Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?
September 1st, 2013
03:26 AM ET

Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?

Opinion by Jeffrey Weiss, Special to CNN

(CNN) - Pope Francis surprised Israeli and Palestinian leaders last month when he invited them to a special prayer ceremony at the Vatican this Sunday - not least because religion has often been the source, not the salve, of the region's conflicts.

Still, Pope Francis offered his "home" - the Vatican - as the perfect place to plea for some divine assistance, and Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dutifully agreed to attend.

"The Pope has placed it in this perspective: Prayer is like a force for peace,” Vatican Secretary of State Archbishop Pietro Parolin told Vatican Radio.

"We hope that there, where human efforts have so far failed, the Lord offers to all the wisdom and fortitude to carry out a real peace plan."

But Sunday's special ceremony at the Vatican raises an interesting question: When Francis, Peres and Abbas bow their heads in prayer, will they be talking to the same God?

After all, Jews, Christians and Muslims all trace their faiths back to a fellow named Abraham, whom they all claim was chosen for special treatment by the Almighty.

Not academic

The “same God” question is one theologians have hammered at for as long as there have been enough religions for the query to make sense.

The question is hardly academic, though. In fact, a number of politicians, religious leaders and scholars have expressed hope in recent years that a convincing answer on the God question might dampen the violence committed in His name.

Yale Divinity School theologian Miroslav Volf recently edited a book titled “Do We Worship the Same God? Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue.”

In the introduction, Volf explained why the title question matters:

"To ask: ‘Do we have a common God?’ is, among other things, to worry: ‘Can we live together?’ That’s why whether or not a given community worships the same god as does another community has always been a crucial cultural and political question and not just a theological one."

On the other hand, there’s CNN Belief Blog contributor and Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero.

His book on this subject is titled “God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World.”

Prothero writes:

“For more than a generation we have followed scholars and sages down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world where all gods are one … In fact this naive theological groupthink – call it Godthink – has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clash of religions that threaten us worldwide.”

In the world of politics, President George W. Bush asserted the unity side of the argument more than once in the years after the 9/11 attacks - often as a way to deflect accusations that America was at war with Islam.

Bush told Al Arabiya television, “I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality.”

Pope Francis invites Israeli, Palestinian leaders to Vatican peace talks

Pope John Paul II drew from the same rhetorical well several times.

“We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection,” he first said in a speech to Muslims in Morocco in 1985.

Looking for a more recent example? Consider the plight of Vatican envoy to Malaysia.

Shortly after he arrived there last year, Archbishop Joseph Marino said that is was fine by him that Christian translations of the Bible into Malay use the word “Allah” for “God.”

“Allah” is, of course, the Arabic word for God and is found in the Quran. The Christian translators explained that since most Malaysians are Muslim, it’s the word they’re most comfortable with and therefore the best choice for the translation.

But many Muslim authorities in Malaysia were furious. They say Christians are slipping in the familiar word as a way to convert Muslims. And conversion of Muslims is all but illegal in Malaysia.

There’s a lawsuit ongoing about the translations. Marino had to apologize for pushing into Malaysian politics.

Points of disagreement

So what do the “Abrahamic” religions disagree about?

Among other things: the purpose of humanity, the relationship of God and humanity, sin, forgiveness, salvation, the afterlife, Jesus, Muhammad, the calendar, and the religious importance of Abraham himself.

Plus the nature of God.

Any summary will leave out enormous nuance. Internal divisions within religions have fueled some of the worst examples of human violence. Consider the long and frequently bloody history of troubles between Catholics and Protestants or the growing death toll of Muslim-on-Muslim attacks.

But there are common elements about God widely accepted in each tradition.


Start with Judaism, since it came first and established roots that carried into the other two.

Jewish tradition teaches that there is one and only one God, creator of everything, and He established physical and moral laws. As Judaism’s preeminent prayer says: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

This God walks and talks directly with His creations – for a while.

Eventually, He chooses one particular nomad (Abraham) to father a mighty nation that God sets up as an example to other nations.

This God likes the smell of burning meat and demands other extremely specific physical offerings as evidence of obedience and repentance. And He gives His chosen people a particular set of laws – but doesn’t mind discussion and even argument about those laws.

A famous rabbinic saying implies that every word in Judaism’s sacred texts can be understood in 70 correct (but related) ways. And human reasoning can even trump divine intention. (No kidding. It’s in the Talmud)

This God judges His people every year. Tradition says he’s willing to accept imperfection, as long as it comes with repentance.

He’s big on obedience, not so much on faith. He’s not nearly as attentive to the behaviors of non-Jews. (There’s a famous Jewish joke with the punch line “Would you mind choosing somebody else once in a while?”)

Tradition holds that there’s a World To Come after death where moral accounts will somehow be settled. But this God is vague on details.


The most obvious differences in the Christian God are the traditional teachings about the Trinity and Jesus. God is three separate persons who are also one. How? Christianity says the Trinity is a “mystery” of faith.

According to Christian tradition, God begets a son who is somehow also Him but not Him to atone for Original Sin. He sacrifices that son though a brutal death and thus achieves humanity's salvation.

But the son, who also is God, rises from the dead. And that sacrifice redeems eternally all who accept and believe in it. Faith, not behavior, is the essential measure of salvation.

This God is willing to vastly expand what it means to be among His “chosen people.” He’s also willing to cancel many of the laws that had applied to that chosen group for this expanded membership.

Orthodox Jews say that God prohibits them from eating a cheeseburger; Christians say God has no problem with them wolfing down Big Macs.

Unlike the Jewish God, whose instructions are almost all about this world, the Christian God is focused more on eternal salvation: heaven and hell.

Finally, for this God, much of the Jewish scriptures (which are all God’s word) are actually about foreshadowing Jesus. Including Abraham.


The Muslim God is a bit more like the Jewish God.

There is no Trinity in Muslim tradition. Jesus was a prophet, but no more divine than other prophets.

God has never has had anything like physical attributes and has no gender. (Some Muslim commentators say that the noun “Allah” is masculine, but only in the way that all nouns in some languages include gender.)

Muslim tradition holds that God wants one thing from humans: Submission. The word “Islam” is defined as “submission to the will of God.”

For Muslims, all true prophets in Jewish and Christian traditions were actually Muslim because they knew to submit correctly to God. Differences between Muslim, Jewish and Christian interpretations of God are due to errors that crept into the other two faiths, Islam teaches.

The Muslim God, like the other two, initially demanded that Abraham sacrifice a son. But the Muslim God wanted Abraham’s son Ishmael, not Isaac, who Jewish tradition holds was offered as a the sacrifice.

The Muslim God also designated, from before the world began, a perfect man to be his final prophet: Muhammad. God’s perfect truths are found only in the Quran and in the sayings of Muhammad, the hadiths.

And the Muslim God, like the Christian God but unlike the Jewish God, will welcome believers to paradise and condemn many non-Muslims - exactly which ones is a matter of much discussion - to eternal torment.

Final answer

So do Christians Muslims, and Jews, really all worship the same God?

In two major volumes on the subject recently published by scholars from various faiths and traditions, including Volf’s, the most inclusive response from these scholars is basically: Yes, and it’s our God.

This is not a new way of answering the question.

In 1076, Pope Gregory VII wrote this to a Muslim leader: “We believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way…”

But like many other religious leaders on all sides of the argument, Gregory insisted that his version of the Almighty is the one whom the others are unknowingly and incompletely worshiping.

A less exclusivist set of religions might shrug off the differences. But all three claim to have the only “True Faith.”

So do all three faiths actually worship the same deity, whether they call him God or Allah or Adonai?

God only knows.

