home
RSS
October 10th, 2012
12:01 PM ET

Congressman draws fire for calling evolution, Big Bang ‘lies from the pit of hell’

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN) – A U.S. congressman is attracting attention and criticism for an online video that shows him blasting evolution and the Big Bang theory as “lies from the pit of hell” in a recent speech at a church event in his home state of Georgia.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Speaking at Liberty Baptist Church’s Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, he said that “a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” Broun said in the speech, which Liberty Baptist Church posted on its website via YouTube.  “I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Scientists say that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that the universe dates back 13.7 billion years.

In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.”

“That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the congressman, Meredith Griffanti, said that Broun was not available for comment on Wednesday and that the video showed him “speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.”

The congressman’s remarks about science have drawn attention online, with critics taking aim at his role on the science committee.

Bill Nye, the popular science personality, told the Huffington Post in an e-mail that "Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest."

"For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," said Nye, a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program "Bill Nye the Science Guy." Broun "is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."

Talking Points Memo reported on the church video over the weekend after being tipped off by the Bridge Project, a progressive group that tracks conservative activity.

Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world and everything in it in six days.

For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution.  Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years.  In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

– CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Evolution • Politics • Science

soundoff (5,886 Responses)
  1. Observant Historian

    The evidence for evolution, and the evidence that confirms and re-confirms (across many scientific disciplines) that the theory of evolution is an accurate understanding of the mechanics of the fact of the evolution, is so overwhelming – and the evidence for Biblical creation so non-existent – that we have to marvel at the extent to which the human mind to learn and reason is wasted on many people. Biblical creationists state that there is no evidence that would ever convince them that the Biblical creation is not literally true – you cannot reason with people who reject reason, any more than you can teach people who refuse to learn.

    October 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Athy

      So true. Facts can only confuse them, assuming they would even listen to them.

      October 12, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      "you cannot reason with people who reject reason"
      That is the crux of the problem.

      October 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • ME II

      I think someone famous once said,
      "You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into."

      (or something to that effect)

      October 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • nojinx

      ME II,
      Speaking for myself, I hope that is not true. Otherwise only generational turn-over can eradicate ridiculous ideologies.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @nojinx,
      Honestly hadn't considered that aspect. But I would hope that there was at least a little thought put into extant ideologies. (I know wishful thinking.)

      October 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
  2. Al

    @ Reynolds
    The Big Bang Theory isn't fully accepted theory. There are a few others out there but unlike the genisis story they all have mathimatical backing. All the genisis story has is that its an old story on paper with as much proof as the creation stories of Odin and Ymir. There are other religious in the world an there creation stories have as much going for them as the genisis story...so how are you sure that thats right and nt the others. At least the Big Bang Thoery is more likely then any of the stories from the past

    October 12, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
  3. Rock Reynolds

    The Congressman is right on the money about the "Big Bang Theory".
    I am amazed at people who call the Genesis account totally unbelievable because it comes from religion, but are willing to accept the "Big Bang Theory" because it comes from "science".
    To accept the "Big Bang Theory", you have to accept:
    1. From the speck of dust called the earth, our scientists have developed a total understanding of the entire forces at work in the universe, some of which are taking place 100's of light-years away.
    2. Using this total understanding of the universe, some computer programmer was able to write a program to correctly simulate the billions of celestial bodies, and all of the relative forces between these bodies.
    If anyone can convince me that there are people on earth with this capacity, then I'll revisit the "Big Bang Theory".
    Rock

    October 12, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Rev. Right

      Ignorant fools – the Bible is about genetics and the Tabernacle in Exodus 25 is an Electrical Resonator tuned to the Great Pyramid in Giza as described by Moses.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • midwest rail

      In your opinion, how old is the Earth ?

      October 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      you know the whole expanding universe and big bang theory was first suggested by a catholic priest right?

      October 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'Rock Reynolds' presents a series of Straw Man Arguments and contains multiple instances of Gross Concept Errors.

      http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      October 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Just because you don't posses said capacity, doesn't mean others don't.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • the AnViL

      another stunning example of the dunning-kruger effect for the world to witness.

      religious tolerance has to end.

      enough is enough.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Yep, AnVil, Rock Reynolds is another "expert" who knows better than every professional astrophysicist on the planet. They may be able to make the exact calculations to successfully land a space vehicle on Mars, but they don't command the expertise that Rock Reynolds does. If he doesn't understand it, it must be stupid.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • === o ===

      A better question. How smart is a rock?

      October 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • ME II

      @midwest rail,
      "In your opinion, how old is the Earth ?"

      It will turn 2 next week.
      The question is, 2 what?

      October 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Eart is a little over 1 Sagan old.
      (1 Sagan = 4 billion years since that is the lowest number than can be considered 'billions and billion')

      October 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Veritas

      Big Bang is widely accepted among scientists. All creation myths are clearly wrong. If you find it incredible that a universe can just exist, why do you not find it more incredible that a god can just exist with the power to create a universe. Who created god? If a god can just exist, so can a universe.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • ME II

      @Doc Vestibule,
      "1 Sagan"
      love it!

      October 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • nojinx

      "1. From the speck of dust called the earth, our scientists have developed a total understanding of the entire forces at work in the universe, some of which are taking place 100's of light-years away."
      Not only is this not something that has been achieved, it is not something required to know things about our universe. We can see the "Big Bang" because it is the particle/event horizon – it is empirical, visible with the right tools and measurable with other tools. There may be something beyond it, but we cannot tell yet. If your statement #1 was true, we would have no scientific knowledge at all until we have achieved all scientific knowledge, a logical impossibility.

      "2. Using this total understanding of the universe, some computer programmer was able to write a program to correctly simulate the billions of celestial bodies, and all of the relative forces between these bodies."
      This is moot given the problems with your first proposition.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • End Religion

      I feel sick thinking of the possibility Rock has children he'll taint with his stupidity.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • End Religion

      "A better question. How smart is a rock?"

      This guy gives new meaning to "dumb as a box of Rocks."

      October 12, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • a reasonable atheist

      Regarding your first supposition of "100's of light years," the current observable universe is a spheroid with an estimated diameter of ~16 billion light years around the earth. Further, the actual universe is estimated to be 10^23 times (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x) larger than this. These conclusions have been arrived at primarily by making observations at various time points and applying physical law/theory to those observations. You could dumb it down and call it a really, really fancy regression analysis with some geometry and dynamics thrown in (add some quantum theory to make it more accurate). You can begin your education on this subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe.

      Regarding your second supposition of needing a model so complex that it encompasses the entire universe. Well, that's just plain silly. I can model to a very reasonable degree the velocity and force at impact and the position at any time after the start of the experiment of a dropped ball without knowing the exact atmospheric pressure, windage,surface area, mass, etc... If I know the mass to reasonable degree, I can predict the results of the experiment to within a fraction of a percent of actual measured results. That's how predictive models tend to work. They simplify the system to give a reasonable prediction in a short amount of time.

      October 13, 2012 at 9:21 am |
  4. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    For evidence/proof of human evolution, look no further than the color of human skin. When the first humans moved from Africa some 60,000 years ago, their skin was dark. As they moved to colder regions that had less Sun exposure, human skin became lighter and lighter.

    e.g. http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/.../Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

    For said Rep. Broun:

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
    https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

    " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable JOURNEY. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

    Part of the project: $199 and a DNA swab:

    "Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."

    Do doubt Broun will find substantial Neanderthal markers in their DNA!!!
    ==========================================================================================

    October 12, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  5. Athena

    so he governs in a town of my name, I'm the goddess of knowledge, diplomacy(wisdom in war) and reason, and he governs in a town in my name. that girl is right hes going to get "backlash" we are living in a neo-pagan age.

    October 12, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  6. WS

    Does anyone know how accurate is Radiometric Dating is?

    October 12, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • ME II

      Depends on the elements in questions, I would think.

