home
RSS
Billboard wars: Creationists vs. atheists
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET

Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard war

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong."

The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis.

Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati.

The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas.

During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth."

“The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website.

"We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said.

"From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' "

Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards.

"They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' "

Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true."

"I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.

Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God.

Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack."

Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign.

IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000.

Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year.  He said another campaign was in the works for this year.

"They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it.

Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success.

"We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said.

The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community.

In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."

The museum responded with its own video. 

For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism.

In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.

The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Christianity • Creationism • New York • Science

soundoff (8,748 Responses)
  1. Salero21

    GOD CREATED in 6 days and in one day HE will discard, throw away and burn everything in the fire. In just ONE day.

    December 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • god the father

      And he told you this did he? Privately or in a group of people? In a dream? Or a vision? What exactly did he say? I haven't heard that he would destroy in one day. This IS a new revelation. You are a prophet!!! Ohhh..c'mon...wait a minute...you probably read that from Joyce Meyers of Jerry Falwell......you silly man you....almost had me!

      December 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
      • Salero21

        This is one more piece of Evidence that demonstrate what I've been saying all along. That atheism is Total stupidity all over here there anywhere everywhere anytime all the time every single time and forevermore.

        December 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
        • The Truth

          This is one more piece of Evidence that demonstrate what I've been saying all along. That Salero21 is Total stupidity all over here there anywhere everywhere anytime all the time every single time and forevermore.

          December 11, 2013 at 10:45 pm |
    • igaftr

      Yes s21...we all know Nogomain created everything...and isn't it lovely.

      December 11, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
      • Salero21

        Now, now your ignorance is not surprising. May be due to poor reading and comprehensions skills. Don't forget now and always remember the part where ALL thing are discarded, thrown away and burn in just ONE day.

        December 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
        • god the father

          Spoken with true conviction Saleroin such loving christian terms. You are the reason why I would never become a christian....I wonder how your god feels about that. Your fear mongering doesn't weigh on anything but your own shoulders for spreading such hateful trash. The only one who will burn is you....god says so....check out your book if you don't believe me. I reiterate...you need help and I hope you find it one day.

          December 11, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • Logical Default

      Didn't it take an entire year, the last time god committed mass genocide back in the OT? Now you're saying he's suddenly capable of doing it in a day? God doesn't seem very smart at all. All knowing, yet creates humans knowing full well he'll have to destroy them all eventually for no apparent reason.

      December 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
  2. Jim

    The Case for Science and Evolution supporting the Genesis Account
    What Church and State aren't telling us.
     
    The first thing to understand is, what Genesis actually says in relation to Time. Chapter 1 is described entirely from God’s perspective of time, not man’s. We were not created until the very end of the very last day of creation. Only God was around to perceive what the days of creation were in reference to. And according to a literal reading of the account, the days of creation were in relation to the original source of light that was created on the first day, not our suns. Our sun is what we base our perspective of time from. But again, a literal reading of the account tells us that our sun wasn’t created until the 4th day of God’s creation and that it was created to provide man with a measure of days and years. Therefore, what Genesis is literally saying is, that a day to God is not the same as a 24 hour day as experienced from man’s perspective of time with respect to the rotation of the earth in relation to our sun. With this in mind and the knowledge that nowhere in the Bible does it give an age to the earth, we can start from the beginning .
    In the beginning, God creates the heaven and the earth. However, the earth was at first without form or void, according to the account. In other words, the earth was at first in the form of energy contained within the singularity from which the universe began.
    "And darkness was upon the face of the deep". This describes a black hole from which the singularity that is our universe would eventually emerge. A place with such a concentration of matter/energy and a gravitational pull so great that not even light could escape.
    "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". Waters, which have been detected in interstellar clouds throughout the cosmos and would also have been contained within the singularity itself in some form. And the effect of this movement by God, suddenly caused the singularity within to emerge from the deep black hole.
    "And God said, let there be light". And time, space and matter came into existence as the universe was created and expanded in what science refers to as The Big Bang event. The earth is given form and void and the first day from God’s perspective of time, in our universe, has begun.
    "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters and let the waters gather unto one place to be called seas and let the dry land appear". Science tells us that water has been detected in interstellar clouds that exist in all the galaxies which were divided by great distances. Science also reveals that water contained in asteroids and comets bombarded the early earth and brought much of the water that makes up our seas and that there was a super continent that appeared called Pangea.
    "And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth". Science tells us that the first living micro-organism was literally Created (formed) from the earth (perhaps from a clay called montmorillonite), evolved, and eventually began the process of photosynthesis (cyanobacteria, the seed from which grasses and trees would evolve) that was needed to generate an atmosphere rich enough in oxygen to allow higher forms of creatures to evolve.
    "And God said, let there be lights in the firmament, and let them be for seasons, days and years". Science has revealed that the moon did indeed form after the earth from the debris of a collision between the already existing earth and another body. Also, the earth and the sun are so close in age that the earth may in fact have existed before our sun had gathered enough mass to ignite. The early cratering we see on the planets and moons throughout our solar system may have been the result of material being drawn into the center of our solar system as our proto-sun took on enough mass to ignite. Also we cannot measure the date of a piece of the sun like we can the moon, therefore the age of the sun is purely theoretical.
    "And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, birds and whales". Paleontology tells us that this is what happened starting from the Pre-Cambrian through the Cambrian Periods, as many creatures were brought forth from the oceans unto the landmasses where insects, amphibians, reptiles and mammals evolved . And later birds and whales would evolve from these.
    "And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, creeping things and beasts of the earth". Again paleontology tells us that this is what happened, as a great diversification of mammals occurred following the extinction of the dinosaurs, which led to the modern day cattle and beasts that we see today .
    "And God said, let us make man in our image both male and female and let them have dominion over the earth". And finally we see again that anthropology confirms that man did indeed evolve in only the most recent geological period.
    Now, moving on to the next chapter, Genesis 2, we find that God has made one of the completed modern humans into a living soul. It does not say that Adam was the first man, it merely describes what occurred from the beginning. As the earth formed, there was no rain. Then a mist went up from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. The first organism was created. It evolved and eventually became man. Our dna can be traced all the way back to that one original organism. Adam evolved from a previous hominid that evolved from a previous primate, that evolved from a previous mammal, that evolved from a previous reptile, that evolved from a previous amphibian, fish, worm, bacterium all the way back to that one original organism that was “quite literally” formed (Created) from the clays of the earth.
    God then transforms an environment to the east, from a dry barren place, into the garden of Eden. He then causes this man to migrate east, out of Africa into the Middle East. And the animals that God had formed followed, as well. Y -Chromosome studies confirm that all living males alive today are descendant from a male ancestor that once lived in the area of the Middle East approximately 60,000 years ago.
    God then creates Eve from Adam. In the previous chapter, God had created both man and woman together. These can be seen as our prehistoric ancestors who evolved up to the time of the completed modern human, Adam. It is likely that it was from one of these earlier tribes of people that Cain‘s wife came from (the land of Nod). But here we must take a leap of faith. For Eve, according to the account, definitely did not evolve. She was a special creation. Formed, by God himself, from the genetic material that was removed from Adam. One has to wonder where the ancient authors of this account came up with such an incredible story ? Of course, today the account is not so incredible. We see that modern day scientists are conducting genetic cloning research, where they take a piece of genetic material from one animal and create an almost exact replica of that animal. We may one day ourselves develop the technology to remove the genetic material, (two X chromosomes) from a male human to create a female human. And if we can do that, it’s not that difficult to believe that God could have done it, as well.
    Now that I have laid out the case for the scientific evidence supporting the events described in the ancient accounts of Genesis, let us consider whether the scientific evidence supports the alternative theories. For example, that Nature formed life from the earth through natural chemical processes without guidance of any Intelligent Being and that Nature forms life on other worlds wherever the right conditions exist. We also have to consider the theory of Panspermia, where life formed somewhere other than earth and traveled here through space inside meteors, asteroids or comets and seeded the early earth with living organisms. The Miller Urey experiments showed that some of the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) can form naturally from naturally occurring conditions. Another scientist by the name of Sydney Fox was able to create what he called replicating proto-cells from these amino acids that appear to mimic some of the basic functions of a living organism. However, none of these naturally created building blocks or proto-cells are considered by the science community to be living organisms. Biochemists have never been able to replicate the formation of life, which is called Abiogenesis. Nor have they ever observed it occurring in nature. The fact is, as far as we know, life formed only once, one afternoon, only on earth, approximately 3.7 billion years ago and has never been replicated since ! Every living thing alive today evolved from that one original organism that was initially formed. Also, no life has ever been detected outside the planet earth. The two Viking Lander missions in 1975 tested the Martian soil at two separate locations and neither one detected any signs of life. No life has been found in any of the hundreds of meteorite samples that have fallen to earth. Even the most famous Antarctic meteorite from Mars could not be confirmed to contain life by the science community. Further, no atmospheric signatures of life have ever been detected in any of the atmospheres of the other planets or moons in our solar system. And from deep space, no signal has ever been detected from any extraterrestrial origin by SETI in over 50 years of searching.
    Now consider for a moment, the capabilities of life here on earth. Once life was created here, it has never been extinguished completely. It has adapted and survived every cataclysmic event that has ever occurred on earth. It has the capacity to adapt and survive in every extreme environment. It has even survived the harsh environment of space on the outside of our spacecraft ! Yet we find not even a hint of it anywhere else? Where is the diversity of life on Mars, as we see it here on earth ? Spirit and Opportunity gave us microscopic images from the soils on Mars. We saw nothing. There can be only one reason why we see no diversity of life on Mars. It never formed there ! If we could demonstrate life forming from naturally occurring chemistry here on earth it would all but prove that life is forming elsewhere. But we can’t ! At least, we haven’t been able too yet !
    But the facts remain, currently, the scientific evidence supports the creation of life on earth according to Genesis MORE than any of the other theories ! Yet the United States Judicial system, which is supposed to be NEUTRAL in matters of religion and protect our rights of free speech and guarantee the free expression of idea’s, has ruled that it is illegal to teach the POSSIBILITY that life was Intelligently Designed ?