Jeffrey Weiss is an award-winning religion reporter in Dallas.The views expressed in this column belong to Weiss. A version of this story first ran in September 2013. 

CNN's Daniel Burke contributed to this article. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • History • Islam • Judaism • Muslim • Religious violence • Torah • Vatican

soundoff (7,438 Responses)
  1. dennisrichardson30


    August 29, 2014 at 1:42 am |
  2. bostontola

    It's interesting (and somewhat ironic) that you make a comment about denial (below), and all responses are denials. No counterargument, no objective evidence to refute, just denials (and an occasional insult).

    It's sad that you can't even have a conversation with some people. Some can't distinguish a position from a process. The scientific method, a debate, or skepticism is a process, vs. taking a position and denying the entire topic of discussion. Taking positions and avoiding a true discussion is a big obstacle to learning. The problem must be that the side opposing evolution has no objective evidence refuting it or supporting it's position. That does make a fruitful discussion hard to accomplish.

    June 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
  3. zhilla1980wasp

    anyone else notice they removed this articule from the list of articules to read?

    it goes from some singing nun to a totally different articule. i guess 78 pages worth of dogma, anti-evolution dislusions was enough. lol

    June 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
    • believerfred

      natural selection

      June 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • Akira


        I don't know why it was put back into the rotation when the recent comments link didn't work, anyway. Makes for difficult blogging.

        June 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • otoh2

          Yeah, it's more of a 'slog' at this point.

          If you post on page 1 the new post links work, however, maybe move the discussion there...?

          June 10, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        I infer evidence of a deliberate choice, though not necessarily intelligence.

        June 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • Akira

      Are you the same WASP that used to blog here a few years back? I've been meaning to ask you that.

      June 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        yeah that's me. when they started the whole sign up thing, i quit blogging for a while.

        once i got bored enough and wanted a few laughs, i set up so i could get in the fray again.

        did you miss me? lol

        June 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • Akira

          I always miss the people who make this blog fun. You were one of the first people I talked to when I first came on.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          @akira: yeah i guess my straight brained answers to individuals questions would seem fun.

          yeah i remember you, i missed a lot of the folks on here; that was another reason for getting back on.
          i hope you and yours have been doing good.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Akira

          Yeah, we're a spirited bunch.
          Me and mine are doing well; I hope the same is true for you and yours.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
  4. bostontola

    I see we have folks ridiculing evolution again.

    It may be that some people confuse skepticism and denial. I understand being skeptical of an assertion when there is little to no solid objective evidence for the assertion or when there is conflicting objective evidence. That kind of critical thinking has yielded the most rapid advance in human understanding of the world in history. Denial on the other hand, is being skeptical of an assertion that has a lot of objective evidence, little to no conflicting objective evidence, and has been independently verified and often is consistent across multiple disciplines, but hasn't been 'proved'.

    It is apparently easy to confuse these different states of knowledge. There have been Holocaust deniers, smoking to lung cancer deniers, HIV to AIDS deniers, etc., and of course evolution deniers. Evolution is like gravity in an important way, people conflate the theory and the phenomenon. No theory of gravity is proven or completely right, but no one denies the phenomenon of gravity. Evolution should enjoy the same status and would if it didn't conflict with the literal words in a text sacred to many. Scientists remain skeptical of the parts of a theory, or the results of experiments that are not well founded yet. Scientists can be very pointed in their criticism of other scientists' methods and results. But they don't confuse part of the theory being weak with either the whole theory being false or the phenomenon being false.

    Human understanding, analysis, reason, etc. are all interwoven with emotion. That is a scientific fact. When I proved a theorem, I felt a rush of emotion, I deeply felt it was right. The fact that reason and emotion are inextricably linked is part of being human. The emotional part can often overpower the rational part. That is why I don't fully trust my own reason, and neither do scientists. They developed the scientific method to deal with these issues. Evolution deniers have strong emotional reasons to deny it. It conflicts with their understanding of the foundation of their existence. That is pretty difficult to overcome.

    June 10, 2014 at 11:45 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I happened to catch 5-10 minutes of a religious show last night where the discussion was how 'evolution is a made up concept' that Satan is pushing in order to deceive Christians and people in general.

      That level of stupidity is pretty hard to overcome. As to your point it is completely an emotional argument that reason and evidence can't even address.

      June 10, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • igaftr

        Yes, I have heard the same argument, but when I trun the same argument on them, they think the idea is absurd.
        I ask them, how do you know the bible was not inspired by Satan, and the whole of the bible is not an elaborate trick...basically the same thing only a different subject.

        They can blame Satan for destroying their myths, but can't acknowledge that the very same guy may be tricking all of them with his book , the Bible.

        June 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • believerfred

          Can you honestly say you cannot sense the difference between Satan and God even if both are delusions as far as you are concerned? Can you say darkness or an eternal void is preferable to creation? Jesus is the deception and Hitler is love? Hate trumps acceptance.........ect.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I like that position too. And I like to claim that God is actually a god of reason...he is actually going to punish those who eschewed reason for faith. The Holy Books and religions were created by god...but they were created to test us to determine who lacked reason and common sense.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • igaftr

          Preference is irrelevant.
          As far as "sensing" good or bad, completely subjective. Are you trying to say you can always tell when someone is tricking you, You watch a master magician, and you can just tell that he is tricking you?

          SO fred, how do you know that Satan isn't the reason the bible exists as his greatest trick? Maybe Satan is tricking your "feeling" as well.

          It is simply a matter of wanting. You want your god to be all you imagine, so you convince yourself in your mind that "he" is all you imagine, and you imagine that your god inspired your bible, you imagine god would not allow satan to corrupt the beleif, but you have NOTHING other than imagination, nothing at all.

          Satan, as the master deciever, would be able to completely fool you, and all believers. SO how do you know he hasn't. It seems just as likely your Satan created your book, especially considering the violent destructive history that belief has generated, all of the confusion in translation...all traits one would expect from Satan.

          Be honest fred, how could you possibly know ( and don't give me that "feeling" crap)

          June 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • believerfred

          "As far as "sensing" good or bad, completely subjective."
          =>plain and pleasure are subjective as well in that regard, however the 1% who think pain is pleasure stick out and are not considered normal. Atheism is not a normal reaction and completely subjective.

          "you can just tell that he is tricking you?"
          =>no, it is called deception for a reason which does not change the reality that right and wrong exist.

          "SO fred, how do you know that Satan isn't the reason the bible exists as his greatest trick? Maybe Satan is tricking your "feeling" as well."
          =>So, love your neighbor as yourself is a trick and doing bad/ hurting yourself and others is the better way? Getting all you can from life and others then leaving a mess behind is right....

          " you have NOTHING other than imagination, nothing at all."
          =>no, the impact of belief in God has changed our very reality to be what it is. Sorry your denial prevents you from seeing that. The other nations did not know the God of Israel but they feared Israel because God was with them. You can call it imagination but it certainly is anything but nothing at all

          "It seems just as likely your Satan created your book, especially considering the violent destructive history"
          =>it is the way of man as atheists as well as believers have a destructive history.

          "Be honest fred, how could you possibly know ( and don't give me that "feeling" crap)"
          =>life struggles to exist until it reaches a point where the life is not worth the struggle. That vitality is constantly seeking and hoping towards purpose although not identifiable. At some point supernatural was recognized as that non identifiable purpose long before the Bible became oral tradition then written. Neanderthal buried important objects with dead infants long before the Bible. God was self evident while Satan in the shadows pulls down.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • igaftr

          All those things that you claim show Sstan has nothing to do with it...all put there by satan to further trick you, to lull you into false security.

