegedly lead to end times, even if the specific date/time is unknown. So, we are still waiting, with no faith that you or any other thumper can deliver the goods.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @HeavenSent: Sorry you had to go in such haste. Based on your post, I would bet you were not rushing off to the library.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Your mod squadders won't let me post my statement about capital punishment. As in all of us are a child of God and that scripture wasn't referring to a child as in young, it was referring to an adult child of God's that refuses to learn, comprehend and abide in His wisdom.

      February 26, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Electric chair in the last century and 1/2.
      Gas chamber even further back.
      Hanging ...
      Stoning.

      February 26, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Terminologies ...

      Psychopaths ...
      Sociopaths ...
      Anti-social ...
      Fools.

      All refusing to learn, comprehend and abide in wisdom to live in peace and harmony in society.

      February 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @HeavenScent

      If you are continuing to blame the moderators for your inability to get your message out, then it is you that is incapable of learning! Once again, there are no live moderators (just as there are no gods). Your message merely includes one or more naughty word fragments or too many URLs. Go find a posting with the naughty words, edit and adapt...

      February 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Right Eric G., any thing I write to most of you ringers never get posted.

      As for providing prophecies to you. You should know them by heart by now.

      Smile.

      February 26, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Here Eric G. I'm not ignoring you, but I have posted this over and over again on different blogs.

      Romans 1:21-32

      Revelation 13:4-9

      February 26, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • Bus2

      Eric, you posed a very reasonable request: for a religious person to present verifiable evidence that supports their claim that a god character exists.

      However, you can fully expect HeavenSent and others to continue quoting the bible as though it's a valid reference, to continue directing you to other threads where no evidence has been presented, and to continue dancing around your very clearly worded request.

      Religious "reasoning" is simply too weak to address even the most rudimentary challenges.

      Secularist: Show me your evidence, please.
      Christian: The evidence totally exists! God IS real!
      Secularist: You still haven't showed me anything, you just restated your original claim...

      February 26, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @HeavenSent: Sorry, using the bible is a circular argument. Please allow me to explain...

      "God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God."

      Now, you will need to provide verifiable evidence that the Bible is accurate AND that it is your Gods word.

      Let's try this a different way. Which is more important to you, to believe or to know? Hypothetically, let's as-sume that verifiable and demonstrative evidence existed that would either prove or disprove the existence of your God, and it was sealed in a box. Would you look in the box to find out the truth?

      February 26, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Eric G., here's 2 that will answer two of your questions.

      February 27, 2011 at 1:59 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Eric G., here's 2 that will answer two of your questions.

      Psalms 40:7 and Hebrew 10:7

      February 27, 2011 at 2:00 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Hot Air, have fun reading.

      Romans 3:3-4
      Romans 9:13-23
      Matthew 7:6
      1 Timothy 6:20-21
      1 Corinthians 1:14-21
      1 Corinthians 3:19-20
      Jude 4

      February 27, 2011 at 2:17 am |
    • Eric G.

      @HeavenSent: I have asked you repeatedly to answer my questions. I have proved that your posting of Biblical text is logically flawed.

      Please answer the question. Hypothetically, let's as-sume that verifiable and demonstrative evidence existed that would either prove or disprove the existence of your God, and it was sealed in a box. Would you look in the box to find out the truth?

      Why do you continue to dodge the question? I am trying to have a rational and mature dialog with you to gain a better understanding of why you are a believer.

      February 27, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @HeavenScent

      With each additional reply you demonstrate your inability to read, comprehend and think, but I will try one more time...

      Quoting scripture to support the existence of your god is a circular argument.

      I have read and rejected the bible.

      I do not own a bible, do not intend to buy one and do not intend to read an on-line version as I have no time to spend re-reading bad fiction.

      Please provide non-biblical support for the claims you have made, or admit that no such support will be provided.

      To summarize, please read for comprehension and "put up or shut up!"

      February 27, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Eric G., that last post of mine is being blocked too. Therefore, no truth gets debated.

      February 27, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
1 2 3
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.