    December 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      If "And from deep space, no signal has ever been detected from any extraterrestrial origin by SETI in over 50 years of searching." is valid evidence against theories opposing creationism, then the fact that there is no verifiable, independent, objective, factual evidence for any supernatural being after more than 2,000+ years of claims and searching should speak volumes about the nonexistence of any gods.

      December 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
      • Jim

        The fact that WE have only been transmitting and searching for extraterrestrial communications for a little over a half century does not explain away the fact that space is completely silent, when it should be filled with OTHER communications from the billions of other extraterrestrial civilization's that have been transmitting for billions of years, if life has bee forming naturally everywhere in the universe.

        December 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
        • igaftr

          there is so much wrong with this is truly is not funny.
          Some people really do need to have others think for them.

          December 11, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
      • joe459

        If "The fact there there is no independent, objective evidence for God" is true then there should be volumes disproving any creation, purpose, or cause to the universe, and therefore new textbooks throwing out "the law of conservation of mass."
        Might as well throw out all textbooks with a logical cause/effect sequence.

        December 11, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Also, the above treatise is posted without identifying the author. It seems to be something right-wing creationists pass around on Facebook as if it's the absolute truth. Anyone know who wrote it originally or if it has been debunked?

      December 10, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
      • Jim

        I am the author of the treatise. My references were the King James Bible, the Encyclopedia Britannica and Discover Magazine.

        December 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          I don't know how you could ignore the evidence that contradicts the biblical story – which is all evidence that we have. There is no evidence to support the biblical creation myth.

          December 10, 2013 at 10:28 pm |
    • god the father

      You ahve NO IDEA what you are talking about. There is no EVIDENCE for Intelligent design and in fact all the EVIDENCE is against it! All the scholars on the topic of Intelligent design are in agreement. This is why it isn't allowed in public schools...get it???? Ther is NO support for your claims. Quit lying for jesus already...you people look worst than foolish.

      December 10, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
      • Paul

        Where does information come from?

        December 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Salero21

      That's why I keep reminding atheists so they remember and never forget; that atheism is Total stupidity forevermore.

      December 10, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
      • Jim

        The atheists could turn out to be right. The current scientific evidence however, does not favor their belief. And it should !

        December 10, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Which scientific evidence specifically goes against the naturalistic universe? Please cite your sources.

          December 12, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
        • Jim

          To Piccolo. The inability to replicate the process of Abiogenesis is the evidence against the "naturalistic" creation of life in the universe. There are many sources. Look them up. Yes, we have discovered some processes that MAY lead one day to the discovery of your belief, hypothesis, theory or whatever choose to call it. And when you have it, I will agree that God is not necessary.

          December 12, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, and parts of it have already been duplicated in a lab. Obviously you do not know too much about the scientific method or using correct logic, Jim. Please, by all means, tell me how many experiments can be done to verify god? Thus far, 3 have suggested abiogenesis, which is a heck of a lot more than the experiments that suggest god (zero). Just because scientists don't yet know the entire picture, does not make god correct. Just because they haven't duplicated the entire process of abiogenesis, does not make it false. If it does, then you absolutely have to say god is false as well for the same reason. But I'd bet the farm that you won't admit it or even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. The truth of the matter is that we don't know the exact origins of life, and until we do, commenting about whether or not god exists is illogical. That's why I'm agnostic, although atheism is still the logical default since not one single experiment in the history of man (and all these ICR, AIG, ID companies) has ever suggested that the earth was created. Your logic is a gross misrepresentation of how science works. You don't prove negatives, you try to figure out how things work.

          December 13, 2013 at 10:54 am |
        • Jim

          To Piccolo: I'd bet the farm that it is you who could never admit that you might be wrong. I stated above in a couple of post that I am prepared to admit that folks like you might be right and that I am wrong. My mind is open, yours is not. And that is why you keep insisting that I don't understand science and logic. The thing is, neither you nor I, are "The Arbiter" of science and logic. Human's have a God given right to conduct science in search of any idea they choose. I have never suggested that the search for the answers to abiogenesis be halted. You, on the other hand, insist that science is somehow PROHIBITED from considering the possibility of Intelligent Design when in fact, science has already proven that new organism's can and have been Intelligently Designed by man. Not from scratch of course, but "Intelligently Designed" nonetheless. So it is your "logic" that science cannot investigate the possibility of I.D. that seems to be in question.

          December 14, 2013 at 11:25 am |
        • Piccolo

          I already mentioned that I'm agnostic, did I not? I'm perfectly willing to accept god, should the evidence arise, but I don't believe anything blindly. You were suggesting that since science has only duplicated 3 parts of abiogenesis, that it counts as scientific evidence AGAINST the hypothesis because they haven't done the entire thing yet, when in reality all 3 experiments are evidence FOR abiogenesis. It hasn't been proven yet, but scientists are getting closer and closer. It's a work in process and hasn't been falsified or confirmed yet. To suggest that this means all the evidence points away from a naturalistic universe, is flat out dishonest. And what if god intentionally used the process of abiogenesis to create life? People keep thinking that abiogenesis or evolution go against god, but they only do if you follow a literal fundamentalist view of the bible (which is silly given the amount of times it has been rewritten and translated). Fundamentalism is the ONLY reason people denounce science and twist the evidence to fit their narrow worldview.

          December 16, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
      • The Truth

        That's why Salero21 keeps reminding atheists so they remember and never forget; that Salero21 is Total stupidity forevermore.

        December 10, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
    • god the father

      Your opening remark is totally flawed in the first paragraph sentence 2 Chapter 1 is described entirely from God’s perspective of time, not man’s.
      Now how would you know that even this LIMITED description is god's perspective of time...not man's? I know I know...because it says so.....and if that's your proof you are totally out to lunch because every other word you state falls on a seriously flawe and faulty foundation. PERIOD!

      December 10, 2013 at 7:50 pm |
    • bacbik

      Too long... too much BS.. not as entertaining as 'The Meaning of Life'...

      December 10, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      That was pretty interesting Jim. Would you mind if I used some of your thoughts on occassion?

      December 11, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
      • Science Works

        Wow RB need more ammo – mary ?