          Now do you get the point that you simply do not know, and could very well be Satans plaything by following the work of Satan which is the Bible...you simply don't know.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • believerfred

          Exactly why would Satan want me to see all the alternatives? That would be like a magician showing me the trick then trying to fool me again.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          =>So, love your neighbor as yourself is a trick and doing bad/ hurting yourself and others is the better way? Getting all you can from life and others then leaving a mess behind is right....


          The best lies contain portions that are true. Maybe the "love your neighbor" part is true but requiring people to believe dogmatic claims (like the resurrection) in order to be "saved" is false. After all, the dogma is what divides people...isn't that what Satan would want?

          June 10, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers
          I have to agree with you as history and Jesus pointed out man (Priests in particular) twists the Word of God to the point it no longer is truth but dogma reflecting evil in man.

          June 10, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        you nor anyone else has provided incontrovertible that evolution is a fact. you believe it because you want to believe it. it's a fairy tale you choose to believe. you probably played with plastic dinosaurs and/or used crayons in a dinosaur coloring book before the 'science guy' told you his story. you're brainwashed with a delusion.

        June 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh here you go again!!! You're a complete buffoon! I'm surprised you manage to tie your own shoes without adult assistance. It is pure intellectual dishonesty to have evidence shown to you and yet still deny it!!
          See they can teach evolution in schools, not due it being a conspiracy against the poor persecuted christards like you but due to it being based on solid acceptable evidence...regardless of how stupid you may wish to continue to be on the subject, you don't change the facts. Here is a link that shows why we are right about evolution and your incest story of the bible isn't.
          Are you by chance a lover of incest?? That is basically what the bible claims...you're an idiot if you can't put two and two together and see that.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          "you nor anyone else has provided incontrovertible that evolution is a fact."

          You may be right, that no one has provided incontrovertable.

          I don't see how anyone could.

          On the other hand MANY scientists have proven evolution, beyond any reasonable doubt. It is proven daily.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          That link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/

          Thankfully this is taught...our world needs less people like you. However you are part of the reason the country falls behind on so much education wise...willful ignorance

          June 10, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "due to it being based on solid acceptable evidence.." acceptable to whom? and what evidence? acceptable obviously to delusional atheists who need desparately to believe in something even tho there is absolutely no proof. the evolution delusion has provided not a shred of evidence in spite of all the blather and saying the same thing over and over again; but hey, if atheists want to bow down at the alter of evolution and call it 'fact' then please go on believing your fairy tale. evolution is a fraud and fairy tale that godless people worship without any evidence and that is a fact.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: if you are so positive that you know we are delusional, then why waste your time on here?

          i mean seriously your god has a whole book full of rules about how you should be out spreading the word to the world; why aren't you doing that instead of watsing your time trying to save deluded people like us.
          do you believe you can make/ get us to change? then that would make you deluded simply thinking that you a faceless person on the other side of the monitor can truly accomplish what all others that bother us on a daily basis face to face failed to achieve?

          not to mention we simply don't believe in gods, as far a science i enjoy what science has accomplished.
          even evolutionary science; which mind you we use on a daily basis to track the next flu out break and how it will mutate; yet please keep attempting to convince us atheists that the PHD's all these researchers and scienctists have are fake and how we are involved in a global conspiracy lead by your lucifer.

          yeah you sound perfectly sane. lol

          June 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Evolution is the best evidence based conclusion. Scientists from all walks of life, around the world accept evolution because of the evidence and where it leads. To argue against it means you are saying 99.9% of all the scientists, regardless of country, culture or religion are in a grand conspiracy just to fool people like you. If that is what you are saying...you are a kook...a complete loon on the same level as a "flat earther" or a "holocost denier".

          And since you are so sure it is a lie. It shuld be easy to prove your case with evidence. You could be world famous and win Nobel prizes and money which you then could use to help rid the world of other lies.

          But you would still have a problem, because proving evolution wrong does not mean creationism is right by default...you would still need to prove that.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Akira

          awanderingscot, do you think there are no Christians who accept evolution as fact?

          June 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          TOT: Tell us again how many people have been awarded the Nobel Peace Award for their findings on Creationism?? Tell us again why it is evolution is taught in schools but yet creationism can't be?
          Evolution is accepted via many scientists-people who have devoted years to researching the subject and who have followed the scientific method to determine the facts.
          Tell us, did you graduate high school? Does your Mommy tie your shoes for you each day? Have you ever left the trailer park and gone to school outside of it?

          June 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          evolution is a myth. they like to banty this lie that supposedly 99.9% of scientists confirm evolution. this is yet another lie told by godless men and part of the evolution fairy tale.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          do you believe in evolution?

          June 10, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • believerfred

          Assume for a moment that God used the process of evolution to create the fallen world we live in. How does that change anything you believe as far as the kingdom of God is concerned?

          June 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          well Fred, i believe the word of God over man and He tells me He created "each according to it's kind". this does not imply that he created a single-celled organism and let some process take over. i don't believe He leaves it open to interpretation with this statement.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          but to answer your question, we live under a curse, all the natural order we're told, and it would be more logical to assume we are devolving and not evolving. man likes to think he is growing wiser and indeed many will pridefully believe we are 'more like God'. that's not what God says, and although He created us 'in His image', we are not God, never will be. we were created to worship Him. many have not believed the truth and more and more people will turn away from Him believing themselves self-sufficient. when as a people the iniquity has reached the fullness of time, destruction will come and He is righteous and just in doing so because they refused the olive branch he has held out. free will given also has the potential to bring salvation and those who believe His truth will not fall for the delusion and will be saved. those who do believe the lie are damning themselves.

          And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie – 2 Thessalonians 2:11

          June 10, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "they like to banty this lie that supposedly 99.9% of scientists confirm evolution."


          (sticks fingers in ears) "Lalalalalalalalal"

          You just confirmed you are a loon and should not be responed to ever again.

          June 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • believerfred

          I would agree with you that there is no evidence that a frog can turn into dog and all honest biologists would agree. There is a good reason for this, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Bible is silent on evolution and the process God used in creation. God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. This statement does not need our support and it does not contradict current evolution theory and no components of that theory contradict this creation event.
          When it comes to the science of various lines of evidence for common descent it is solid. Scientific consensus does change over time with new evidence, yet the truth of God is absolute. Just as scientific consensus changes so does consensus over what the Bible says. There continues a strong movement towards theistic evolution yet I prefer to stick with what the Bible says not what man agrees upon.
          Moses 3,400 years ago recorded the order of creation by kinds with accuracy not touched by any other Holy Book. That is just one reason the Bible is the greatest story ever told.

          June 10, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
    • believerfred

      "Evolution should enjoy the same status and would if it didn't conflict with the literal words in a text sacred to many"
      =>It does not conflict with the Bible which is one of the reasons it stands out among holy books.
      =>The problem is not the scientific method used the problem is scientism that extrapolates the major components of evolution theory into a world view. That world view being natural laws are all that exist and existence is the result of natural laws.

      June 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        =>It does not conflict with the Bible which is one of the reasons it stands out among holy books.

        Lots of Christians do think it conflicts with the Bible. Maybe you should let them know you have the correct interpretation.

        =>The problem is not the scientific method used the problem is scientism that extrapolates the major components of evolution theory into a world view. That world view being natural laws are all that exist and existence is the result of natural laws.

        That is not true. Natural laws are all that can be demonstrated to exist. If you can demonstrate something unnatural or supernatural exists go right ahead...until then what you have is supersti.tion.