      Some "methods include:
      argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
      iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
      lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
      lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
      lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
      neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
      rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
      uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
      uranium-uranium (U-U)"
      (wiki)

      October 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It depends on the isotope, both its half-life and chemical properties – the latter has to do with the integrity of the sample. Some samples are easily contaminated with material of different isotope composition than the original sample. BTW, it's not radiometric in cases where precision is critical – then mass spectrometry is used.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • WASP

      @WS: seeing we know how long it takes something like plutonium to become stable i would say pretty accurate.
      we have cave paintings in europe that date 30,000 years ago. we have physical remains of wolley mammoths and neanderthals that were frozen solid......yet no mention of those in the bible. i would figure atleast neanderthals would atleast deserve a mention in the bible of creation, yet seeing romans had no clue of what a neanderthal was that may be the reason as to why they weren't mentioned.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Chris

      Pretty accurate, in general, at most about 5% or so off, which is nowhere near the 4.5 billion years off it would have to be for young-earth creationists to be right.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Every radiometric date is an average of multiple measurements, and has a standard deviation (or standard error) which tells how accurate the date is based upon the variation among those measurements. For example, a typical radiocarbon date might be:

      11,925 +/- 25 BP

      BP means before present (set at 1950). The 25 is the standard deviation, and thus we can be 68% confident that the real date falls within 25 years of the average (11,925). Doubling the standard deviation, we can be 95% confident that the date falls within 50 years of the average (11,925).

      The standard error tells you how accurate the date is.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • ME II

      @Rufus T. Firefly,
      Good explanation. I had always thought the "+/-" was a margin of error. Good to know.

      October 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      it depends on the instrument. Measurement instruments have three different critera:
      – Accuracy
      – Precision
      – Repeatability

      For example if you stand on a bathroom scale with a four digit readout, the reading might well be more precise than its accuracy.

      Another analogy might be a clock marked with minute graduations. Your ability to tell the time will be 0:00 ±0.5 minutes, (which is the inferred precision of this instrument) but the clock might be accurate to the second.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  7. Steve

    Religion;

    Causing political problems and anarchy since 30 AD.

    October 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • mama k

      True. You know religion is like really old hamburger. Hamburger isn't even that good for you when it's fresh. I'm sure you've heard of all the junk that goes into it. And if hamburger has gone bad, it doesn't matter how much you dress it up – it's still going to make you sick. Religion, which is rehashed folklore is like old Hamburger Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper Helper....

      Stay healthy and eat more vegetables.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • OpposingView

      Religion is and never was the problem. Evil people who misuse religion for their own evil purposes is the problem...

      October 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Chris

      Nah, it was causing problems long, long before 30 AD, it was just different religions.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • the AnViL

      OpposingView:

      the well-intentioned people suffering from the god delusion do the most damage, and those who tolerate them run a close second. there isn't a single redeeming quality to any religious dogma based on antiquated, tribal-minded, divisive words scribbled over 2000 years ago.

      no, it's not the ones using religion for evil purposes.... it's religion, religious thinking – and the ignorance that is inherent within it causing the most problems.

      enough is enough – tolerance of religion has to end.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  8. OgLikeRock

    Rep Broun is a Talibani sympathizer who wishes christard sharia on America. TRAITOR!!!

    October 12, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • OgLikeRock

      So Georgians, this guy represents you? You are talibani in thought, too? You mock my nephews war-wounds received fighting the sharia-ignorance that Broun represents if you agree with him. The taliban has infiltrated our gov't and it's name is Rep Broun. Vote him out and show us you can think, for the good of America! To honor the dead and wounded who fought against that ignorance, vote him out, recall him, get him out of our government, NOW! Trait or!!!

      October 12, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
  9. John the Guy

    @God
    Went to your website and my security system indicated that it was a phishing scam, things haven't changed in 2000 years, still scamming the sheepies. I left unscathed.

    October 12, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  10. WS

    Do they think that the earth is 6000 years old b/c in the Bible it says the earth was created in six days and then states that a day is like a 1000 years in God’s kingdom? I don’t think either statement is suppose to be taken literally and isn’t the exact wording that a day is LIKE a 1000 years. It doesn’t say a day is exactly 1000 years in His kingdom.

    October 12, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • TR6

      “day is LIKE a 1000 years”

      This is something that Paul came up with to try and appease the followers who were beginning to notice that jesus hadn’t come back as soon as promised. It’s just spin doctoring

      October 12, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Veritas

      No, a clergyman a few centuries ago counted back through all the begats back to Adam and came up with a number around 6000.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Not really "kind of like" 6000 years ago. Bishop Usher calculated that creation took place on October 24, 4004 BC (6,018 years ago) ... at around 9 in the evening. I kid you not.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • OpposingView

      Creation did not happen in an instant. It took the eternal God 6000 man years to create the earth. The scripture states, "one day with the Lord is as 1000 years with man. Meaning, every 1000 man years that goes by is only like 1 day to the Lord. Thus, if it took the Lord 6 days to create the earth (and he rested on the 7th day) then it took him 6000 man years to complete the task....

      2 Peter 3:8 – But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

      To place that in perspective, even if a man lives to be 100 years old on earth, his whole life is equivalent to only 2.4 hours to the eternal God. After just 2.4 hours from the moment your birth (if you even live that long), the eternal God knows you'll be dead and in hell. Therefore, to those who love to speak evil about the eternal God and about things you know nothing of, what makes you think the eternal God even cares. That's the very reason he won't even waste his time trying to strike you down or to get you right now for all your vain and evil ramblings. Instead, he knows, he'll get you on Judgment Day...

      October 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      "Creation did not happen in an instant. "

      why not?

      "It took the eternal God 6000 man years to create the earth."

      why?

      October 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • JohnC

      OpposingView, ""one day with the Lord is as 1000 years" why is it that in any other written word people would just think that means that time is of little consequence to God as opposed to being literal? Of course many that read the Bible very strictly don't buy that particular literal interpretation proving that correct interpretation of the Bible is a very real issue and so one must question any particular interpretation. So when Jesus said forgive 7 x 7 times did He mean you no longer need to forgive on the 50th time? Or does 7 here just mean "a lot" and so 7 x 7 means "a whole lot"? BTW, most of the reasons for the young earth dates relates to how the Bible talks of who begat whom and how long they lived - so why is it that some of these folks lived for like a thousand years and yet we have evidence of some Egyptians that were at least near contemporaries of them living lifespans close to what we see in humans today?

      October 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Navin R. Johnson

      "I know we've only known each other four weeks and three days, but to me it seems like nine weeks and five days.

      The first day seemed like a week and the second day seemed like five days.

      And the third day seemed like a week again and the fourth day seemed like eight days.

      And the fifth day you went to see your mother and that seemed just like a day, and then you came back and later on the sixth day.

      In the evening, when we saw each other, that started seeming like two days, so in the evening it seemed like two days spilling over into the next day and that started seeming like four days, so at the end of the sixth day on into the seventh day, it seemed like a total of five days.

      And the sixth day seemed like a week and a half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow if you want to see it." – The Jerk

      October 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • OpposingView

      JohnC… Some parts of the scripture are meant to be taken literal, and some parts are not. It takes a sent Man of God (an apostle or prophet) to know the difference. I got my info from a prophet…

      Mark 4:11 – (Jesus speaking to his apostles) And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

      As the above scripture confirms, the secret to understanding the scriptures has been given only to the sent preachers. And to know those secrets, you must get it from the sent preacher. God wanted it that way so that all others (the people who are not saved and those who are unbelievers) seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Unbelievers may still read the same bible we do, but they don't have a clue what it means. But we who believe, we know what it means…

      October 12, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Get Real

      Opposing View,
      " I got my info from a prophet…"

      Oy, you are a laugh a minute, aren't you!

      October 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • All Thumbs

      Evangelical Rule of Thumb:

      If a Bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally.

      If a Bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical or metaphorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic!