        December 11, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • molina29

      By spiritual joy, I do not mean simply the joy of pious people, for all their joy does It is that holy peace which is the result of Divine truth—understood, believed, All of us carry around in the back of our head this mysterious other world. The One Who carries you in heart with love and joy I shall deliver the message to all.
      Where everybody enjoys both peace and abundance, that this is my idea of perfect bliss of all creations, is of its own sole Self light, in all around him to distinguish the real from the unreal, Sunday like righteousness and peace sealed eternally with an enchanted kiss. Only the joy found in Christ can carry us through trial, tragedy, and temptation to eternal triumph.
      But after all he is not God; he is a human still and he falls back to the old these flashes of light, peace, bliss, and understanding are brief but they have the intended effect. There is no pleasure in this or in the other world equal to the joy of being helpful to those around you. Or soul but a dark peace had been established between them.
      That was the Light of Allah, flowing, illuminating and penetrating all around. And indeed experience only the Bliss of His Love! Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will to all many say to my soul, there is no salvation for him in his God. My heart is troubled; my strength has failed me; and the light of my eyes, saying: your wailing and crying, and receive smiling joy with comfort. Our stories in the night the salvation of a King a star bright Work is their play for the joy they will bring a baby boy was born with all around. Thus Peace carries with it personality. There is an inversion of relative values.
      The Holy Spirit is the mechanism of miracles. He recognises both God's creations and your illusions. He separates the true from the false by His ability to perceive totally rather than selectively.
      The great saints of the time were very fond of discussing ethical ideals. In the streets, in the taverns and public places, men gathered to apply their concentrated minds on the great question of what ought to be considered as good and right, and what as evil and wrong. Many religions flourished in Bethlehem during this time. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and Muslim were the most popular. The caste system had not yet taken root. There was freedom of thought, ideas were readily and easily exchanged, and men were willing to listen patiently to points of view that differed from their own.
      Every question will help bring illumination to all of us. God's inner joy is the source of all our happiness, all our which dwells in unapproachable light, which no one has ever seen or can see. Come thou, and reign over us. King, and in carrying out this conspiracy, all the sons of his father’s born for ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace.
      We were born to struggle and to wrestle. To struggle and wrestle within ourselves, our beliefs, with those in the world, and yes, even with God. We’re challenged to prove it’s true in that which we think we know.

      We don’t have all the answers. But God does. I know that in all things a good and loving God is in control. In His time, and in His Way, he is working out not just my Salvation (in Christ) but also my issues, problems, deepest longings, and dreams.
      How do we get back to true? How do we turn around? How do we get better? How do we heal?
      It’s simple, but hard: We let go and let God. We struggle to get set free as we realize by letting go, we already are.
      You already know this. I do too. We just need to be reminded sometimes.
      When you know that you know that you know that you are loved by the Creator of the Universe and He has it all under control , despite your feelings today, He will bring you home, to Him, to the love that He has for you, and He has planted inside you, waiting to be poured out, spilling over the brim, in order to bless others.
      You too are loved. Believe it. Now live it.
      But if the Christian hope destroys the presumption in futuristic movements, then it does so not for its own sake, but in order to destroy in these hopes the seeds of resignation, which emerge at the latest with the ideological reign of terror in the utopias in which the hoped-for reconciliation with existence becomes an enforced reconciliation. This, however, brings the movements of historic change within the range of the novum ultimum of hope.
      They are taken up into the Christian hope and carried further. They become precursory, and therewith provisional, movements. Their goals fixity and become provisional, penultimate, and hence flexible goals.
      Over against impulses of this kind that seek to give direction to the history of mankind, Christian hope rigidly given and itself with of the status quo. It is itself summoned and empowered to creative transformation of reality, for it has hope for the whole of reality. Finally, the believing hope will itself provide inexhaustible resources for the creative, inventive imagination of love.
      It constantly provokes and produces thinking of an anticipatory kind in love to man and the world, in order to give shape to the newly dawning possibilities in the light of the promised future, in order as far as possible to create here the best that is possible, because what is promised is within the bounds of possibility.
      Thus it will constantly arouse the ‘passion for the possible’, inventiveness in self-transformation, in breaking with the old and coming to terms with the new. Always the Christian hope has had a revolutionary effect in this sense on the intellectual history of the society affected by it.
      No one can know true happiness if he is not a partaker of the divine nature. all that we're going to learn here in this portion of Scripture is for Christians. It is for those who believe in the Lord God. It is for those who have come to God through faith in Jesus Christ. It is for those who have come to the cross to obtain forgiveness for sin and to receive the gift not only of righteousness imputed, but the gift of a new nature, the divine nature and can thereby enter in to true and divine happiness. Once a person comes to know God through Christ, then comes this happiness.

      December 21, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
  3. Jesse

    How most discussions about creationism go with christians:

    Christian: Science is WRONG! Read the Bible!
    Me: Why is science wrong? explain
    Christian: Because!
    Me: Because why?
    Christian: Because F$%K YOU that's why!

    December 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Piccolo

      Christian: God is real! There is evidence everywhere!
      Agonstic: Oh yeah, can you cite some of this?
      Christian: Yeah just look at a tree and at nature! It's so beautiful it HAS to be created! You honestly believe your grandpa was a monkey?
      Agnostic:
      Christian: Thanks for proving that atheism is pure stupidity. How can you believe that stuff?
      Agnostic: So you have scientific evidence for your side?
      Christian: Stop attacking my faith!!!!

      December 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
      • Piccolo

        Christian: God is real! There is evidence everywhere!
        Agonstic: Oh yeah, can you cite some of this?
        Christian: Yeah just look at a tree and at nature! It's so beautiful it HAS to be created! You honestly believe your grandpa was a monkey?
        Agnostic: (gives the christian a scientific research paper docu_menting genetic evolutionary changes in recent history)
        Christian: Thanks for proving that atheism is pure stupidity. How can you believe that stuff?
        Agnostic: So you have scientific evidence for your side?
        Christian: Stop attacking my faith!!!!

        FiXED

        December 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
  4. Dave Scoven

    Yes, well – that's very cute, except for the fact that we aren't wrong and we know it. All something like that does is make us laugh at the silliness and sad at the wasted money that could have gone to help a family in need at Christmas time.

    December 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
  5. Science Works

    Merry Christmas (early) creationists by the way can you have your god(s) take a selfie and post the link to show the ancients below ?

    New Fossil Species Found in Mozambique Reveals New Data On Ancient Mammal Relatives

    Dec. 4, 2013 — In the remote province of Niassa, Mozambique, a new species and genus of fossil vertebrate was found. The species is a distant relative of living mammals and is approximately 256 million years old. This new species belongs to a group of animals called synapsids. Synapsida includes a number of extinct lineages that dominated the communities on land in the Late Permian (260-252 million years ago), as well as living mammals and their direct ancestors.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131204181813.htm

    December 9, 2013 at 7:39 am |
    • Paul

      New Fossil Species Found in Mozambique Reveals New Data On Ancient Mammal Relatives

      The ti.tle of the article is a reification fallacy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

      December 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
      • redzoa

        1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?

        and;

        2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?

        Again, I understand these are complex questions and so I appreciate your taking the time to really think about them in order to provide a well-reasoned response. In the mean time, however, feel free to attack the simpler question of how did the fossil record come to be arranged in a progressive order, i.e. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds?

        I continue to patiently look forward to your responses . . .

        December 9, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
      • Science Works

        Wow Paul going after the ti-tle and not the fossils or the age of said fossils too funny.

        Just wondering Paul where you homeschooled ?

        December 10, 2013 at 8:54 am |
        • Science Works

          *were*

          December 10, 2013 at 9:39 am |
        • Paul

          "Just wondering Paul where you homeschooled ?"

          Nope. I attended public school.

          "Wow Paul going after the ti-tle and not the fossils or the age of said fossils too funny."

          The ti.tle is clearly an indication that what follows is someone's interpretation of the evidence. Read the article and tell me if you can separate the evidence from someone's interpretation of the evidence.

          December 11, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Paul – Perhaps you'd care to guide us by dissecting the evidence from the interpretation? Better still, you could enlighten us with your preferred interpretation of how this particular fossil came to be found in that particular strata and how it came to bear those particular features? If you were really ambitious, you could skip directly to the original publication:
          http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080974

          Still curious why you keep avoiding the following questions. This perpetual evasion certainly doesn't bolster your credibility as one truly interested in any actual discussion of the subject matter. What interpretation should one make of your refusal to respond?

          1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?

          and;

          2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?

          And, as always, if these questions are a little too uncomfortable for you, there's still that progressive order of the fossil record to tackle . . .

          December 11, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
  6. Danny

    I also just noticed that the billboard is above Chevy's restaurant. Promoting a fake god over a restaurant that serves fake Mexican food? They know how to go after the delusional demographic.