        June 10, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • believerfred

          "let them know you have the correct interpretation."
          =>exactly how could absolute truth be impacted by my interpretation? God allowed Eve to see what she wanted to see in that desirable fruit and based on evidence God allows us to see what we desire. The fact you reject God does not change the fact you also see what you desire. This is an absolute truth concerning mankind and it comes with a strong warning from God. If you eat from it (let it get inside your essence) or even touch it you will die. So death it is both physical (at some point) and relational (you and God).

          As to natural laws help me understand how that is not circular reasoning. The existence of time and space without boundary is not of any natural law which demands something other than the natural.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          space- the absence of stuff.......well minus ions and other forms of energy.
          time- which form of evaluating time are you refering to?

          please enjoy this free science experiment of how to simulate the big bang.

          space is like a fish tank full of water, a f.i.r.e.cr.a.ck,er lowered into the water would be the big bang.
          you can see energy waves passing through the water and the debrie that would make up the first stars (hint: the particules left over from the popper.)

          June 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Like I said fred, natural laws are all that have been demonstrated to exist. You might be right, there could be something more...but you would have to demonstrate that, not just assert it. To claim there is, without justification, is supersti.tion.

          You are the one making the claim that there is more than natural laws...the burden of proof is on you.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      maybe it's because the theory of evolution has not made one contribution or advancement to mankind since it was dreamed up. it's a fairy tale that enables lazy men to not have a real job.

      June 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • Doris

        In what way is the validity of a theory dependent on contribution?

        June 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
      • Doris

        The only fairy tale I see is that which is rolling around in that wee brain of yours, Scotty.

        June 10, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Here's a link to a recent seminar about evolutionary medicine, full of useful references detailing some of the ways in which Darwin's theory is being used in modern medical research.

        June 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          research is a b.s. category where any time and effort can be justified. what tangible results can be DIRECTLY linked to the theory of evolution? NONE.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Akira

          Research is now BS?

          June 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I take it you didn't bother to pay any attention whatsoever to the information I linked.
          Good on ya!
          Who needs facts when you have faith, right?

          June 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          evolution research is b.s.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Scot is starting to sound like Behe....
          So back in '96, Behe boldly states that nobody will ever be able to provide an evolutionary explanation for the immune system.
          When he is given fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system, he simply "not good enough".

          June 10, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
      • igaftr

        Other than the daily contibutions to the medical industry, the bio hazrd clean up industry, the pharmacutical indictry, the agriculture industry...no...nothing of note scot.

        June 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          in what way has the myth of evolution contributed to bio-hazard cleanup? agriculture? medical? this is another lie told by dreamers. merely saying it has contributed to these fields doesn't prove anything. evolution is a fairy tale that attempts to hijack other real science.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          The myth of evolution has not contributed anything, and I cannot find any refernce to such a thing. Evolution on the other hand...we are using the evolutionary processes to modify various and assorted genetics, which would not be possible if not for the evolutionary processes.

          I could bring out myriad examples, you can find them yourself quickly and easily, but I seriously doubt you would understand it since your education seemes to have ended with the 70's.

          Simply do your own research and you will find countless industries that use the evolutionary processes and mechanisms to change the way you are living. That flu shot you get every year ( or don't, either way it ia available)...each year need to be altered to keep up with the evolution of the various viruses involved.

          I am not going to waste my time proving what you can easily show yourself. Rather that, you will choose to believe the lies in your bible over fact. Sad...simply sad.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          the myth of evolution is self-contradictory and it could not possibly be useful in a short time span since evolution as a process consumes millions and millions of years. you may not have heard about adaptation which is totally different than evolution. you should probably go back and review some of the basics of your fairy tale so that you can relate it with a straight face. try thinking more logically.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      what makes you think you can conflate evolution with the holocaust, lung cancer, HIV, etc? this is a dishonest attempt by evolutionists to hijack very real and substantial evidence and occurrence just as they attempt to do with the natural order. Evolution is not like gravity and does not even belong in the same sentence. gravity has been proven, evolution has not, so why would a rational person assign the same status. if evolution were indeed true, then the fact of it would speak for itself. it's not and therefore it cannot have the same status. your argument is totally lacking in rationality and logic.

      June 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
      • bostontola

        You missed the point. Not one theory of gravity has been proven, that doesn't mean the phenomenon of gravity is false. The theory of evolution has not been proven doesn't mean the phenomenon is false. For both theories, there is a ton of objective evidence, and no objective evidence that the phenomenon is false.

        You also missed the point that an idea with no objective evidence should be viewed skeptically (e.g. Tarot card reading). Ideas with a lot of objective evidence and no objective evidence against it should not be denied. You keep saying 'evolution has not been incontrovertibly proven'. If you apply that standard to medicine, you would never see a doctor. It's absurd.

        Like I said, you're response is emotional. I'm not going to try to change your mind. Believe what you want. I'm just pointing out that you and people who think like you are very confused. You demonstrate that almost every time you comment on science.

        June 10, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no one but believers in the myth of evolution would ever call gravity a theory. who calls gravity a theory? ask any physicist if he thinks gravity is a theory and you're going to get laughed at. please don't equate evolution with gravity, it only makes you look more foolish.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • bostontola

          You missed the point again. Newton had a theory of gravity. Einstein had a theory of gravity. There are many more. None are proven, that doesn't mean there is no gravity. Same for evolution. Even if the theories are not perfect or proven, that doesn't mean there isn't evolution. There is a ton of objective evidence supporting evolution, and none refuting evolution. That isn't what humans mean by the word 'myth'. A myth is a story that has no objective evidence. Evolution has tons of objective evidence (literally in libraries around the world). You just demonstrated the conflation of skepticism and denial I posted about. You provided no counterargument, no objective evidence, just confused denials and an occasional insult for emphasis.

          June 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Akira

        awanderingscot, do you think there are no Christians who accept evolution as fact?

        June 10, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
  5. HeavenSent

    Christians come on these blogs to speak the Truth about Jesus and the Bible. The Bible is proven to be 100% accurate. My toilet is broke again, but I just bought trash bags at Costco. Ignore the Word and suffer the consequences for all eternity.


    June 10, 2014 at 10:23 am |
  6. HeavenSent

    Carnal atheists, always spewing the lies of satan and never following the Truth of Jesus Christ. Hell waits for those who do not believe in Him. My camel-toe loves beach weather. Walk with Him and read the bible.


    June 10, 2014 at 10:13 am |
  7. zhilla1980wasp

    monotheism isn't special, and to answer the above question; yes they praise the same god.
    the first attempt at monotheism:
    "Though the Egyptian religion had traditionally been polytheistic, during his reign, Akhnaton promoted Aton to the lofty position of humankind's only god. According to the pharaoh, Aton was not only the most exalted god among many - he was the only god that was to be worshipped. Thus, Atonism was one of the first truly monotheistic religions. Akhnaton attempted to impose Atonism on his subjects by using state power to forbid all other forms of worship. "

    link: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/atonism-article

    then followed the jewish beliefs, muslim, roman catholic, protestant, denominations of christians.

    this blog got way off topic. lol

    June 10, 2014 at 8:42 am |
    • awanderingscot

      actually the worship of the one true God predates Egyptian worship by 1500yrs and originated in present day Iran.

      June 10, 2014 at 8:52 am |
      • igaftr

        There are over 400 "one true" gods. Men like to imagine gods.

        June 10, 2014 at 9:03 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        scot: it was merely an example of how the whole "my god is the only god" isn't a new thing.
        it's not special to the jews, muslims or the christians; it's been done before.

        however thanks for agreeing that your "god" isn't the only one. lol

        June 10, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Do you have any references with evidence for pre-Judaic worship of Jahweh?

        June 10, 2014 at 9:17 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Genesis 1

          June 10, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Genesis is part of the Judaic religion.