      October 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • End Religion

      @OV: "he won't even waste his time trying to strike you down or to get you right now for all your vain and evil ramblings"

      If your loving god doesn't want to take a second or 2 to help us while we're alive, why would he spend the time it takes to judge us after we die? You make a lot of excuses for a god that obviously cares nothing for you.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • End Religion

      @OV: Reassure yourself how you want, but religious "moderation" or the interpreting and cherry picking of certain bible verses is proof of your atheism. God has commanded you through the bible. To defy his commandments is to deny him since you do not fear reprisal. Denying him is the one sin he doesn't forgive, and that means eternal damnation. What arrogance to assume you can decide which parts of his word to obey!

      October 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  11. Chad

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

    Could someone please direct me to the place in the bible where it says WHEN this happened? Where does it say the earth is 8-10 thousand years old? I've read it dozens of times, and somehow missed it...

    October 12, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Damocles

      @Chad

      I think it mentions something about 6 days, which has been interpreted to mean anywhere from 6 days to 13 billion years depending on how hard they try to splice the bb theory and the creation story.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Amniculi

      They got the 6-10 thousands years by going over historical references in the Bible (battles, city foundings, etc.) and adding up all the generations (a lot of begotting by those desert primitives).

      October 12, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Chad the timeline is derived by counting the generations from Jesus to Adam and Eve.....

      I know that doesn't make sense but we are talking about willfully ignorant religious people and their logic.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • niknak

      That is right Cheesy guy,
      The fundies I work with say if you count the generations in the bible, and give each one an average of 50 years, then you get roughly a universe and earth (cause they were created at the same time) that is about 6 to 8 thousand years old.
      They also have a pretty liberal interpretation of how long an actual day was in relation to that whole 7 day creation thing.
      So some of them will give you that the actual creation of the universe could have taken million to billions of years as each day to god could have been measured in those kinds of lenghts.
      But once the big guy was done with the actual nuts and bolts creatin', then the part of creatin' the critters took only 6 to 8k years.
      Whacky I know, but in make believe land, anything is possible........

      October 12, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Franklin

      Blessed
      Some of Jesus' ancestors supposedly lived for hundreds of years as well, so the time from him to Adam would me more like 5000 years if you cut past the myth, but if you're inclined to cut out myth then why bother to make allowances at all, right?

      October 12, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Bob

      Chad, frankly, I don't care what your pathetic old storybook says. If your god exists, then why can't he do his own website and push some tweets out, and get with the times? Even on those grounds (and there are many others), a "god" could only reasonably expect reasonable doubt of his existence, to say the least.

      Hilarious what you believe. Better not see a modern doctor and use modern medicine, since your bible is in disagreement with it bigtime.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • God

      " If your god exists, then why can't he do his own website and push some tweets out, and get with the times? "

      You haven't been to my website?

      http://www.god.com

      Sheesh, some people are so behind the times.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Chad, look up Bishop Ussher. That's primarily where it comes from. Part of the absurdity that results from treating the Bible as a historical or scientific reference.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Has Chad realized that the earth and the "heavens" are of different ages and vastly different mechanisms of formation. Perhaps we should edit his Bible for him. "In the beginning the God created the Universe. The Universe proceeded to nearly its present state when, 8 or 9 billion years after the beginning, the earth formed together with other planets in a protoplanetary disk around a 2nd or 3rd generation star."

      October 12, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Chad,
      That's not what they're talking about. They count "generations", in the genealogies, and cook up an estimate for the time, since Adam. They cannot stand the fact, that IF you count generations, you come up with a totally impossible number for the first humans. It PROVES the Bible is WRONG.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      According to the Bible it happened 5 days prior to the existence of humans. or 6 days depending on how you're counting.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” – U.S Rep. Paul Broun

      Are evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory lies straight from the pit of hell?

      What are your thoughts here?

      October 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Bob

      Nice ads on your website god. Now how 'bout some tweets...

      October 12, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Chad

      Adding up generations? Does that work? Does the bible ever say that Adam was the first human being on earth?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Are you saying Adam was not the first human?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chad

      What does the bible say?
      Who was Cain afraid of ( Genesis 4:14)?
      Who did Cain marry?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I have to admit that it does amaze me how many people will fall for this little ruse of yours.

      Could someone please direct me to the place in the bible where it says WHEN this happened? Where does it say the earth is 8-10 thousand years old?

      Of course the bible doesn't *say* it. You know it. I know it and the people who have posted here know it.

      But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD has essentially declared that with your belief in theistic evolution you too are on the slippery slope to perdition – straight to "the pits of hell" as I believe he said. What say you on topic?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      Who did Cain marry?

      Are you planning to enlighten us?

      As far as I'm concerned "East of Eden" is a novel by John Steinbeck.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Of course the bible doesn't *say* it. You know it. I know it and the people who have posted here know it."
      @Chad "we "know it"?
      what do we "know", and what is that "knowledge" based on?
      speculation?

      =========
      @GOPer "But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD"
      @Chad "last time I checked, this is a free country and people can say what they like.
      right?"

      October 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Who did Cain marry? Are you planning to enlighten us?"

      @Chad "how could I? the bible doesnt say..

      as far as I can see, your objections seem to stem from an interpretation based on speculation.. right?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      why are you so afraid to answer a direct question?

      Be a man. Stand up for what you really believe in and tell us honestly instead of playing semantic word games.

      Here you beg an interpretation of the verb "to know" and the noun knowledge.
      what do we "know", and what is that "knowledge" based on?

      The blowhard tea-partier from the red clay of Georgia is free to say (and think) that the moon is made of cheese. But I aked you what you thought. What are you afraid of?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      @GOPer "Of course the bible doesn't *say* it. You know it. I know it and the people who have posted here know it."
      @Chad "we "know it"?
      what do we "know", and what is that "knowledge" based on?
      speculation?

      =========
      @GOPer "But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD"
      @Chad "last time I checked, this is a free country and people can say what they like.
      right?"

      Are you practicing for your own campaign?
      If so you might want to make your evasions a little more subtle. These were pretty obvious.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • @@ =>

      Everyone knows you can't divide FAITH by zero. Therefore, FAITH cannot equal zero. This proves the existence of FAITH.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Chad

      what is your direct question? What I think of the congressmans statements, or what I think on when the universe was formed?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      the bible doesnt say

      That was my interpretation. But I am not the bible scholar that you are. I thought you might have been able to tell me something I didn't know.

      your objections seem to stem from an interpretation based on speculation

      What objections? To the assertion that the earth is 9,000 years old? Why would I argue that with you? You don't believe the earth is 9,000 years old any more than I do.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So you've now changed tactics. Instead of making completely moronic assertions on the existence of your god, you're now just asking completely moronic questions, and apparently just asking completely stupid questions.
      If that's the case: Does the bible ever say that other gods do not exist? Does the bible ever say that the earth is 4.3 billion years old? Does the bible ever specifically state that the mosaic laws are no longer in effect?

      October 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I asked you several direct questions. This one is the one I am the most interested in:

      "Are evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory lies straight from the pit of hell?"

      October 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "If so you might want to make your evasions a little more subtle. These were pretty obvious."

      =>ah..
      so, if I point out that the bible doesnt actually support the speculative interpretation that you want to criticize it for.. I"m being evasive??

      how do you figure?

      try to do this as an exercise: post my statement and explain how they are evasive :-)
      you wont.. :-)

      October 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Are evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory lies straight from the pit of hell?"
      @Chad "theistic evolution, and the big bang are absolutely true.

      Embryology is the science of the development of an embryo from the fertilization of the ovum to the fetus stage
      no idea why someone would object to that..

      dont forget two things:
      1. between you and I, there is one person that always answers questions, and always backs up accusations with evidence (that would be me)
      2. As a theistic evolutionist, I believe in common ancestry.

      October 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      thank you for answering a question. You and I both disagree with Congressman Broun – though not his right to say stupid things.

      What are the merits (in your opinion) of having Congressmen who disagree with well established science, sit on the House Committee for Science, Space and Technology and even chair a subcommittee?