    December 8, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
  7. Danny

    How is a billboard any different than one of those condescending marquees sitting in front of a church? The definition of insanity? Trying he same thing over and over, expecting to yield a different result.

    December 8, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
  8. Danny

    Oh No it's a billboard! Hide yo kids hide yo wives and yo husbands too.

    December 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
    • Matthew

      Haha!

      December 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
  9. Robert

    To quote Paul Washer:

    "We hypocritically applaude men for seeking the truth, but call for the pubic execution of any man who believes he has found it. We live in a self-imposed dark age because man is a fallen creature, morally corrupt and hell-bent on autonomy. He hates God because God is righteous and he hates God’s laws because they censor him and restrict his evil. He hates the truth because it exposes him and troubles what is left of his conscience. Therefore, fallen man seeks to push the truth as far from him as he can possibly remove it. He will go to any extent to suppress the truth, even to the point of pretending there is no such thing as truth or that if it does exist, it cannot be known or have any bearing on our lives. Realize this about the Gospel: it is never a case of a hiding God, but a hiding man. The problem is never the intellect, but the will. The Bible gives no room for Atheism; there are liars and God-haters who push the truth out of their minds, but there are no such things as Atheists. The Christian Gospel does the one thing that Man most hopes to avoid: it awakens him from his self-imposed slumber to the reality of his falleness and rebellion, and calls him to reject autonomity and submit to God in repentant faith in Jesus Christ."

    December 8, 2013 at 7:13 pm |
    • Billy

      Wordy little snake-charmer.

      December 8, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Robert, you assign the motivations you find most convenient to those who don't believe in your god. But the fact is almost everyone lives by a constraining ethical system, and atheists are no different. Visit any group of humanists, unitarians, marxists or Buddhists and you'll find ethics that may be different from your own, but are every bit as strong and in their own ways constricting.

      December 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I thought I might find a place to admit to God my fallen-ness and end my rebellion. No church would accept my surrender. I looked at a military recruitment center and asked around bars at the local Navy base. Various mall kiosks. I may try the Government Information Office.

      December 8, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
      • RadRev

        Did you get bounced from healthcare.gov, too?

        December 9, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • tallulah13

      A lot of people claim to have found "the truth". A rational person saves his/her praise for the person who can actually prove that they found "the truth". Liars and madmen don't deserve to be rewarded for their lies or their madness. Until you can actually prove that your god exists, your claims don't actually deserve praise - or even serious consideration.

      December 8, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
    • Logical default

      "He hates God because God is righteous and he hates God’s laws because they censor him and restrict his evil. He hates the truth because it exposes him and troubles what is left of his conscience. Therefore, fallen man seeks to push the truth as far from him as he can possibly remove it."

      Wow, what an idiot! Funny how he calls it "truth" when he can't prove a word of it. Yeah, it's all because of those "god haters" (how do you even hate something you don't believe in?) want to do evil things. Maybe if he could prove his "Truth", he'd have a point, but it's a pure guess, and the lengths people go to defend this guess are downright comical.

      December 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • PC

      Great piece. It summarizes it all. God doesn't owe any man any prove. Men have lived by natural laws and processes that have never been proven yet they don't question those things, but for God.....they just won't take it. We all know the source of rebellion against God. I mean, it's so uniform all around the world. They all sound the same; cursing, mocking, always VERY angry when they hear anything about God. They may keep shouting; it is obvious they talk so loudly to silence the gentle voice that keeps whispering to them "what if you're wrong and you have to face God when you die?". I can imagine it must be a hard life; being so angry at what you believe does not exist. Anyway, God is so patient and kind. We who believe God cannot say we are better humans. God loves us all and His arms are always open as long as there is breath

      December 9, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
      • Piccolo

        Could you please provide examples of the natural laws that man has lived by that have not been questioned? How does that even make sense. You know what a law is, right? Humans are an inquisitive species. They want answers for everything. If something cannot be answered, they'll make up something comforting to fill the gap. This is a historical fact and its been happening for a long time. Yes, if god is going to judge my life based on a guess on which god is correct, then he DOES ABSOLUTELY owe me proof of his existence. I mean, he's all powerful and can't even stop by to say hello? Really?

        December 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
  10. People we lost in 2013

    Darwinian Evolution

    1882-2013

    R.I.P!

    December 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • redzoa

      Apparently, every major academic/governmental research insti-tution, every notable professional scientific organization and all the private for-profit biomedical, agricultural, geological industries failed to get this memo. It' hard to imagine how they all continue to survive given they base their efforts on such foundationally-flawed science. Talk about improbable.

      Question: In light of the failure of mainstream science in light of the superior propositions of ID/creationism, I was wondering if you could tell me how many patents have been awarded to the Discovery Inst-itute, AIG or ICR? Given all that groundbreaking "research" one would think at least one or two useful innovations have been developed?

      December 8, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Earth

      Mourning is a hard thing to do, hold firm to your faith, coz that's all you've got for now in the absence of evidence.
      Ultimately science will align itself to what is the written word of God, it is the source of truth and it will prevail!

      December 8, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
      • PC

        Nice. Talking about truth. Science never tells the truth. It only tells us facts. New facts emerge and defeat former ones changing the directions of those whose lives depend on "the findings". The bible offers the truth. All facts will ultimately add up to this truth in magnitude and direction. But you know the bible's claim to truth is so strong that you have to make a choice to either believe it or oppose it eventually. Believing it is too costly for puny man in his pride.

        December 9, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Hilarious. You refer to that as "truth" yet have no evidence whatsoever to support that view. Good ol' creationists, scaring people away from religion since 100 AD. They outta make that a T-shirt.

          December 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • tallulah13

      1. Darwinian evolution is not a person. 2. You claiming that Darwinian evolution is "lost" has no bearing on reality. It just means that you are uncomfortable with fact that contradicts what you want to believe, therefore you are willing to lie about it in a vain and childish effort to wish it away.

      December 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm |
    • Frank

      “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
      JW. Valentine

      December 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
      • Logical default

        Just curious, do you ever post your own ideas or just quote mine others?

        December 9, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Logical default

      Modern Evolutionary Synthesis: 1950-infinite

      LOL at referencing Darwin. He was the very first to mention evolution. Since then the theory has evolved and been confirmed. Everything predicted by it has happened. No credible scientist even debates it anymore. The evidence is overwhelming. Nice try playing the semantics trap by invoking Darwin. That's like referencing Thomas Edison when talking about the problems with modern electric power plants.

      December 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • AndyB

      In America maybe. The rest of the Western world are still reading new books.

      December 9, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
      • Piccolo

        Even in America its a small percentage of folks (less than 30%) that actually believe the science is false. That percentage is shrinking every day because more people are researching things, rather than believing them blindly.

        December 12, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
  11. Jim

    The facts remain, currently the scientific evidence supports the creation of life on earth by God in a single event that occurred appx. 3.9 billion years ago, only on earth, using the natural resources that God created from the earth, which culminated in the eventual formation of man MORE than any other theories of extraterrestrialist's. And Governments, Scientists, Atheists and Secular Fundamentalist's FEAR this truth, cannot prove otherwise and attempt to use any means necessary through force, laws or what they call "peer review" to prevent people from discovering this truth.

    December 7, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Street Epistemologist In Training

      How do you know that what you perceive as facts are, in fact, facts?

      December 7, 2013 at 11:43 am |
      • Jim

        Allow me to revise: The CURRENT scientifically known facts.

        December 7, 2013 at 11:49 am |
        • Street Epistemologist In Training

          And allow me to ask again, "How do you know that what you perceive as facts are, in fact, facts?"

          December 7, 2013 at 11:54 am |
        • Science Works

          Please post the source .

          December 7, 2013 at 11:55 am |
        • Logical default

          You are calling god creating life a scientific fact? Really? Prove it.

          December 9, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
      • Matthew

        Natural design, the logic and power of displayed in creation, is, to me, a powerful argument for a God. However, just because we can see logic, power, "natural coding", etc., found in our magnificant creation (just google "25 everyday things seen under a microscope") does not prove that the God of the Bible exists. The Word of God itself, the cohesiveness of all the Books, archeological verifications of data found in the Bible, the dating of the scrolls proving it's multiple authors spanning over 2000 years, historical civilizations and accounts verified in history, etc. all are evidence for the claim that Scripture is the Word of God. However, there is no "evidence" beyond Scripture to conclusively validate the truths of Scripture. The Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Trinity) enables us to believe the Word of God which is the basis for all true knowledge. No human reason or logic can come to absolue true knowledge unless that knowledge is given by God.