          June 10, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Adam existed before Jews existed.

          June 10, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Adam is a character in the Hebrew holy book.
          "The book about my God says that my God was worshipped before the book was written" – this is circular reasoning.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • awanderingscot

          'Yahweh' is the Hebrew name for Him. thought you knew that.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • awanderingscot

          c'mon man, quit playing dumb. Adam as a oral tradition was passed down before it was scripted.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I do know that Jahweh is the Hebrew name for the One True God.
          Where it begins with oral tradition or not, Adam is part of Judaic mythology.

          Which culture worshipped The One True God prior to Judaism?

          June 10, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • igaftr

          Information I have found indicates that the translation would be closest to YHVH...or closely pronounced yea-vah.

          It seems strange to me that many claim it is yhwh when the w was not used until the 14th century, before then it was a double letter, not considered separate... and could represent either a duoble V ( as the french word for W is double v) or a double U. Why would gods name use a letter that was not a separate letter until 700 years ago.

          Yea-vah is the closest pronuncioation I have found, which is close to the Jehovah of song and story.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • awanderingscot

          vowels were not written so you have no idea how it was pronounced, but we do know how elohim and adonai were pronounced.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • Alias

          DNA proves that the Adam and Eve story is false.
          We di dnot all come from 2 people.

          June 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • igaftr

          No I don't know how it was pronounced, but many others do. The W sound was likely added AFTER the Guttenberg printing press, where the German v ( w) was used in place of the more correct V, and has been presumed a W ever since.
          In the original Hebrew, the small notations for pronounciation of vowels and sounds are not there for the name of the "god". since it was not meant to be pronounced, but there are many other hints as to the pronounciation.

          YHVH does appear to be the correct english translation, so YAHVAH or YEA-VAH would be the most accurate, at least according to all of the credible sources I have checked.

          It is really moot for two reasons...first, it is simply a name MEN assigned to the "god" character, and still no one can show this "god" to exist, and secondly, at least according to Jewish writings, the name was never meant to be pronounced.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Still waiting on the name of a culture that worshipped The One True God prior to Judaism.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The ancient Egyptian early dynastic period in which the first of the God-Kings ruled over a unified Upper and Lower Egypt, began circa 3100BCE.
        Archaeologists have unearthed proto-dynastic religious artefacts, such as carved figures from Badari burial grounds, going back 1000 years before the 1st Pharaoh.

        June 10, 2014 at 9:34 am |
      • awanderingscot

        the concept or belief in a supernatural god is actually alot more stable than then the concept or belief in evolution. evolution is a fairy tale that keeps morphing as time goes on. the more man finds out about the natural order, the less evolution seems believable. of course there's always going to be unstable individuals who continue to believe it.

        June 10, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • fascinatedspectator

          And the REALLY "unstable" individuals who believe a magic sky fairy waved a magic wand and made everything out of nothing! Those are by far the LEAST educated individuals!

          June 10, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Science is predicated on falsifiability.
          New discoveries allow theories to be amended, or in some cases outright discarded.
          Religious dogma is predicated on faith. Dogma claims to be "Truth", regardless of a lack of evidence (or a dearth of contrary evidence).

          "The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
          – Robert Heinlein

          June 10, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • tallulah131

          I suspect that scotty is a troll. If not, he is in utter denial of the truth. There is no point in arguing with an individual such as scotty, who is so far removed from reality he might as well be on the moon.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • otoh2

          I don't think that anyone seriously thinks that they will get through to scot personally. He is a great foil for presenting reality to other readers who think along the lines that he espouses. Without him, we'd be accused of making up straw men to illustrate some of his preposterous claims and fantasies.

          June 10, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
      • HeavenSent

        If it is not in the Bible, then it did not happen. Your pride won’t allow you to see the Truth of Jesus Christ. My 12-year-old daughter smokes in the house but I won’t let her kids smoke yet. It is one thing to love Jesus but you must turn your life over to Him.


        June 10, 2014 at 10:20 am |
    • G to the T

      " Aton was not only the most exalted god among many – he was the only god that was to be worshipped."

      To be fair, what you are describing doesn't sound like monotheism. It sounds like Monolatry – the belief that there many gods, but only one is worth of worship.

      June 10, 2014 at 9:10 am |
      • igaftr

        Even the christian "god" told them as one of their top ten list not to worship OTHER gods...even their god believes in gods.

        June 10, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God doesnot beliein other gods actually existing.....The God of the BIble says He is the only TRUE and Living God...and all others are false, and non existant...they are only pieces of wood. etc....

          June 10, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • igaftr

          Then why does your god put in his top ten list to not worship the OTHER gods. He doesn't say false gods or wood, he says OTHER gods.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God has shown Himself to be the true Living God..he doesn't need to say wooden or false gods..these people were not stupid....they can figure it out...and we can too..as I said..all thoughout the Bible God has shown he is the true living God and all others are false...(yes...these people in time of exodus didn't have Bible-but as I said..God alredy shown Himself to be true..thus using logic and reason..all others are false

          June 10, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If all other gods are idols of wood, why is there a separate commandment for idolatry?
          Why would Jahweh be jealous of non-existent deities?

          June 10, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God is not jealous OF them.but FOr US.....jealousy is not defined only as feeling towards another...but aso a close guarding..He guards His creation whom He loves....he wants whats best..those other gods don't provide anything...but God does..

          June 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Even the christian "god" told them as one of their top ten list not to worship OTHER gods...even their god believes in gods."

          Indeed, though many believers would believe that Jewish monotheism sprang into existence as is, the truth apppears to be that they went through a religious evolution much like the other cultures around them. Going from polytheistic beliefs, to monolatry and then on to monotheism. Most of the mythic nature of El/Yahweh has been lost on the editing table, but you can still see some instances where Yahweh walks, runs, and sits on a council of other gods.

          The use of "Lord", "God", etc. makes this difficult to see in the english versions, but it's much more explicit when we look to the hebrew words unsed in these instances.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:29 am |
  8. His Panic

    They are in a State of Panic. Those who do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL Panic. Those who do Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic. If they have to make such a SHOW OFF of Prayer, they are not following Jesus Instructions about prayer.

    Is clear that they are under stress, suffering from anxiety which can lead to Mass hysteria even Panic. This Panic can as it has in the past lead to brawls, stampedes, revolutions, riots and all kinds of very, very Undesirable situations. That is because they may have religion, but religion is NOT the same neither is equivalent to having Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son.

    June 9, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
    • Reality

      Wrong on all accounts as there is no god and your Jesus was nothing more than a heavy embellished, illiterate, preacher MAN.

      June 10, 2014 at 7:21 am |
      • awanderingscot

        if you're going to talk about the Lord Jesus Christ, the bible, etc. you should at least know what you're talking about. your statement here shows just how ignorant you are. Christ was not illiterate, have you not read his statements "it is written" on numerous occasions? he read scripture in the synagogues, etc .. etc .. etc..

        June 10, 2014 at 8:45 am |
        • G to the T

          The ability to read text did not automatically confer the ability to write. In the ancient world they were taught separately, so it was not uncommon for one to be able to read (at least enough to get by, or those in holy texts) but not write.

          The bigger question is how a group of most assuredly illiterate fisherman are supposed to have composed in Greek and using Greek rhetorical devices...

          June 10, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • observer


          Where is ONE THING that was written by Christ? Where can we see it?