      October 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      No fear Chad, you may not yet have the fortitude to stand by your positions, but we'll get you there. Remember, we're all in this together. AMDG

      October 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Chad

      The danger that a person who has no clue what the bible actually says, before criticizing it, is that they will make statements like this:

      @hawaiiguest "Does the bible ever say that other gods do not exist?
      =>"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 45
      => I myself am he; there is no other god but me: Deuteronomy 32

      @hawaiiguest "Does the bible ever say that the earth is 4.3 billion years old? "
      @Chad " the bible is silent on the age of the earth. It does not say anywhere"

      @hawaiiguest "Does the bible ever specifically state that the mosaic laws are no longer in effect?
      =>For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes Romans 10

      October 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer: I answer ALL questions (as we know), you do NOT answer all questions (as we know)

      I would vastly prefer a misguided Christian in office, than a non-Christian.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • The Justice

      @ not a GOPer
      Chad is the ultimate of christian apologists, even the RCC crowd have backed off of the theistic evolution THEORY to some extent, but not our Chad. Because someone that agrees with Chad, it becomes part of his belief sysyem. He maintains that he has read the bible dozens of times, probably has a whole lot memorized, and reverts to that nonsense to confirm his opinion. So it is written so shall Chad believe, the circular defense never ends.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I told you that I wasn't going to play silly games with you.

      Be a man and accept the criticism (validated by others) that was given to you. It was not my point to hurt your feelings. The criticism was deliberate and intended constructively.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I won't insist, but you really did not answer this question directly:

      "What are the merits (in your opinion) of having Congressmen who disagree with well established science, sit on the House Committee for Science, Space and Technology and even chair a subcommittee?"

      That you "vastly prefer a misguided Christian in office, than a non-Christian" is really not an answer. But it is not important.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • The Justice

      @Chad
      You quote the old testament "no other god but me" and often say that the old testament is not relevant after your so called christ showed up. Intresting that #1 Thou shall have no other god before me. kind of hints that there was compet*ition out and about, don't you think or don't you think at all?

      October 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Chad

      ok, GOPer, Hawaii, ME II.. pay attention here because I'm going to demonstrate how to make an effective and substantive accusation. As you have yet to make one, you should pay close attention to the construction.

      =======
      Accusation: @@Tom, Tom. the Other One is dishonest and disingenuous

      Definition of terms:
      ==Dishonesty: lack of honesty or integrity : disposition to defraud or deceive
      ==Disingenuousness: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

      Evidence backing up accusation
      @Tom, Tom. the Other One "You once attempted to advance the idea that the Universe was created in the sense that a tropical depression creates a cyclone. You wanted to move on from that seamlessly, you thought, to the Universe was created in the sense that an artist creates a painting."

      @Chad "Blatantly not true, never said any such thing.. If you post where I said that, I will mail you $50."

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One " Regarding the statement on how you argue for a created Universe. I stand by it."

      Explanation
      @TTTOO acted dishonestly because he accused me of saying something that I never said.
      @TTTOO acted disingenuous because when confronted with the truth, he then went on and attempted to re-frame his earlier dishonest statement.

      =======================

      see? that's how you do it. that's what an example looks like.
      Please use this format in the future

      October 12, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Chad

      his merit is this: He is a Christian.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Does "not a jot or tittle" ring a bell?

      October 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad- " I would vastly prefer a misguided Christian in office, than a non-Christian."

      Let's not let Chad edit that statement out of his history as he has so much else that he's said.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "try to do this as an exercise: post my statement and explain how they are evasive
      you wont.. "

      The question(s) was:

      But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD has essentially declared that with your belief in theistic evolution you too are on the slippery slope to perdition – straight to "the pits of hell" as I believe he said. What say you on topic?

      your response(s):

      what do we "know", and what is that "knowledge" based on?
      speculation?

      last time I checked, this is a free country and people can say what they like.
      right?

      Neither response addresses the question, therefore you have evaded answering the question.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "his merit is this: He is a Christian."

      So ... your position is that theocracy is a good thing?

      October 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Chad, did you ever look up Bishop Ussher? Your beef lies with him, and those who still cling to his calculations (though most of them aren't even aware).

      October 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Chad

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5

      Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

      pretty self explanatory..
      but, you have to have read the bible. They dont tell you that stuff on infidels.org..

      October 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • ME II

      Oh i see your "stand" is that it's a free country. Cute. You are slippery bastard aren't you.

      Congrats1

      October 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "So ... your position is that theocracy is a good thing?"

      =>interesting..
      I support Christians in elected office, and you are suggesting that as such, I support theocracy??
      really?

      October 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • The Justice

      @not a GOPer
      Imagine, if you will, that the brilliance of the Chad's arguements caused you to repent and accept jc as your saviour, and upon you death your soul arrives at the pearly gates with Bill Deacon at the gate and looking beyond you see Topher, Fred, Ranier, Chad, etc. Would you not then beg to go to hell rather than spend eternity in their company, I certainly would.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      connecting "until everything is accomplished" with "it is finished" at the cruxifiction I will grant you is not illogical – even though 'finished' is not necessarily 'accomplished' and stipulating that we still have the resurrection to go, it's hard to say "everything" is accomplished. But ...

      If so, we can conclude that all the proscriptions in Leviticus are moot and can safely be ignored in preference to Jesus' specific commandments (and I'm confident you understand where I will go with this).

      Otherwise it is merely an unsubstantiated interpretation and the two don't relate to each other, justified by the resurrection not having happened yet.

      October 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II, here is the actual question and response...

      =================
      @ GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      @Chad,

      I have to admit that it does amaze me how many people will fall for this little ruse of yours.

      Could someone please direct me to the place in the bible where it says WHEN this happened? Where does it say the earth is 8-10 thousand years old?

      Of course the bible doesn't *say* it. You know it. I know it and the people who have posted here know it.

      But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD has essentially declared that with your belief in theistic evolution you too are on the slippery slope to perdition – straight to "the pits of hell" as I believe he said. What say you on topic?

      ===================
      @GOPer "Of course the bible doesn't *say* it. You know it. I know it and the people who have posted here know it."
      @Chad "we "know it"?
      what do we "know", and what is that "knowledge" based on?
      speculation?

      =========
      @GOPer "But where do you stand on our good ol' southern country doctor's remarks? Paul Broun MD"
      @Chad "last time I checked, this is a free country and people can say what they like.
      right?"

      October 12, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @The Justice,

      very droll, a most amusing strawman sir.

      Sadly full of fallacy. ;)

      You see Mr. Deacons is a Catholic and Chad is non-denominational, but seemingly of a particularly Protestant bent. From recollection @Rainer is Lutheran or a Lutheran derived evangelical sect – I don't remember. @Topher and @fred defy labeling and I haven't asked.

      So given that for several centuries similar believers killed each other over their own presumed monopoly of truth, we cannot expect to find them all together outside Saint Peter's barbican wall. With their mutually exclusive heresy, at best only one or two of them could be present.

      According to the Gospels of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, it is the Mormons, yes, that's right, the Mormons who will inherit the kingdom.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "If so, we can conclude that all the proscriptions in Leviticus are moot and can safely be ignored in preference to Jesus' specific commandments"
      @Chad "the law was fulfilled, we no longer have to attempt to live by it to achieve righteousness. Our righteousness is obtained by believing in Jesus.

      “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13

      October 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • The Justice

      @Chad Every time you write "what does the bible say" you are limiting yourself to a very narrow view of the world. All human expierance must be related to your mythical book that leaves out 5 billion of the 7 billion (approximate) on earth. Quoting bible scripture to define the history of mankind leaves out the MAJORITY of the "souls" on our little rock. I already know that you think that if everyone seeks out jesus it will make it all right, you are delusional.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • fred

      GOPer
      The Justice
      I would certainly pray to see a few good atheists in Heaven as some of us will be surprised where we end up:
      Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness."

      October 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      fair enough.

      So you don't consider gays to be an abominatio,n or that the behavior of two men or two women who commit to be faithful to one another is otherwise sinful?

      October 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • The Justice

      @not a GOPer
      Ignoring the Chad for a moment, Rainman is a confessing church adherent, I am guessing Topher is evangelical and Fred a very scary "Born Again".
      The reference to the Morman lot, do they have pearly gates on Kolob?
      Has the Chad ever given one of his profound explanations of why christianity split into so many nutty factions, I leave it to you to ask, the Chad sees me as unworthy of a respose most of the time.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Party time! Bring on the coveting and adultery! Jesus rescinded prohibition!