        December 7, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
        • Logical default

          "The Word of God itself, the cohesiveness of all the Books, archeological verifications of data found in the Bible, the dating of the scrolls proving it's multiple authors spanning over 2000 years, historical civilizations and accounts verified in history, etc. all are evidence for the claim that Scripture is the Word of God."

          Um, no. That's like saying JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy can be verified by archeological findings (hobbits have been found and proven to have existed), and that it's the direct Word of God. The bible was written by man. Of course it will reference some real cities and places, however you cannot prove a single supernatural aspect of ANY of the stories. The gospels have been verified to have been written decades after the alleged death of Jesus by folks that DID NOT witness the events. It's hearsay, nothing more.

          December 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • Matthew

        As far as faith goes, there is much logical and empirical evidence (a few described in previous message) to substantiate many of the claims of Scripture. However, empirical evidence and science is faith based as well. The "knowledge" and "scientific evidence" (even the entomology and meaning of science contradicts those who call science observations "truth") people point to is unprovable and those who trust in the "truths" of science do so on faith. You trust in the scientists – man's ability to reason, human senses, etc. While the scientific method is awesome it does not give absolute "truth"...it observes and collects data. Then based on the faith that you have all the variables and factors accounted for, and the ability to do so...you postulate your theory. How many times has science backed tracked over the past milleniums. That is not truth and I don't see how science today is different from faith. You and I start out with assumptions (a priori)...that are unprovable (by human standards)...and we attempt as logically as we can to determine "truth". So to be fair, this generation has faith in man's ability...that seems incredible considering how ignorant we really are and considering our limitations to determine fact in science. How about this...do you believe in an eternal God who has no beginning and no end...who made all things. Or, do you believe in eternal matter which exploided into what we now know as existence...who was the First Mover? Something had to be, right.

        December 7, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
        • kingnear

          I think your critique of human knowledge is correct, but also a straw man.

          As a species we can observe, reason from collected data, build a theory, and revise on new data. Sometimes we even need to change the data as many of our measurements are constructed by current/past knowledge. So yes, our knowledge is limited, but it is also highly scrutinized and often functional. We can treat illnesses, build new technology, and sometimes (rarely) even solve social issues. We can also change our minds based on new information. Working knowledge so to say.

          While some absolute truth sure sounds better, how can we achieve such knowledge? Believe what we are told by those who claim to know it through esoteric means? That hardly seems like an improvement.

          It comes across like a snake oil salesman who says, wow that's great that you can cure polio, but can you cure death? Buy my oil!

          December 8, 2013 at 12:08 am |
        • Matthew

          I definitely agree with your statement of our knowledge being functional. I believe that to be a blessing from God. But, and as you also stated, our knowledge is limited, finite and often subject to error. And that is mainly my point...you have faith in "man"...human reason, progressive, the "scientific method", our ability to quantify/collect data, etc.,...anc I have faith in God. As yet, no one can answer my last statement on eternity of matter and eternity of God and the beginning of creation. So when I hear people mock us christians when it comes to a belief system based on faith...Well me and everyone else, christian or non-christian. The non-christian scientists starts out with "a priori", presuppositional beliefs just as we christians....it's just not the Bible but human reason and man's supposed, flawed abilities. 

           I don't expect to change anyone's mind based on this argumentation...because that would be depending on my ability to reason and your ability to understand and believe. But I use the means (communication, logic, etc) God has given me to provide you with the truth God has given us in His Word. He alone gives knowledge and understanding as He sees fit. But I do hope and pray sir, that you consider and turn to God as we are sinners with only 2 paths ahead of us. That is truth.

          December 8, 2013 at 12:49 am |
        • Piccolo

          You don't seem to understand what counts as empirical fact. There is no objective evidence for a god, or godlike being. There is no objective evidence that the earth was created or that life was created. This is an assumption. You shouldn't use terminology that you don't understand. Funny how you scrutinize science because it is updated as new facts are discovered, while you fail to mention that the bible never gets updated when proven wrong. Sorry pal, no evidence is no evidence.

          December 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
      • Street Epistemologist In Training

        Anyone seen any facts from Jim yet?

        December 8, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Jim

      Current scientific and historical evidence are my source.

      December 7, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
      • Science Works

        You from Texas by chance Jim ?

        December 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
        • Jim

          Born at Fort Devens in Massachusetts, raised in Lawrence, Massachusetts, currently living on the coast in Kittery, Maine. A conservative living in the northeast bastion liberalism. I like to think of myself as the diamond shining out of the goats ass !

          December 7, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
        • Science Works

          So that is why you feel way Jim – you seem to have the dreaded bent DOVERISM complex

          December 8, 2013 at 7:36 am |
        • Science Works

          *feel that way *

          December 8, 2013 at 7:49 am |
        • Logical default

          Ah, so you are a Patriots fan. That explains everything.

          December 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
      • Street Epistemologist In Training

        "Current scientific and historical evidence are my source." is pretty broad. Perhaps you could pick your "big 3" items of evidence and how you know they are truly facts.

        December 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • Jim

          Big 3 reasons. I'll give you 5. 1. All efforts to demonstrate abiogenesis have so far failed, indicating that life does not form all that naturally and likely may require the intervention of a Creator. 2. No life has been found in any meteorite samples or detected on any of the planets or moons in our solar system. 3. No communications detected from any other star systems in our galaxy or any other. 4. The ancient account of Genesis describes pretty much the sequence of what happened from the beginning of time, to the formation of man on earth several thousand years before modern science revealed it. 5. Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

          December 7, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Sorry Jim–but if these are your top 5, this amounts to one massive fail.

          1. This is an argument from ignorance. We don't know yet how abiogenesis happened. There are millions of ways it could have happened. One day we may discover how. What will happen to your God belief then if you're still around? Will you admit God is most likely a fiction, or will you move the goal posts? Remember at one time, people believed the sun was a god. What other explanation was there? This is why ignorance is a really bad place to argue God from.

          2. No life has been found in meteorites? And this is an argument for the existence of God? There are billions and billions of stars in the Milky Way along, and trillions of galaxies in this universe, and there may be other universes. We have only sampled a very incredibly tiny, tiny, tiny sample of just meteorites, and have only sent rovers to one other planet. And even if we don't find life–how does this prove a God? If anything, it's evidence against God, because it shows the universe is hostile to life, and not intelligently designed at all.

          3. Similar problem. We've only been listening for about 50 years. Do you know what fraction that is of the age of the Universe? This also takes only out to the closest star. All this shows us is that no on at Alpha Centauri is transmitting in our direction.

          4. Genesis is WAY different from how things came about! Genesis gives a timeline of only 6 days. Even if we are generous and say each day represents 2 billion years or so, the rise of man would not take place until less than a second before midnight on the 6th day. Genesis also has the Earth forming before the stars, and light also appearing before the stars, and there are many other big problems. The timeline for everything is way off. He has Eve made from a rib of Adam. I could go on and on. This enough should persuade any rational person not wedded to dogmatic religion that the Bible is just stories.

          5. Occams Razor favors the nonexistence of God. There's no evidence for his existence, and the universe we observe does not favor the God claim. Intercessory prayer has been shown to fail in tested conditions. The universe is clearly not intelligently designed. No sign of a benevolent, all-powerful God.

          December 7, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Jim, let me give you the real top 5 reasons why people believe in God. I won't attribute these to you, because that would be unfair since I don't know you. This is what I have observed among many theists, but they would never say it this way.

          1) I was indoctrinated as a child, and this has been reinforced my whole life through my family, community and church. Usually phrased as "I was raised a Christian".

          2) "I have FAITH. And NOTHING can shake my faith"

          3) Fear of death, and the seductive promise of being told they will live forever in a paradise, with the equally seductive promise that you'll be reunited with all your loved ones.

          December 7, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Jim, let me give you the real top 5 reasons why people believe in God. I won't attribute these to you, because that would be unfair since I don't know you. But think. When did you start believing? What made you start believing? Whoever indoctrinated you or converted you–did they use meteorites to convince you? This is what I have observed among many theists, but they would never say it this way.