          June 10, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          one does not need something written by Jesus to prove he was literate

          June 10, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          EXACTLY...in fact the Bible says Jesus READ from the Scroll of Isaiah.....that does not sound like being illiterate to me

          June 10, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Also, when the religious leaders brought in a woman to be stoned, Jesus wrote something in the dirt. It is implied whatever he wrote helped change the minds, or at least actions, of those men.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • G to the T

          "EXACTLY...in fact the Bible says Jesus READ from the Scroll of Isaiah.....that does not sound like being illiterate to me"

          Again – being able to read and being able to write are 2 very distinct skills. Jesus may very well have been able to read, but that doesn't mean he could write. Even then, "literacy" in the ancient world could mean as little as being able to sign your own name 2 times out of 3.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • igaftr

          "one does not need something written by Jesus to prove he was literate"

          OK...how else would you prove it?

          I know, you accept absolutely nothing as proof, so your bar isn't very high, but please, how else?

          June 10, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • kermit4jc

          eyewitness accounts says Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah....doesn't sound illiterate to me

          June 10, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • hotairace

          Jesus allegedly wrote. Until some actual evidence is provided, it's just a crappy story in a crappy book. Honest believers would acknowledge this whenever they refer to anything allegedly in the Babble.

          June 10, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • fascinatedspectator

          If Christ was supposedly "literate", why did he never write anything?
          There is not a single word that was ever written by your so-called "Christ"!
          Every single thing written about him is pure hearsay and wild speculation!
          There is not one single eye-witness account of ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire holy bible!
          Every word in the bible is no more than legend, folk tale and speculation!

          June 10, 2014 at 11:38 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        If Christ was a Rabbi, he was literate.

        June 10, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • awanderingscot

          by most accounts he was a rabbi.

          June 10, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • G to the T

          Odd that since traditionally Rabbis were supposed to be married...

          June 10, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • hotairace

          Why "by most accounts"? Why isn't the alleged account of the alleged one true alleged but never proven god consistent and authoritative?

          June 10, 2014 at 10:47 am |
  9. Science Works

    Hey fred I think I found your twin or are you related to Ken ham ?


    Someone does not like what the Pope did eh ?

    June 9, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
    • believerfred

      You have me confused with Barbie who is related to Ken. Both are products of evolution where inorganic plastics became dolls without the need of intelligent design

      June 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Fred, that would be barbie australpithicus, but a 'minor' problem is they only found 40% of her plastic so they can't be sure that it's not gijoe australpithicus. no matter it's going on display at the natural history museum next to the sidvicious pithicus exhibit.

        June 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
        • bostontola

          Do you prefer the creation museum where humans and dinosaurs coexist?

          June 9, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
        • believerfred

          I saw a picture thanks to Science Works of a paleontologist laying next to Titannosaurus bones. I noticed his clothes were from Walmart and not typical of the clothing worn by man in the day of Titanosaurus. Perhaps he was trying to pull one over on me. Regardless, I will post the evidence at my museum as evidence man and Titanosaurus bones did in fact coexist.

          June 9, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • bostontola

          That is funny. I know you know that those are not bones, they are fossils where minerals replaced the bone at a microscopic level.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          i'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong, dinosaurs did NOT take vitamin and mineral supplements. your theory of evolution just won't hold water and is a fairy tale.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • bostontola

          I'm not following what you are saying. Are you saying that you don't think scientists can determine what a fossil is composed of? Are you saying that you don't believe that mass spectrometers, and gas chromatographs work?

          June 9, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • bostontola

          A question regarding carbon dating for you:
          How come carbon dating, tree ring dating, lake bed dating, and cave mineralization dating all match?
          You can hypothesize lots of ways ant of these methods could have errors. None of those potential errors sources skew the various dating methods the same amount. There is no credible way these methods are off by more than the understood noise level.

          June 9, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
        • awanderingscot


          here is a link you might find helpful that explains the process for creating a fossil. i am sure you can also use this method to create a dinosaur bone. i hope this helps you with your delusions or at least it will be fun and creative for you.


          June 9, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          boston – How come carbon dating, tree ring dating, lake bed dating, and cave mineralization dating all match?

          simply because they don't match. i know in your heart you desperately want evolution to be true, but it's not. and since neither you nor national geographic were there millions of years ago, you cannot prove your fairy tale and never will.

          June 9, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • bostontola

          Avoiding with irrelevant sites shows that you know you are wrong. Fossil are analyzed with chromatographs and spectrometers which tell you the composition in great detail and accuracy. If they were made of plaster, scientists would know. You completely avoided the carbon dating question. Multiple methods cross check from samples found all around the world.

          Some honest Christians answer these issues with statements like; I can't explain why but it must be wrong because it conflicts with the bible. It may not be an argument, but it is honest. Your responses are neither argument or honest. You should be ashamed.

          June 9, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          the following comment is from the national center for science education and has been debunked.
          "The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate."

          June 10, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • igaftr

          You claim carbon dating was debunked? By whom..your cable guy doesn't count.
          It has never been debunked by any scientist, ever. So by all means, when was it debunked and by whom?

          June 10, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • awanderingscot


          radiocarbon dating is flawed

          June 10, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • igaftr

          That does not even begin to debunk radiocarbon dating.
          Do you comprehend what you are reading there?

          It shows a correlation to the sun's activity having an unexpected but predictable effect on radioactive isotopes. It only allows us to become more accurate, certainly does not debunk the science at all.

          There has always been a variety of variables and shifts within the science, it is planned for.
          What you are looking at with this information is not debunking at all, and you are looking at variations that amount to less than a tenth of a percent of variation.

          Please give your rational behind your claim that it debunks the science, and I speak science so by all means, use your big words.

          June 10, 2014 at 11:10 am |
      • Akira

        Well, Fred, you know they can't be related; they lack the necessary items needed to reproduce.
        Although they both have Mattel branded onto their derrières.
        Maybe they were cast from the same mold...

        June 9, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • believerfred

          Are you evoking the Mattel of the gaps to explain how all dolls today could not have come from a single pair of dolls?

          June 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • Akira

          How else could the Cabbage Patch dolls have gotten here?

          June 9, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Why would an omnipotent god NEED "intelligent design" ? A real god could make something work, even if it were designed poorly. That argument actually works against you, Ferdy. The universe is not designed for life. Life will exist in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the term of the universe. Is THAT "intelligent" to waste all that universe ? Humans are certainly not intelligently designed an any medical person could tell you. Why do children get cancer ? Why do hideous abnormalities occur ? The intelligent explanation is Evolution. Evolution 2014 is not even a question. Anyone who thinks it is, is severely uneducated.

        June 9, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • believerfred

          "A real god could make something work, even if it were designed poorly."
          =>you mean something like man, designed with capacity to sin over and over never learning?
          =>you mean man purposed to worship one God yet has worships all kinds of gods and some do not worship at all?

          June 9, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          You are seriously delusional concerning the natural order and how it came about. your fairy tale of evolution has not a shred of proof and your bible of radiocarbon dating has been thoroughly debunked. start thinking for yourself for a change.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, Provide evidence of where evolution is debunked. Provide evidence of where dating techniques are debunked.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • hotairace

          DumbAzzScott, there's way more evidence for evolution than your god delusions 'cause there's none, zero, zip, nada for your beliefs. Where are the scientific articles debunking evolution? All you have are howling from the mentally ill. I suggest you get help from a mental health professional but you should avoid anyplace with green frogs on staff, even if he just cleans toilet bowls.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          awandering scott,
          Unfortunately for you you have presented not one reason to doubt Evolution, and 99.9 % of all the scientists on the planet disagree with you. You NEED to be delusional. That's ok. We already knew that. As for what was posted above your post, it's completely irrelevant. Obviously he has no answer to what I said.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Any scientist knows carbon dating works in only a certain range of time. It certainly has not been "debunked". Evolution is not dependent on carbon dating, There ore many many other dating systems, and they all agree. Dendritic dating, geologic dating, many other kinds of radiometric dating, ice core dating. The odds that ALL the various dating methods are WRONG and yet produce the same wrong date, is ZERO. Too bad. You lose. Denying Evolution is a smokescreen. People who waste time arguing about it are like arguing with those asserting angels dance on the head of a pin.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • believerfred

          "The universe is not designed for life. Life will exist in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the term of the universe. Is THAT "intelligent" to waste all that universe ?"
          =>amazing how the necessity of supernatural escapes your common sense. How can you not see that life is miraculous and events beyond the natural are the only viable alternative. Yes, odds are not only against intelligent life forming by accident the probability is only remotely possible if there are an infinite number of universes according to Stephen Hawking.