      October 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @The Justice,

      "The reference to the Morman lot, do they have pearly gates on Kolob?"

      YouTube has really clamped down the last couple of years and I can't find the South Park episode with scene of the Mormons in their white shirts and bicycle helmets inside the pearly gates. (This is separate from the "What Mormons Believe ... dum dum dum dum dum" episode.)

      October 12, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • fred

      The Justice
      DIng Ding Ding we have a winner !
      In John 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

      October 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "So you don't consider gays to be an abominatio,n or that the behavior of two men or two women who commit to be faithful to one another is otherwise sinful?"

      Do not be deceived: Neither the s exually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have s ex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for s exual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prosti tute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prosti tute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

      18 Flee from se xual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins se xually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. 1 Corinthians 6

      October 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      Oh sure, St. Paul. But what about Jesus? What did he say about gays?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm far too tired to wade through the Charddreck here. Did the Vegetable prove the existence of a god? Did the Fibrous One provide evidence for its claims that it even has a fvckin' brain?

      If so, stop the presses!! Notify the media!!

      Otherwise? It's the usual yawn-fest Chards post always spawn.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
  12. WS

    I was watching a YouTube clip that featured Kent Hovind and he said that scientists think that humans go through fish like stages when they’re in the embryonic stage and actually have gills. He goes on to state that this was proven to be wrong but the scientists keep stating this as it proves evolution and therefore keeps bringing in a paycheck for them. Sorry for my poor grammar.

    October 12, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • WASP

      @ws: haven't seen that video, however embryos do go through phases of development. no we don't have gills as an embryo,however we do go through a phase where we have no arms or legs,just a head and spinal cord. people can compare an embryos development to that found in the evolutionary data base.
      some humans are born with tails, quite a few are born with additional webbing between their fingers, some are born with extra fingers/toes. a very rare occurance is when a child is born with what appears to be scales, but only the pattern in their skin, not true scales. evolution better known as adaptation is just wierd tweeks that work or fail.

      here is a science homework for everyone: find out which animals have blubber or fatty tissue and which animals are covered in furr or hair? then try and understand why humans possess both?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • Damocles

      @WASP

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there some animals that have both blubber and hair-like objects on their skin?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • WASP

      @damocles: not really. if you research true terristrial mammals they all have furr, its a better for regulating temperture on dry land,but horrible insulator in the water.
      blubber / fat is a better insulator in the water,but horrible insultaor on land.

      i will agree that various creatures like rhinos, elephants,hippos have fatty tissue due to aquatic ancestory or present activities.
      terristrial mammals have furr, like big cats,wild dogs and the such.
      aquatic mammals like whales,porpoise, dolphines have blubber. exceptions in that case would be walrus, seals, sealions seeing they have duel exsistance on land and water.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • WS

      Do humans possess both b/c they go in & out of water.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • Damocles

      @WASP

      Yeah, I gotcha. You are asking for fat furry creatures as opposed to fat creatures with random hair follicles.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Damocles

      @WS

      Would be kind of pointless because humans don't have other organs that would help them in the water.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Franklin

      On a similar bent there is the aquatic ape theory that suggests that our ancestors went through a period where they gathered most of their food by swimming and wading through shallow costal waters. It's interesting, but not very compelling yet.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • WS

      What is the answer WASP?

      October 12, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • mama k

      I'm with WS. Mammals with hair/blubber for protection against cold in/out of water.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • ME II

      "terristrial mammals have furr, like big cats,wild dogs and the such.
      aquatic mammals like whales,porpoise, dolphines have blubber. exceptions in that case would be walrus, seals, sealions seeing they have duel exsistance on land and water."

      Not sure where this is going, but it was my understanding all mammals have some body fat, just look at the overweight pets many of humans have and food stock animals, cows, pigs, sheep, etc. get "fatted" up before slaughter.
      Blubber, if I understand it correctly, is just a specialized, or extra thick, layer of subcutaneous adipose (body fat), that help keep water dwelling warm-blooded mammals warm, provide energy reserves, and aids buoyancy.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • W

      @ws: the answer is humans weren't created, we evolved seeing we lack the traits of any strict land based mammal.
      i subscribe to two thoeries of human evolution. the first is the violent ape theory, it states that humans evolved from a more aggressive primate as opposed to a more docile version. proof of that is merely viewing human society. we take pleasure in violent activities, such as boxing, wrestling, hunting, american football. aggression is rewarded in our cultures the most aggressive (aka motivated) becomes CEO or that line. we enjoy watching violent movies and playing violent games. we conduct war-fare on a level never known to other animals. doesn't sound like a docile species do we?
      the second i believe is conjoined to the first one, the aquatic ape theory. we can observe today apes on the flooded plains in africa walking upright as they search for food, we can see monkeys walk through water to get to food on the other side, as opposed to swimming across. it would also explain our appearence of lack of furr on most of our bodies,however having hair on our heads. the fatty tissue on our bodies would act as an insolator while in the water but not very useful on land explaining not only the placement of the fatty tissue, but why we have it to begin with.

      thus my hypothesis is that a violent primate species that lived possibly in the flood plains region of africa had what it took to protect itself and become dominate over their more docile cousins to eventually lead to humans. our bodies as a species have slowed adapting because as it stands we are suited for our enviroment as best we can be. on the other hand the human mind is adapting at an amazing rate. it will be something to see what our desendants look like in another billion years.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • WASP

      @me2: yes the domesticated versions of felines and canines can become fat due to human diet or over feeding.
      however my point was about the wild versions of these animals, they have almost none exsistant body fat, if none at all. yet these creatures are covered in furr, which they can brissel to release heat from near their bodies or flatten to trap heat near their bodies. humans do the samething when we get "goosebumps" it's our bodies attempting to brissel furr we no longer possess.

      dolphines, whales and other strictly aquatic mammals have no hair/furr but loads of fat/blubber. yes fat is lighter than musle and adds buoyancy. yes fat can and is used as a reserve energy source.
      bovine, sheep, and other domesticated animals have had two things happen to them:
      1) human selective breeding
      2) stagnat life on farms
      their cousins or wild versions aren't built as fat as their more relaxed and well/over-fed cousins.
      i was pointing out the differences and similarities between humans and other mammals as a means to show humans had to evolve instead of just being created.
      if i was to create a world and i was a perfect being, then when i made all creatures i would make certain to situated them to their own enviroments, seeing i'm perfect i wouldn't make mistakes and have a land animal with fatty tissue it doesn't need. i wouldn't give a sea-based creature leg bones that it couldn't use or an organ that serves only to produce weak enzymes and possibly become a health risk to that creature.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • ME II

      @WASP,
      I agree that most wild animals don't show much fat, but all have it. Good examples of fur and fat: bears (hibernation and polar), otters. beavers, etc. Likewise many mammals don't show much hair (fur) such as: elephants, rhinos, whales, dolphins, etc., but do actually have hair. In some cases like whales and dolphins it may only show up before birth and then disappear after birth.
      "Mammals have hair, at least at some stage in their development. A whale's smooth skin is an adaptation for swimming, and whales lose their hair before they are born. A newborn calf sometimes has a few spar.se hairs around the rostrum."
      (http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/killer-whale/scientific-classification.htm)

      Perhaps a better question might be, 'Why do whales have hair?'

      October 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • ME II

      arrggg...
      forgot about "ar.se"

      October 12, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Chris

      That was, for a short time, a belief. It was tested, found incorrect, and moved on from over a century ago.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      maddening isn't it. I think @Chad had a good idea to build a macro inside word to check the offensive fragments.

      October 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  13. niknak

    I hope this story leaves the Belief Blog soon, because this creepy fundie looks creepier and more inbred everytime I look at his ugly face.
    And while I am at it, phuck jeebus, phuch god and phuck religion too.