          1) I was indoctrinated as a child, and this has been reinforced my whole life through my family, community and church. Usually phrased as "I was raised a Christian".

          2) "I have FAITH. And NOTHING can shake my faith"

          3) Fear of death, and the seductive promise of being told they will live forever in a paradise, with the equally seductive promise that you'll be reunited with all your loved ones. The most extraordinary and unverified promise ever.

          4) Fear of Hell. I've had theists say that they no longer really believed, but were terrified of going to Hell. So many struggle with this for years, trying to believe the unbelievable, terrified of being wrong. The most extraordinary and unverified threat ever.

          5) Intellectual laziness with some theists. God dunnit. That's all they need to know. It's just easier to believe in a god, than study how things really work.

          December 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
        • Street Epistemologist In Training

          Dandintac has done a better job of responding to each of your points than I could.

          What do you need to introduce a god into your beliefs and explanations? Are you pretending to know things you don't? Isn't "I don't know?" a more rational and honest answer than "God did it?"

          December 7, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
        • Logical default

          "1. All efforts to demonstrate abiogenesis have so far failed, indicating that life does not form all that naturally and likely may require the intervention of a Creator."

          That's a lie. There have been a few successful experiments related to abiogenesis, but surprise surprise, you aren't familiar with them. Scientists have a way to go to prove abiogenesis, but they have duplicated a few parts of the process and proven that comet impacts can create amino acids. And even if your claim was true, it still wouldn't prove a creator. God doesn't win by default because you can't prove every single exact step in a really complex process. You need actual evidence for god.

          "2. No life has been found in any meteorite samples or detected on any of the planets or moons in our solar system. "

          How does this prove god?

          "3. No communications detected from any other star systems in our galaxy or any other. "

          How does that prove god?

          You do realize that be able to hear communications from other star systems, it would take hundreds to thousands (in some cases millions) of years for the signal to even reach earth, and by the time it did it would have been so weak it would probably be unnoticeable? You keep basing your claim of god on things that we haven't discovered yet. What about direct evidence for god?

          "4. The ancient account of Genesis describes pretty much the sequence of what happened from the beginning of time, to the formation of man on earth several thousand years before modern science revealed it. "

          Prove it.

          "5. Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

          LOL! So an eternal god that just happens to always exist is a simple explanation? WOW.

          So basically not a single one of your items proves anything about god whatsoever.

          Epic fail. This is why creationists need to stick to their religion and talk about its benefits, instead of burying your head in the sand and ignoring proven science, while at the same time blindly believing a guess on what ancient people used to believe about god.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Jim – This hypothesis is fine (just like ID in general); however, it is untestable, makes no predictions and can't be falsified. It's really just a philosophical position; it's definitely not a scientific position. Abiogenesis, Panspermia, etc, are testable and we can look at the available physical evidence to discover plausible, testable, repeatable and most importantly, falsifiable mechanisms. It's the complete absence of mechanism in your hypothesis and complete focus on mechanism in the mainstream scientific models which distinguish them, and thereby render yours the inferior.

      December 7, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
      • Jim

        I disagree that the possibility of a Creator was needed in order for life to form on earth is untestable. It is quite testable and we have been testing it all along. And if for example, we continued for another billion years to try and prove abiogenesis can occur and fail. And if we could one day actually search the entire universe and discover that life only occurred once and only on earth. It would all but prove that God must have been responsible. Only the most stubbornness people would disagree.

        December 7, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
        • redzoa

          "It is quite testable and we have been testing it all along. And if for example, we continued for another billion years to try and prove abiogenesis can occur and fail."

          This betrays a miscomprehension of how science actually works. Science does not work by ruling out all alternatives and then reaching some conclusion by default as you suggest; because you can never know if/when you've ruled out all alternatives. That's why in science, we propose a hypothesis, and then attempt to produce positive evidence supporting that hypothesis, then we replicate it over and over again to see if the mechanism we've isolated and described continues to deliver.

          ID has no means to test its mechanism because its mechanism is supernatural and cannot be observed or measured. ID has no means to make predictions because we can never know when God or whatever will choose to act again or how it might choose to act. Lastly, arguing a wholly inaccessible mechanism is responsible for a given observation is a useless explanation, because "God did it" can explain any and every possible permutation of observation. An explanation that can explain anything and everything effectively explains nothing, because it cannot be falsified.

          Let's retrace. Your mechanism is supernatural and cannot be directly tested. Abiogenesis is purely natural and there is a solid body of research showing plausible mechanisms, but it might never provide a definitive "this is exactly how it happened." Between the two, only the later has positive supporting evidence. In other words, Abiogenesis is ahead simply because it can and has produced positive evidence. ID is stuck at zero until the supernatural designer decides to pop in and demonstrate the proposed mechanism. Your "testing" is a negative process invoking negative evidence. Again, it's a fine philosophical position, but like in Kitzmiller, it's not science, because, first, we can never know if we've ruled out all alternatives, and second, your default explanation cannot be falsified.

          December 8, 2013 at 12:20 am |
        • Logical default

          We've only been experimenting with abiogenesis for 50 years of our 200,000 year existence as a species. We have only recently even began experimenting on the particle level. You'll probably just poo poo that away, but your question poses a BIG IF. Too bad that doesn't prove anything.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Next to the definition of idiot in the dictionary, there must be a picture of Jim.

          December 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • Now that's just stupid...

      Seems that everyone is conspiring to hide the truth that you believe. Aren't you just a little paranoid?

      December 7, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
      • Jim

        No. Just defending an idea against a government that uses laws to shut down the free expression of idea's and debate. Kitzmiller vs Dover

        December 7, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
        • redzoa

          The government did not shut down ID. The plaintiffs, parents of children in the school district argued that ID is effectively a religious position and not a scientific one. The record clearly established the religious intent of the ID proponents on the school board and that ID is nothing more than the continuation of creation science (e.g. "cdesign proponentsists"). The pro-ID witnesses effectively conceded that ID is not science, rather it is a negative argument of incredulity based in an argument of ignorance with a false dichotomy tagged on (e.g. "evolution can't (currently" explain 'X,' therefore, God did it."). On the weight of the evidence as presented, Judge Jones (a conservative practicing Lutheran and G.W. Bush appointee) ruled correctly.

          The Discovery Insti-tute is still operating, Behe, Minnich, Meyer, Dembski, etc, all still have their jobs and are free to produce supporting evidence; but they don't. What they produce is just more negative arguments of incredulity based in arguments of ignorance with their preferred false dichotomy tagged on for good measure. ID is about public relations and apologetics, it's definitely not about science . . .

          December 8, 2013 at 12:33 am |
        • Jim

          redzoa, let me ask you this. Is the possibility of an extraterrestrial civilization coming to earth and depositing its Intelligently Designed organism here a "testable" proposition for science ?

          December 8, 2013 at 10:32 am |
        • igaftr

          Jim
          Your god hypothesis is not testible...one of the reasons it is a hypothesis and not a theory.

          You have no more verifiable corroborated evidence of your god than I have that we are in the matrix...both hypotheses and both with just as much to back it up.

          You really misrepresent science when you say you can test for your god or any of what you calim god created.
          No evidence does not mean god did it, or god didn't do it. It just means we do not know.
          Your god theory is one of an INFINITE number of other possibilities.
          Try looking at it without your god bias.

          December 8, 2013 at 10:41 am |
        • Jim

          Whether you want to call I.D. a hypothesis or a philosophy, "governments" have no authority to PROHIBIT its dissemination in an educational setting.

          December 8, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • urnotathinkerareu

          Does this mean I can bring "satanism" to schools as an educational topic? I can't do that anymore than anyone can bring ANY cult or religion into schools. They are both non veifiable via evidence. Wake up already!

          December 8, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
        • Street Epistemologist In Training

          Government does if the hypotheses is just religion in disguise, as was ruled.

          I don't have a problem with ID being discussed as part of a comparative religion class. In fact, I think that would be highly entertaining.

          December 8, 2013 at 10:54 am |
        • redzoa

          "redzoa, let me ask you this. Is the possibility of an extraterrestrial civilization coming to earth and depositing its Intelligently Designed organism here a "testable" proposition for science ?"

          No, it's not because we currently can't distinguish "apparent design" via evolution from "actual design" with the ETs. Furthermore, we currently don't have any means to verify interstellar travel of complex life forms. However, feel free to describe how you would propose testing it as I concede I may have missed something.