          "Humans are certainly not intelligently designed"
          =>they are the only species capable of creative expression without limit that allows comprehension of the miraculous. This is the core cognitive and emotive capacity to love God and worship God. We were designed with one primary purpose...worship.

          "Why do children get cancer ? Why do hideous abnormalities occur ? The intelligent explanation is Evolution."
          =>I am not aware of any representation in the Bible as to what process God used to create life. The Bible is the only holy book that gets this right as God formed man out of the dust of the earth. The Bible begins with the same base elements for life contained in the organic or perhaps inorganic dust of the earth. Not even one component of evolution theory is in conflict with the Word of God. The extent to which any scientific advance is used to transfer the glory of God to the glory of man or simply to diminish the wonder of God would be contrary to the Word of God.
          =>it was man and not God that made the decision to pursue desires over unity with God. The fallen path which includes natural selection, disease, mutation, etc.(i.e. your suggestion regarding cancer and abnormalities) all leading to death is the process that leads to separation of good and evil (light and dark) which is what God created. Nothing has changed since the beginning when God finished creating and said it is very good. In Genesis you see both the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. God is not a respecter of man so creation was designed very good regardless of what path the creation desired.
          You cannot give God a black eye for natural selection then embrace it as the foundation for your belief.
          =>natural law appears to be contrary your self awareness otherwise you would not buy into a belief dependent upon scientific method that is incapable of falsifying evidence and processes not dependent upon particulate matter or energy.

          "Evolution 2014 is not even a question."
          =>are you planning on attending? Comparative Analysis Workflows for the Tree of Life will be presented by Bob Thacker. Please do not get too excited as the Tree of Life is not the real one as detailed in Genesis.

          June 10, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • Woody

          ".........your bible of radiocarbon dating has been thoroughly debunked" – awanderingscot

          None of the religions of the world have ever been debunked. They're ALL bunk.

          June 10, 2014 at 9:02 am |
  10. Bob

    Three times zero is still zero. God stories of all ilks are just a cop-out used by the cowardly and the lazy.

    June 9, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      i'm really impressed with your mastery of math; however, i cannot give you even a passing grade on your understanding of the natural order. evolution is a myth, so take those dinosaur picture books you like to read before bedtime, throw them away and stop indulging in your foolish fairy tale.

      June 9, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Not one major academic center in the entire world doubt Evolution. Saying it's a myth only demonstrates you utter and complete ignorance, and lack of science education. I realize for fundies it can be a threat to their delusional lifestyle, but that's not the problem of science which has mountains of evidence for it, and nothing against it. Time to stop re-living the Scopes Monkey Trial and join at least the 19th Century.

        June 9, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Your statement is not true and your own grasp of science is tenuous at best. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species claimed that organisms arose by random variation and natural selection, which must have been a slow business. But the fossil record shows that the major animal forms appeared without visible predecessors — an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. As the Darwinian rulebook regards such sudden changes as highly improbable, the evolutionists encounter two problems: insufficient time and missing fossils. Your fairy tale of evolution will be relegated to the dustbin of history soon.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, "... which must have been a slow business"

          It was. It took billions of years from abiogenesis to where we are now. Humans took millions of years to evolve from the ape lineage.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Note that we have learned a lot since Darwin's time, so he is no longer the standard bearer. There are many links to learn about evolution; here's one – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
          You should also educate yourself on the Cambrian "explosion".

          June 9, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no cookies and milk for you here. Speciation is a fairy tale evolutionists just cannot agree on so they have come up with scores of yet more foolish theories. Don Rosen, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History, wryly summarized what is involved: “Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.” did you get that? "we don't see it". evolution is a myth only ignorant atheists can still embrace.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Read that link then come back with some evidence.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • hotairace

          DumbAzzScot, have you applied your "don't see it" logic (with apologies for abusing the word logic) to your god delusions and the absence of your alleged but never seen or proven gods?

          June 9, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          In 2014, Evolution is not dependent of Darwin in any way. There are mountains of evidence for it, and none against it. Darwin had some things correct. His basic idea has been confirmed by others, countless times. No intelligent adult doubts Evolution in 2014. NOT ONE major academic center says it's essentially incorrect.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • redzoa

          We have directly observed speciation in the field and in the lab. Darwin proposed a gradual process for speciation and given what was known at the time, it wasn't expected to be an observable event. However, with the development of phylogenetic analyses, we can see speciation at the genetic level (i.e. highly reduced or absent interbreeding between subpopulations) without the distinct morphological differences one would require if phenotypes were the only measure.

          Regarding observations of speciation within the fossil record, we now know we shouldn't expect to see Darwin's proposed gradualism given the relatively short time scales and the probability of capture within the fossil record (i.e. new species populations will be small and less likely to be reflected). Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) is the dominant observation; however, the observable nodes span from 10-100K yrs. But within these nodes, there is plenty of time for gradualism. For example, if the average limb length of a species grew by 50 cm (~20 inches) over 50K yrs, and the average generation was 5 yrs (10K generations), the requisite increase per generation would only need to be 0.005 cm per year. And despite the dominance of PE as observed in the fossil record, there are still plenty of gradualism examples (e.g. the Foraminifera). Furthermore, as Gould noted, while we don't generally expect to see smooth transitions between species in the fossil record, these transitions are well represented at higher taxonomic levels. Lastly, regardless of absolute dating, the relative positions of fossils clearly show a progressive order which confounds literal creationism, i.e. this order simply cannot be explained by the various "flood geology" models. Add to this, phylogenetic analyses of both extant and extinct forms corroborate the progression as observed in the fossil record.

          Regarding the Cambrian Explosion and "sudden appearance" (over millions of years):

          June 10, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • redzoa

          Oops. Should have read "only need to be 0.005 cm per generation."

          June 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • Akira

        Dinosaurs didn't exist?

        June 9, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          i know this will come as a shock to you; however, all the 'dinosaurs' you see in 'natural history' museums are cast from plaster and that's a fact. sorry to burst your bubble.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • hotairace

          So dinosaurs are a fake created by men, just like DumbAzzScot's hero in The Babble, jesus christ. Good to learn something each day.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "hot air"
          did you think those dinosaur bones in the museum were real too? LOL ... sorry to burst your bubble, they are plaster and that's a fact. you need to research these things better and start thinking more logically. evolution is a myth and a fraud;

          June 9, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • Akira

          That doesn't burst my bubble; I disagree, that's all.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • hotairace

          DumbAzzScot, dinosaur "bones" are every bit as real as your alleged but never proven gods. Of course, it's only lying believers such as yourself who claim they really are bones. . .

          June 9, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • observer


          So dinosaur bones are all fake, but non-humans can talk and the sun and moon stopped suddenly in orbit.

          lol. Please take a beginner's course in science.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "hot air"
          here's a link i think you might find helpful in your quest for dinasaurs:

          June 9, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • Akira

          All of those paleontologists are going to be shocked when they find out.