    October 12, 2012 at 9:15 am |
  14. WASP

    i absolutely love how the religious can accept somethings in science, like getting their yearly flu shot. yet these very same people fail to understand or refuse to understand that each year they have to get a new flu shot because every year the rhinovirus adapts from the year before. as your body fights the rhinovirus at the same time the rhinovirus is adapting to your bodies defences, the reason you show symptoms of "a cold". when you cough or sneeze the person that catches the mutated (evolved) strain from you.

    imagine if you will that science advancement was snuffed out as it began. what would the world be like?
    the human population would be half of what it is now due to illnesses like the rhinovirus,polio, scurvy, running unchecked.
    modern conviences such as the telephone, electric heating/cooling, medical understanding of the microbes making us sick wuoldn't exsist thus the pratice of blood-letting would still be practiced by doctors.
    warning systems that predict tornados,earthquakes,tsunamis etc etc etc wouldn't exsist thus thousands every year would die from natural events and would likely be attributed to witches or god being angry with humans.
    war-fare would remain barbaric with hand to hand fighting along with arrows and the such, seeing firearms wouldn't have been created or atleast not to the degree we have today.
    travel would still be by horse drawn buggy or by ship which is at the mercy of not only nature but also disease.
    advances in technology permitting pre-mature infants to survive until they complete developing wouldn't exsist thus more infant fatalities.

    this world would be a place of dispair and anguish if brave men and women didn't take a stand and throw caution to the wind as they trudged forward for the betterment of all humans, most of which such as madame curie died in their pursuit of knowledge. for people to throw aside or disenvow parts of science that doesn't "fit their idea" of universe, is not only ignorant but dangerous to all human kind.

    October 12, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Franklin

      I think the current spin on viruses is that the "new ones" have always somehow existed hidden in nature since creation, but that we're just now encountering them. Nobody seems to know exactly which humans were keeping these viruses going for thousands of years, but I guess none of them are bothering to ask too many questions.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Tempered

      Wasp

      In which ways has science contributed to HIV? Origin, spread, etc.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • BetterTempered

      Tempered, please explain your question.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • WASP

      @tempered: science hasn't contributed to the spread of HIV. science has lead to better detection methods due to accidental infection during the 80's from contaminated blood donated without the donor being aware of their illness.
      science has fought vigorously to find a "cure", however with all virus' they adapt to almost anything we try to use.however on a better note as far as HIV-AIDS a scienctist found an inconsistency with the 2 black plagues during the middle ages. the first one almost wiped out the european population, but the second outbreak barely touched europe. he did some investigating and found that some humans have a marker caled DELTA-32 which is our genetic resistance to disease. they copied this trait in a chemical form and have run human test trials in england with a few AIDS patients. they found that the "t-virus" would become undectible while the persons "t-cell" count would double every few months. there is still hope for a "cure" to many illness' if stem-cell research wasn't being blocked by extremeists many illness' would already have "cures" or a means of allowing them to live longer better lives.
      i hope i answered your question.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Veritas

      Franklin. The viruses would live in other species, say bats or chimps and only occasionally infect humans. With the gradual encroachment of land for human use, there is more contact – animal bites, humans eating bush meat, etc. Years ago, infections that happened would often be local and probably not even noticed. The ease and speed of international travel makes the infection spread more quickly. AIDS was first detected around the 70s because the pattern of illness and death was unusual for USA, but it has now been traced back several decades where it was undetected.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Franklin

      Tempered
      Wouldn't it be the religious-based misconception that HIV only infected gays that led to the fast spread in the 80's? Straight people were told that it was a plague from God against gays. No wonder they believed that there were immune.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Franklin

      Veritas
      That doesn't explain how different strains of viruses appear fully adapted to resist the vaccines designed to kill the previous year's strains. Are they coordinating their attacks through some kind of intelligence?

      October 12, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • WASP

      @franklin: vaccines are weakened strains of the virus it is meant to "cure" not an antibiotic,i think you mixed up the two.

      it is truly human fault for the accelerated adaptation virus' are having. parents hold most of the blame. everytime their child would get a sniffle they would rush them to the doctor and demand an antibiotic; seeing parents are paying customers, the doctor would oblige them seeing it means they can charge more. the antibiotic would do it's job and kill off everything..................except a couple virus cells.
      those lingering virus cells would mutate inside the body and spread to the next person only to have it repeated over and over again. eventually over the decades of penicilin over-use virus' have become stronger. staph infections that could be wiped out by antibiotics before have become a real concern in hospitals now due to their resistance.

      now if you put the rate of virus adaptation on the macro scale we fall into, their adaptations would take thousands of years, but seeing how quickly things on the microbe level propergate it takes them years, not centuries to build defenses to our defenses.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Franklin

      WASP
      My mistake. :-)

      October 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • WASP

      @franklin: it's cool. we're human and make mistakes, it's how we learn. :)

      October 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • OpposingView

      All diseases and sicknesses and illnesses are caused by sin. There was no such things as the flu or any other disease in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve could have lived there forever without even catching a cold. Diseases and sicknesses did not come into the picture until sin entered the picture...

      October 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • WASP

      @view: i love your "perfect god" didn't just mess up once with his creations, he messed up twice in making imperfect beings.
      the first most people don't even think about............want a hint? what did god make before humans?
      ANGELS.
      what was lucifer? an angel but not just any angel lucifer was god's star angel, his second hand man.
      we all know what happen there, lucifer tried to over throw god.
      then god made humans, three of them to be exact.
      first was adam and lilith, during lilith's creation lucifer took hold of her.......or so the story goes from the torah (aka old testement)
      then after adam trying to track down lilith and conseeding defeat her asked god to make eve, thus god put adam to sleep and took part of his rib to make eve.
      then lilith tricked eve into eating of the forbidden fruit, which mind you god foresaw seeing he knows all, but sat back and let happen.

      god is a failure, if a perfect being can't create a perfect creature then what good is he?

      October 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • I wonder

      OpposingView

      " Diseases and sicknesses did not come into the picture until sin entered the picture..."

      And your verified evidence this is....?

      October 12, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • I wonder

      *evidence for

      October 12, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Wraith

      @OpposingView
      Why? Because your book says so? Try opening another book, any book, and see how much broader your perspective becomes.

      October 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • OpposingView

      Wasp… The second you mentioned the word "lilith" I knew then you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The idea of lilith is of the devil. Lilith never existed. It's a bogus idea dreamed up by Lucifer to deceive unbelievers like you. And obviously you feel for it. Just like you fell for all the other stuff Lucifer has been feeding you. So learn some truth, then get back to me…

      I wonder… If you have to ask, then you'll never know…

      Wraith… Yes, because the bible says so. It's the only book that matters. And it's the same book that you'll be judged by on Judgment Day...

      October 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Get Real

      Opposing View, - " Lilith never existed. It's a bogus idea dreamed up by Lucifer..."

      Hilarious! :)

      October 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      um Lilith does exists, i dated her in highschool, regardless if Lilith does not exist how do you explain all the witches you kille. its a fact Lilith gave birth to Lilim; female Lilim are Succubus male are Incubus; when male Lilim breed with female humans they give birth to witches; and when female Lilim breed with men they make wizards. so by saying Lilith doesnt exist you say witches don't and that's contrary to the bible.

      You shall not allow a witch to live. Exodus 22:18

      meanings Lilith lives, and if you will take her as your mother and personal savior you will be free from God and sin, free ride to heaven she never ate the apple, so be born again in the body of Lilith

      facts

      Jesus saves.
      Lucifer invest.
      Lilith gives free samples.

      Lucifer destroys you.
      Jesus puts you in a bowl and smokes you.
      Lilith makes you beg, no don't stop!

      Lilith is the way the truth and the Se.xy

      October 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      Isaiah 34:14

      Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,
      goat-demons shall call to each other;
      there too Lilith shall repose,
      and find a place to rest.
      There shall the owl nest
      and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow

      see the bible says shes real

      October 12, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • OpposingView

      Sam Yaza… Not in my bible (original KJV)…

      Isaiah 34:14 – The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

      It appears you have been lied to...