          December 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Whether you want to call I.D. a hypothesis or a philosophy, "governments" have no authority to PROHIBIT its dissemination in an educational setting."

          Actually, our government is required under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Consti-tution (incorporated to the individual states under the 14th Amendment) not to advance sectarian religious views. This is particularly true in the context of public schools where children are required to attend. The history of ID clearly shows that it cannot disentangle itself from its creation science and religious history (e.g. "cdesign proponentists"). ID/creationism are perfectly acceptable concepts for comparative religious classes; however, ID/creationism are not actual scientific concepts and are properly excluded from science education. Because they are not actually scientific concepts, the sole purpose in promoting them is to advance a sectarian religious perspective which rejects evolution.

          Nonetheless, feel free to describe the testable and falsifiable mechanism of ID/creationism, remembering that simply pointing to negative arguments regarding evolution is not a sufficient response.

          Lastly, and contrary to your "prohibition" claim, ID/creationism is well represented in private religious schools, i.e. they are not "prohibited" per se.

          December 8, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
        • Logical default

          "Whether you want to call I.D. a hypothesis or a philosophy, "governments" have no authority to PROHIBIT its dissemination in an educational setting."

          They don't prohibit it. They just won't call it science, or teach it as fact because there's NO EVIDENCE at all. Do you understand what this means? You don't teach something in a science class that has no evidence to support it. It goes against the scientific method. You are more than welcome to lobby for a world religions class where they teach the beliefs of various faiths, but to try to undermine the scientific method and teach a complete guess as an alternative to a scientific theory is an absolute joke and shows your real intentions. People just want to force their religion on others as fact when there is no justification for it.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
        • Bones Mccoy

          I don't think so, Jim.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
        • PC

          Jiiiiiiiiiiiim sir, why are you wasting your time? You are surrounded! You know you are doing the impossible. They want you to prove God in a way the human brain can understand. Can you do that? Will it help them? Did the bible tell you, you could do that? Did Jesus try to do that? Our business as Jesus said, is not to engage at this level but to be a witness. God said He uses foolish things to confound the wise. They ask for proofs.....interesting. How many things that are key to being alive as a human as man proven, yet we live. Jesus told us why people asks for proofs. Human logic can never prove or disprove God conclusively.

          How worse can it get? When people saw the undeniable miracles of Jesus, they decided it must be by demons he was doing it (even though they've never seen it done before). When Lazarus was raised, they wanted to kill him again. When Christ rose, they paid soldiers to lie that his body was stolen. With the several lame and blind people that were healed on crusade grounds; those were either staged or pure coincidences. Of the recent people who related on CNN how they saw heaven when their hearts stopped beating and they heard what people far away from their beds said, those were probably hoaxes or hallucinations (after pupils were dilated). Of Anthony Flew, he was intellectually sound when he went about refuting God but when he started reconsidering, it was senility. Of about 50 Nobel Prize winners who believed and professed God; they are just biased.

          So we all (including you and I) hold fast to WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE.

          God has said it. He will keep knocking at the door of people's hearts. If you don't open it in humility and surrender, He won't force His way. it's the devil that forces himself on people.
          .

          Just tell them and let them decide. It's no longer easy to decide to follow God you know, and the bible told us it's only going to get worse until that final stand must be made by God himself. It will of course be too late to change minds

          December 9, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
        • god the father

          For gods sake...if god were real he wouldn't have to "knock on the door of your heart"...ffs...how stupid is that let alone satan filling a person with lies??... are you people nuts or what? I seek the truth ...not written tales by men woven into a book called the bible...the word of god written by men obviously....influenced by a ghost that happens to be holy....get a grip already. People have been suckered by the biggest tale in history a continuous psychobable built from one story to the next to make it come true. Where are the historians who should've been all over the jesus story 2000 years ago...where are the philosophers and writers....there shouldve been thousands of articles in every aspect of human education writing about the saviour....but alas...we are left to wait until he "knocks on the door of our hearts"? What kind of god steps into history from a goatherderculture and there is no real record of him outside the biblical texts. The ones that do mention him go into no detail...they could've even mistaken who they were writing about because jesus was such an ordinarily common name at that time....sorry folks..it doesn't wash....only if you're a sheep...which every major religion hopes you are.

          December 9, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
        • Logical Default

          PC, can you prove any of those stories to be anything beyond fairytale?

          December 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Physics PhD

      As one of these scientists involved in this cover up (LOL!), could you please clue me in on what exactly I fear?

      December 7, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Please cite your source, Jim.

      December 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Jim? Your pants are on fire.

      December 8, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
      • urnotathinkerareu

        His nose is as long as a telephone wire too.....when they refuse to accept other views they use the "fear" and "shame" and schoolyard bully tactic to try to scare people into whatever rabbit hole it is that they want the "unbelievers" to crawl into. The same one they are in. I don't hate 'god" or any 'believer" but I resent their tactics. Their blindedness of irrational "faith" mindset cannot be altered because they are 'blind". It's as simple as that. "Emotional blackmail by christians is a tactic that has been refined through centuries old manipulation. 

        December 8, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
    • Logical default

      Burden of proof is on you to prove that god did it 3.8 million years ago. It's not up to others to prove otherwise if this is your claim. So many creationists need a basic logic class. It's not that difficult to understand. You can't prove your side. Until you do, stop claiming it's true by default. That's not how logic works.

      December 9, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
  12. bawspopsSog

    vqvdag coach christmas sale lyahbr coach factory outlet after christmas sale dsogwv coach christmas sale mgfwyn http://vimpel-bandy.com xmrfpz after christmas ugg sale ksjgze after christmas ugg sale umbxri christmas ugg sale yutgel http://www.selfpaymri.com lemoun uggs for christmas hqnxzg uggs christmas sales kijthq uggs christmas sales isfuvc http://www.fineartdoc.net

    December 7, 2013 at 10:16 am |
  13. Jim

    Hey atheists and secular fundies, Science is a tool not a religion.

    December 6, 2013 at 9:19 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Well, duh.
      Figured that all out by yourself did ya?

      December 6, 2013 at 9:26 pm |
      • Jim

        Further, Science is a tool developed by spiritual people of knowledge from the early Sumerians to Galileo to Francis Collins today and continues to be used by spiritual people in search of the truth.

        December 7, 2013 at 11:59 am |
        • Dandintac

          Jim, I wouldn't put too much into the idea of science being developed by religious people. For the bulk of western history, piety was mandatory, and enforced by church/state. You cite Galileo. What happened to him? He was lucky he didn't get burned at the stake like poor Giordano Bruno. What was Socrates' crime? Impiety. What did they call people who challenged church thinking or people who openly disbelieved? HERETICS. What happened to heretics? Studying too much and coming up with revolutionary ideas could also get you labeled as a sorcerer or witch. Later on, the church lost it's best argument for God when they were no longer allowed to burn people, and then we had the enlightenment. But even then, social ostracization was the price for openly disbelieving in God. To this day, all too many Christians will not hesitate to punish nonbelievers if they can get away with it–Christian coaches will kick atheists off the high school team, Christian landlords will try to evict atheist tenants, Christian employers will try to fire openly atheist employees. So it's rather rich to brag about the scientific accomplishments of "Christians" when religion has only served to retard social progress, and enforce mandatory piety.

          December 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Bones Mccoy

      Yes, Jim. Science is a method of gathering facts via experimentation and observation. Denying evolution is like denying the earth's revolution around the sun.

      December 9, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
      • Jim

        I accept evolution over billions of man's years and,the mechanics of our solar system. What I don't accept is your evaluation of what the scientific evidence s revealing. And that's okay. I am not asking the government to prohibit your evaluation of what the scientific evidence may be revealing. The Bible is not a science book and Intelligent Design is not a science. Science is used to consider whether either may be true.

        December 9, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          It is not my evaluation of what the scientific evidence means. It's the scientific consensus, which is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. By all means, Jim, please post some scientific papers on evolution and show me the parts that are wrong. Nobody's saying you can't have your faith, but to suggest it is a fact or that evolution is merely faith is a complete lie. Would Jesus want you to lie to promote your faith? I highly doubt it.

          December 12, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          I mean, how can you prove the earth revolves around the sun? It looks to me like the sun goes around the earth. I guess it's just YOUR EVALUATION of the evidence! LOL! Just stop. Faith is faith, science is science. Stop equating them.