          June 10, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • G to the T

          "did you think those dinosaur bones in the museum were real too? "

          LOL... no, of course not. The ones on display are copies of the originals that were found in the ground. But you honestly believe they are whole-cloth fakes intended to discredit your beliefs? That my friend is just wacko.

          June 10, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • Akira

          G to the T,
          I knew that as a child; our local museum was always up front about the fact they were replicated. The larger ones would be too heavy to accurately display, otherwise. It didn't lessen our awe at the sheer size.
          This is common knowledge, though. I never thought one would ever take this to mean that the dinosaurs didn't ever exist, however.
          To each their own, I suppose.

          June 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • G to the T

          Agreed – Honestly that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard on these blogs. To believe that the entirety of several scientific disciplines are somehow in a conspiracy against theistic (specifcially christian) beliefs... it just boggles the mind.

          June 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    didn't god make punk rock? What has the wondering spot got against punk rock?

    June 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
    • igaftr

      He's from Kirkland WA, so probably more into grunge.

      June 9, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      It's just his way of belittling me.
      I frequently cite a certain Dr. Graffin's thesis "Monism, atheism, and the naturalist worldview: Perspectives from evolutionary biology" as well as his book "Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God".
      Prof. Graffin has a PhD in zoology and teaches evolutionary biology at Cornell.
      He is also the lead singer/songwriter for Bad Religion, a punk band that's been vociferously anti-religion for more than 30 years. I'm also fond of quoting the band's lyrics.
      It's Scotty's way of dismissing anything I say.

      June 9, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
  12. Akira

    Wow, a lot of ad hominems being slung instead of actual conversation. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

    June 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
    • bostontola

      I'm ok with people using ad hominem.

      Ad Hominem = White Flag

      When someone goes ad hominem, I know they've lost, and I know they know it.

      June 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Yes, it's such a surprising departure from the normal decorum and restraint exhibited here.

      June 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • Akira

        Lol, indubitably.

        June 9, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    there is some evidence that a man named jesus lived and was crucified around 2,000 years ago. Anything else ever written about your storybook character jesus was written by people in the same deluded cult as you are. Hence, it cannot be called evidence and is not truth, as your endless dodging and lying and twisting plainly show how people in your cult will say anything to support this cult's belief.

    Your "testimony of eye witnesses" was not "scrutinized by skeptics of their day", though your cult members write it that way in an attempt at credibility. Only the 'eye witnesses' (LOL) in your cult who made up stories to back the lies had their words included. All others were left out.

    It was only ever your cult members who have determined these fairy stories "reliable through mountains of scholarly literature written over the past two thousand years". Biased much?

    It's a FRAUD and only your gullibility makes it real.

    June 9, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
  14. lunchbreaker

    That is actually a piece of common ground you and i share Theo. I do believe that there was never a time "something" didn't exist. We just disagree on what that "something" is.

    June 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
  15. Dyslexic doG

    I think our problem as Atheists on this forum has always been that when swapping posts with theos and wandering scots and finishers and dalahasts and tophers, we always stick to facts and reality and are bound by those parameters. Unfortunately, in the magical fantasy world of "belief" that they live in, their posts quite naturally wander off into magic and fantasy and mysticism because they believe it. They are not bound by facts and reality. Their cognitive dissonance allows them, without shame, to lie endlessly and ignore facts totally for what they see as the greater good. Their belief.

    June 9, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      "You can't handle the truth" !

      June 9, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
      • igaftr

        you can't comprehend the truth.

        June 10, 2014 at 9:06 am |
    • awanderingscot

      kinda like the field of science i dreamed up called "evolutionary biology" whereby imaginary skin, muscles, tendons, organs, blood, etc are studied and published in 'scientific journals'. atheists are little boys who never developed the logic and critical thinking skills of a man, their growth was stunted at punk rock concerts.

      June 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
      • bostontola

        There are about as many Christian Evolutionary Biologists as atheist ones. That kinda kills your conclusions.

        June 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Well since you put it like that...

        June 9, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Job 13:5
        If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

        June 9, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        And your PhD in genetics is from ? Actually you are a total hypocrite. DNA proves Evolution to be true. Do you deny DNA evidence / If YOU were in prison unjustly, YOU would use DNA to get out. YOU are a 110 % hypocrite. You cannot refute 1 point Dr. Coyne says. Not one.


        June 9, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
      • realbuckyball


        June 9, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        i know in your heart you really want evolution to be real, but it's not. DNA used to exonerate someone from a criminal act does not make a case for evolution, you're delusional. please don't let your emotions get the best of you and start thinking in a more rational manner.

        June 9, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
      • observer


        "you're delusional. please don't let your emotions get the best of you and start thinking in a more rational manner."

        Good advice for yourself. Why don't you believe in following it?

        June 10, 2014 at 12:02 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "I think our problem as Atheists on this forum is swapping posts with theos and wandering scots and finishers and tophers"
      There – I paraphrased for you. It's more accurate now.

      Don't waste your time saying exactly the same thing to the same people whose minds you will not change day in and day out.

      The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results – (Not) Albert Einstein

      June 9, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      Actually, I think your problem as an atheist on this forum has always been that you have created this self imposed construct in which naturalism is your only standard for determining truth. And make no mistake, it is only your standard, not some universal edict written in stone. You have no more or less the corner market on truth than those who incorporate faith into their system of belief.

      June 9, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Agreed, there is no "standard" for "truth".

        At least naturalism doesn't have the contradictions that faith has.

        June 9, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          If naturalism in another dimension reflected laws opposite to what we know would that be a contradiction?

          June 9, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          That's an arbitrary hypothetical Fred.

          June 9, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          evolution is a myth and fraud perpetuated by the evolutionist's bible called radiocarbon dating. evolution is dying a painful and slow death so atheists are desperate and lashing out.

          June 9, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, I have to think you are a poe. Surely no one in the 21st century denies evolution, dating techniques, and science in general. And talk about it terms that you know apply to the bible and religion – education, logic, and reason will continue to sound the death knell for them. Religion is like big tobacco – as old markets die, they frantically try to open new ones.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          A generation ago, Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, said in a public forum that he didn’t know of any evidence for evolution. There was some grumbling, but he knew that the crucial evidence was missing. And like Thomas Nagel today, he emphasized that he was an atheist — this was no creationist speaking. The theory of evolution is a fairy tale and atheists are delusional God-haters.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • hotairace

          DumbAzzScot, from Wikipedia:

          "Patterson has been quote mined several times by creationists, most notably from a tape recording of a talk he gave in 1981 at the American Museum of Natural History for a systematics discussion group. He also stated in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:

          "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

          —Colin Patterson, (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990)
          Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".[7] Patterson rejected the creationist interpretations of his sayings.[8]"

          Why do you lie?

          June 9, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          Not only did you use a quote that even the one quoted disputes, but you trapse it out as if it were relevant, but since it was said 33 years ago, it would be severely outdated.

          Do you have any idea how many branches of science have progressed in that time?
          How much more information we have...just the one science of Genetics ( which clearly shows the mechanisms of evolution) was barely an infant at that time.

          DO you really need to be THAT deceitful? Is you claim so undefendable ( well, yes, it really is)

          June 10, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
  16. Theo Phileo

    "You demand of others laboratory proofs but when the shoe is on the other foot all you have is a 2000 year old book of myths with more contradictions"
    How many years have you spent in in-depth study of the Bible? Cross referencing each of the codexes and manuscripts, researching the early church fathers, and reading book after book on the topic of textual criticism?

    Or are you just going by what others have told you?

    June 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
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
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.