      October 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Opposing View

      LOL Oh yes because we all know King James had absolutely NO personal reasons for commisioning the bible to be rewritten.

      October 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @hawaiiguest,

      why, in your interpretation did King James authorize a new translation?

      October 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @hg,

      one of my favorite ironies of American history starts with the fact that it is often said that the Scrooby separatists that escaped to Leiden and ultimately took ship on the Mayflower from Plymouth were escaping persecution by the King of England.

      The irony is which King of England?

      October 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @GOPer

      From what I've read, it seems that the two other English translations at the time were very conflicting. One was extremely anti Church of England, and was inciting violence among different sects. While he didn't personally revise it, he commisioned the 47 people and gave them certain guidelines, one of which giving legitimacy to ordained clergy. All of the 47 people and James himself were part of the Church of England.
      Personally, I think he just wanted to legitimize his own preferred brand of Christianity, and impose that on all of his subjects, could be to unify, or it could be to consolidate power under a single church for better control. The government stopping all production of the other two versions, and not to mention they used mainly contemporary translations of German, Italian, French, and Spanish, to write the new one even though they had access to ancient manuscript sources is suspect.

      October 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Of course all I can offer is some speculation, but it seems that the actions during and after the translation was commissioned seems to point toward at least some personal stake in the revision on King James' part.

      October 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Of course it was King James I (the same one as authorized the bible) who was king when the Prilgrims came to North America.

      So the irony is that the bible so beloved of American fundamentalists through the years was authorized by the same King they also claim persecuted America's first fundamentalists.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @GOPer

      I haven't put that together until now lol, that is incredibly ironic.
      I would like to hear what you think of my speculations and conclusions above.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • OpposingView

      To "I'm not a" and "hawaiiguest"… If it makes all you uninformed turkeys feel better, there is no "Lilith" in the original Hebrew & Greek scriptures either. So no matter what you feel about King James, your argument is still defeated…

      October 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @O.V.

      who's Lilith? The only Lilith I've heard of presumably had something to do with an estrogen-based music event.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @OpposingView

      I wasn't addressing anything about Lilith, because I find that to be completely irrelevant. So your self-righteous idiocy doesn't apply to me.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @GOPer

      Lilith, according to legend, was Adam's first wife made from the same dust adam was. Adam complained to god because she wanted to be equal in the sexual area, so god kicked her out and made Eve out of Adam's rib so that she would always be subservient. Lilith goes around and essentially because a succubus who steals babies. That's where the word lullaby comes from. People used to sing songs to their babies to ward her off.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • OpposingView

      Hawaiiguest… And that's back at you. Since I wasn't addressing anything regarding King James (because I find that to be completely irrelevant). So your self-righteous idiocy doesn't apply to me…

      The topic was "Lilith" (a topic introduced by Sam Yaza). So maybe you should try reading before replying…

      October 12, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @OpposingView

      "Since I wasn't addressing anything regarding King James "
      Really?

      "OpposingView

      Sam Yaza… Not in my bible (original KJV)…

      Isaiah 34:14 – The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

      It appears you have been lied to...

      October 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Report abuse | "

      October 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      James I"s reign is pretty turbulent. He inherited the English crown from his aunt, Queen Elizabeth I, through his mother Mary Queen of Scots.

      Mary was Henry VIII's oldest daughter. She was Catholic and young "Charles James" was baptized Catholic. Mary was forced to abdicate by protestants and he became King James IV of Scotland at the tender age of thirteen months, and was brought up in the Protestant Church of Scotland during which time Scotland was ruled by a series of regents – the first being his mother's illegitmate brother.

      When he finally became King James I of England in 1603 the lid that Queen Elizabeth I had clamped down on religious unrest came off. There was a lot of backlash to what Henry VIII had done to the Catholic Church in England by taking it over as the Church of England.

      Catholics tried to assassinate James I (and famously attemped to blow up parliament in the gunpower plot of 1605). The Puritans were lobbying to have all the vestiges of Catholicism removed from the Church of England. This largely failed at the Hampton Court conference of 1604 – the primary outcome of which was the decision to produce a new translation of the bible.

      The church was power and the new bible would standardize the canon in English. Anyone who didn't show up at the Church of England on Sunday – including Catholics (who were persecuted the most) and the Separatists were all in violation of Queen Elizabeth I's Act of Uniformity (1558) which mandated Church of England attendance.

      William Bradford (of Pilgrim fame) later wrote:
      "But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted & persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as flea-bitings in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken & clapt up in prison, others had their houses besett & watcht night and day, & hardly escaped their hands; and ye most were faine to flie & leave their howses & habitations, and the means of their livelehood.

      Though it is not clear how true this really was. Wikipedia has this reference:
      "Although not actively persecuted, the group was subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors."

      The Scrooby separatists (later the Pilgrims) left England for Holland in 1607.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @hg,

      thanks for the Lilith reference. I had no idea. From what mythic source did she spring? (Clearly not Genesis 2.)

      Sorry about the long post above. There was a lot going on. One of the most important things to realize about American fundamentalism is that it started as an English export at the height of the zealotry of wars of the reformation in the 17th century. James I's son Charles I would be executed by Puritans in the English Civil war.

      England eventually got over the illness of fundamentalism but the viral strain they exported to the virgin colonies thrived.

      I suspect that Bradford exaggerated the persecutions in England. (James was more concerned about Catholics.) And these persecution stories have grown in the telling over the years into the "escaping from the wicked King to freely practice religion" narrative that people believe today.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @GOPer

      I'm not entirely sure. You could check wikipedia, I know they have a pretty large article on it.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @hg,

      " From what mythic source did she spring?"

      Not to worry. Sam Y posted a video above. It's kind of done in the "History Channel" style production but it's informative all the same.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      OpposingView, please provide factual, independent, verifiable and objective evidence for your god and the veracity of The Babble's truth and the myths (such a for some dude named jesus) contained therein. I don't believe you have any. In fact, I believe you are an outright liar or are mentally ill. Go for it – prove me wrong!

      October 12, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      This is interesting stuff, guys – I've been reading along. Thanks for the history.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Rufus

      I've always enjoyed studying mythology and legends.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Oops – James I of England was also James VI of Scotland – not James IV.

      The man who authorized the bible so beloved by American fundamentalists and simultaneously persecuted the first American fundamentalists*.

      * so their story goes.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Tempered

      @Wasp

      Are you stating the origin was accidental?

      @Frank

      Wrong direction. Asking for the origin, spread, etc was not an inference to any subset of any population.

      October 13, 2012 at 12:05 am |
  15. GO_GOP

    It is a sad thing that so many people are bashing this good man. We became a great nation because of our belief in God and by being a Christian nation. We are going down the gutter with this politically correctness and risk the wrath of our Lord for this. Give me back my Christian nation. How many agree with me?

    October 12, 2012 at 8:52 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      "Give me back my Christian nation"

      You are welcome to have it, wherever it was. Perhaps it was Andorra, Argentina Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland?

      October 12, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • WS

      Why did you pick those countries?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • sam stone

      which christian nation that gogop? the one where you could own other human beings? where citizens do not have equal rights?

      where is this christian utopia to which you point?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      They are countries that specify Christianity in their constitutions (or the equivalent).

      October 12, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • WASP

      @gop: "Give me back my Christian nation."
      america was never a christian nation; it is a nation made up of christians and other faiths.
      let's look at what YOUR christian nation would look like shall we?

      1) slavery would still be the accepted norm due to the bible stateing slavery is acceptible.
      2) technology wouldn't exsist that defends this great nation from invasion
      3) women would still be stuck in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, due to the bible sateing men are the head of the household and women should listen to their husbands
      4) the "rule of thumb" menaing you can't beat your wife with anything larger than your thumb is long would still be in practice leading to thousands of dead wives.
      5) insti-tutes of higher learning would be exclusive to the rich and powerful, but you can work their farms for them.
      6) american population wouldn't be near what it is or as diverse due to the exclusion of immigrants of other faiths and the high death toll from the lack of modern science that puts god into question......church can't have god being questioned.

      america would have been lucky to still exsist if it wasn't for it being a secular nation. secular doesn't mean atheist, it means we have NO official religion, thus all religions are accepted and welcomed as long they don't cause harm to anyone.
      just get over it, we won you lost. religion took a backseat in the creation of the most powerful country in this age, and that is what made america great.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      @Rufus,

      It's an interesting comparison with the countries like you mentioned that have Christianity in their constïtutions with the per capita GDP, happiness index of the countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc.; i.e. the countries with the low end of religiosity.

      The lower the religiosity the higher the happiness and more equitable treatment of the population.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      I've noted that before too, Elmer. It also correlates pretty neatly with low crime rates. Go figure...

      October 12, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Which God?

      Go_goop. I call BS. We are not a christian nation. Never have been and never will be. Stop trying to push your fairy tale sky-fairy onto the masses. Your god is a phony, and does nothing to help the world and it's problems. It actually is a cause of them.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Would he be a good man if he believed that the earth was flat based on religious belief? No he would be a willfully ignorant baffoon.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • The Justice

      GO-GOP
      History would say that at one time America, although not a nation as such, was a variety of aboriginal religious groups long before the christians came along. Those religions are still practiced today, the christians only managed to slaughter 55% or so of the Indian peoples. The founnding fathers did not want any one religion to dominate the country, freeom for all, not just the christian faiths.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Bullsh1t. There are no American patriots greater than the Founding Fathers. The Treaty with Tripoli, (1797), stands as a testament to those founders. George Washington's administration wrote it and supported it, and by the time it was passed, John Adams was the President. It was read aloud in its entirety and passed by both houses of congress on June 7, 1797. The vote in both houses was unanimous. President Adams signed it into law. Here is the complete text of Article 11, with its original spellings. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

      In other words, according to a unanimous agreement of America's Founding Fathers, the USA is NOT, was NOT, nor ever intended to be, a Christian nation.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      Nicely stated WASP!

      October 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
  16. Rufus T. Firefly

    Okay, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment (please hold your jokes):

    Let's say that genetics, the fossil record, taxonomy, adaptation, etc is all insufficient evidence for evolution. Further, I will admit without hesitation that if God exists and He is what creationists envision Him to be, then it is much more likely that life and the universe is a result of his creative powers than any natural processes.

    So, with the mountains of evidence for evolution as a benchmark for "not enough evidence," all there is to do is demonstrate the existence of God with more factual, replicable, objective evidence than exists for evolution.

    Have at it...

    October 12, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      Only problem is that you are asking the credulous and willingly ignorant to provide logical, well reasoned arguments with verifiable facts.

      That causes too much cognitive dissonance in their brains.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      May I play? The Universe itself, in all its unfathomable complexity, must have had a Designer since everything we know that seems complex was designed – like this watch I found. That is overwhelming evidence of God. No one could ever believe that my watch assembled itself. Right?

      October 12, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Perhaps we need to be compelled to believe in God.

      Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause for that beginning.
      The Universe had a beginning of its existence.
      The Universe had a cause.
      .
      .
      .
      That cause is God.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Tom Tom, thanks for getting that one out of the way. As you know, that is not an argument from evidence, it is an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this watch was made, therefore....there is an omnipotent eternal supernatural being that lives outside the universe and conducts himself as described in the Bible..."

      October 12, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      Thanks Rufus for your accurate assessment.

      Thanks Tom Tom.... For providing some insight into the thought process of the willingly blind.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • JWT

      Compelled to believe in god ? How would you accomplish that ?

      October 12, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • shmeg

      I like how TomTom visualized himself jumping to his nonsensical conclusion with this:

      The Universe had a cause.
      .
      .
      .
      That cause is God.

      It’d be nice if he would fill in the blanks.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • TR6

      @JWT: “Compelled to believe in god ? How would you accomplish that ?”

      Easy.,. burn all the heretics at the stake. Christians have a long and proud history of doing just that

      October 12, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Huh. With all the fundies crawling out the woodwork to challenge evolution on this blog, I would think they would jump at the chance to overwhelm us with evidence.

      October 12, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Jeff

      There is no proof of evolution at all, none what's so ever. If we evolved from nothing why aren't we still evolving?
      Creation has so much more proof behind it, because everything that man has made has a creator behind it right. So do we

      October 13, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • midwest rail

      @ Jeff – false.

      October 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • BULL SH IT ALERT!

      (Jeff)

      October 13, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Jeff,

      "... why aren't we still evolving?"

      Who says we're not? For most species, it does take thousands to millions of years to notice. Humans are all presently the same species, but there's an awful lot of diversity in human appearance across the continents, wouldn't you say?

      October 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I recall some interesting vascular and hematological changes that are emerging in people who live at high altitude. Rather recent changes: 10 – 20 thousand years or so. Yes we are still evolving.

      October 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      sorry, make that "rapid" rather than "recent"

      October 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
  17. ElmerGantry

    This post is so good it deserves to be posted at the top again.

    mega thanks to Colin for this!

    Colin
    10 Commandments that every child should be taught.

    1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a parent, priest, rabbi or minister tells you that you must. Think for yourself.

    2. DO NOT think that claims about magic, miracles and the supernatural are more likely true because they are written in old books. That makes them less likely true.

    3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues.

    4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is. Only those selling junk cars want to prohibit you from looking under the hood.

    5. DO decouple morality from a belief in the supernatural, in any of its formulations (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.). One can be moral without believing in gods, ghosts and ghouls and believing in any of them does not make one moral.

    6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should you believe them in what they say? How many translations has it gone through? Do we have originals, or only edited copies of copies of copies– the latter is certainly true for every single book in the Bible.

    7. DO realize that you are only a Christian (or Hindu or Jew) because of where you were born. Were you lucky enough to be born in the one part of the World that “got it right”?

    8. DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation “your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,” “God is outside the Universe” or “God moves in mysterious ways” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief. A retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool.

    9. DO understand where your religion came from and how it evolved from earlier beliefs to the point you were taught it. Are you lucky enough to be living at that one point in history where we “got it right”?

    10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, mind-reading god is behind the whole thing.

    I sometimes think that, if we first taught our children these simple guidelines, any supernatural belief would be quickly dismissed by them as quaint nostalgia from a bygone era. We sure as hell would not have Congressmen thinking the Univrse is 9,000 years old!!

    October 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse | Reply

    October 12, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Yeah, that's good stuff.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • cedar rapids

      nice, i feel i should hang a copy of this on my son's bedroom wall.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  18. GOOD NEWS

    Jesus absolutely endorsed the Son of Man here (=John 6/27, 40),

    and the Son of Man has thus absolutely proven now

    that Big bang and Evolution are the most Powerful and Superb "Creation Acts" of GOD

    through the "Language of Mathematics" here:

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com

    *****UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES*****

    October 12, 2012 at 4:48 am |
    • sam stone

      Delusional moron

      October 12, 2012 at 6:10 am |
    • Cq

      Jesus probably existed, but there's nothing reliable to suggest that he was anything more than just a man.

      October 12, 2012 at 8:19 am |
  19. End Religion

    Broun and Akin, helping turn fiction into a documentary...
    "Brawndo's got electrolytes!"

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI&w=640&h=390]

    October 12, 2012 at 2:51 am |
    • a reasonable atheist

      It's got what plants crave!

      October 12, 2012 at 9:49 am |
  20. mama k

    I don't know, RL. It is way out of my level of education. But is multiverse supposed to be co-existing universes?

    October 12, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • mama k

      sorry this was a reply – I will copy it.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • End Religion

      yes but multiverse hypothesis is a line where some scientists begin to dissent because they feel it crosses a line into an area that cannot be even mathematically proven. It's an interesting idea but I don't know if it could ever be tested.

      mama, if you didn't see my previous post to you about this, here is a video that mentions multiverses and I think also Spinoza

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfvq1J7eVpU&w=640&h=390]

      October 12, 2012 at 2:28 am |
    • mama k

      Oh, thank you, End – I forgot to look back up here. I will check that out.

      October 12, 2012 at 2:49 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.