          December 12, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
  14. bacbik

    Wow – OV is on a roll. OK, so that's 3 points for young earth creationists, and let's see, that means negative 300 points for all of Christianity.

    Thank you, OV!

    December 6, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • bacbik

      (of course it's not really 3 points for young-earth creationists because they have no facts, but I'm afraid we still have to dock all of Christianity 300 points for not having one solid story....)

      December 6, 2013 at 11:19 am |
  15. Opposing View

    Evolution Does Not Exist…

    Evolution does not exist, and never has. All variations you see in the universe exist only because the eternal God created them that way. It was his will. He chose and designed everything you see. Just because this species may look similar to that species (they may even have similar DNA) that does not mean one species "evolved" into another species. Instead, it only means God designed and selected both those variations. That is all it means. That is also why no "transitional lifeforms" can be found on earth. It's because they never existed. God chose the specific variations he wanted and he discarded all the rest...

    The similarities you see in living things – plants, animals, trees, etc – are not an indication of any biological mutation or an evolutionary process at work, instead you're only getting a glimpse into the "mechanism" by which the eternal God created things. That is all. For example, everything God created was created from a "base creation" – a "prototype" – as you will. Once God had created the prototype, he then modified that prototype to create a long line of "variations". And the DNA changes you see are nothing more than one of the many "mechanisms" by which he used to create those variations. And from those many variations, he then selected the specific variations he liked, while discarding all the rest. It's that simple. And that is exactly how and why we wound up with all the many variations you see in the universe. And the same goes for the stars and planets, and for everything else that exists. They were all "created" and "chosen" by the eternal God himself. No evolution required. No mutation involved. For if he had not chosen a specific variation, then rest assured, it would not exist…

    If you really understand what I am saying, then you should easily understand by now how it is indeed possible for God to have designed the universe in only 7,000 years (7 God days) just as the bible says. Not only that, but you should also understand how it was completely unnecessary for "millions of years" to have passed (as evolutionists say) for the universe to "evolve" into what it is today (and yes, their scientific dating methods are wrong). That "millions of years" nonsense only came about because scientists needed those kinds of numbers to make their theory work. That is where those numbers came from. In reality, no evolution was ever involved. Instead God designed the universe exactly as we see it, and he did so in only 7,000 years. With a designer at work, million of years was not even necessary. Which perfectly jives with what the scriptures say, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Thus you can either believe what the scientists way – the same people who are going to hell and the lake and will forever regret dreaming up that evolutionist nonsense and deceiving people – or else you can believe God. Personally, I choose to believe God…

    You may not choose to believe what I'm saying, but I guarantee you on Judgment Day, you'll find out this is the truth. And on Judgment Day, those same scientists you're putting your faith in are going to be some of the most stupidest looking people there is standing before God. Because they will then know the same truth I now know – that Evolution does not exist. And never has. Instead, Lucifer deceived you into thinking that it did, just so you'd disbelieve God, just so you'd end up in hell. Everything you see in the universe and every variation, was designed, created, and chosen by the eternal God himself. It was his will. For if it was not his will, then rest assured, it would not exist…

    December 6, 2013 at 8:25 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Man is the predilect object of Creation and the entire Universe exists as it does simply to have us in it.
      The Universe only appears to be billions of years old because The Creator willed it thus.
      God is anthropocentric – it says here right on the label.
      The rest of the universe, oh so simple and boring compared to humanity, is simply window dressing – God really concentrated when making The Earth as opposed to, say – the Andromeda galaxy.

      You see, when God was creating the Earth he placed it in a time dilation bubble in order to give it the attention it needed.
      This is how we see light from distant galaxies – they are, relativistically speaking, billions of years old – but thanks to God's chronoton singularity, we are only a few thousand years old.

      God bestowed certain seemingly normal objects with chronoton field generation capability, like Moses' staff and Noah's ark.
      How else did the seas part or the ark able to support two of every animal despite it's physical dimensions?

      In recent studies, credible theologians have revealed that the physical dimensions of Noah's Ark were actually much, much smaller than those depicted in the Bible. They theorize that the source texts were modified to be more believable as nobody would be able to imagine all life on Earth fitting into a box no bigger than a phone booth.

      The oral histories of a small, reclusive sect of ultra-orthodox Jews say that the Ark made a "Vworrrp Vworrrrp" sound before it gradually faded from sight. Stone tablets retrieved from this same sect show that the name "Noah" is actually an ancient Hebrew word from a long lost dialect that translates to "Healer".
      They also found evidence that Moses' staff was really a small, hand held device about the size of a pen that emitted a high pitched squeal and glowing green light. "Staff" also appears to be a mistranslation.

      Leviticus is full of rules of conduct for the Hebrew people, but there was one particular passage that caused so much confusion and strife at the Nicene Council that they elected to omit it from the Bible.
      Scraps of that ancient text were found in the same cave as the Dead Sea Scrolls but have yet to be publically released. The text seems to be proclamations from a long forgotten prophet, but there is little context to make any sense of them.
      Thus far, scholars have translated: "run", "don't blink", and a thoroughly confusing psalm praising the virtues of decorative neckwear.

      December 6, 2013 at 8:38 am |
      • Opposing View

        John 10:27 – But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...

        December 6, 2013 at 8:44 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Other than the creation myth itself, the Noah myth is the dumbest and least believable of all of the bible fables...

          December 6, 2013 at 8:51 am |
        • Opposing View

          John 10:27 – But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...

          So what part of that did you not understand?...

          December 6, 2013 at 9:09 am |
        • Hear This

          Opposing View,

          A shepherd takes care of his sheep for a few reasons:

          - Profit from their wool while they are alive
          - Profit from their flesh and skins at slaughter
          - Some tasty meals

          The guy who thought up that analogy was silly.

          December 6, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Sweet... and funny, as I wear my Dr. Who socks on casual Friday...

        December 6, 2013 at 8:47 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And I'm sipping my morning coffee out of a TARDIS mug.
          What did you think of Tom Baker's appearance in the Day of the Doctor?

          December 6, 2013 at 8:53 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          When I think of Dr. Who (especially when I watched it as a kid) ... I always picture Tom Baker and his scarf... In fact, I was disappointed when the new Doctor's didn't have the scarf...

          December 6, 2013 at 8:58 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          My Tardis socks are for next Friday...

          December 6, 2013 at 8:59 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I also enjoyed Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor and Billie Piper as Rose Tyler... They are the one's who got me watching Dr. Who again on BBC-A.

          December 6, 2013 at 9:02 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Eccleston got a real screw job with only one season as the Doctor.
          I quite like his portrayal – you could see how he needed Rose's wide eyed innocense to coutnerbalance his own bitterness...

          December 6, 2013 at 9:23 am |
      • Now that's just stupid...

        You crazy like OV?

        December 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Damocles

      Ok, so why so many variations in a particular species? Why do different spiders use different methods of capturing/killing their prey when a 'perfect being' should have been able to make the perfect spider from the get-go? Why do Hammerhead sharks have such an unusual head shape? If the 'deific prototypes' would have been discarded, why do both Hammerhead and non-Hammerhead sharks continue to exist?

      For me, it's not really science that makes me disbelieve the existence of any deity, it's just common sense.

      December 6, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • Now that's just stupid...

      "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9)

      Nice bible, good god...

      December 6, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
      • Romans1:20

        See http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children

        December 7, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • Now that's just stupid...

      "Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. 'If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,' he said, 'whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the Lord. I shall offer him up as a holocaust.' ... When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, 'Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract'." (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

      December 6, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
      • Romans1:20

        Hebrews 11:32 lists Jephthah among the men of faith. That Jephthah was a deeply pious man, appears in the whole of his conduct; and that he was well acquainted with the law of Moses, which prohibited all such sacrifices, and stated what was to be offered in sacrifice, is evident enough from his expostulation with the king and people of Ammon (Judges 11:14-27). Therefore it must be granted that he never made that rash vow which several suppose he did; nor was he capable, if he had, of executing it in that most shocking manner which some people have contended for. He could not commit a crime which himself had just now been an executor of God's justice to punish in others. Those who assert that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter attempt to justify the opinion from the barbarous usages of those times: but in answer to this it may be justly observed, that Jephthah was now under the influence of the Spirit of God (Judges 11:29); and that Spirit could not permit him to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own child; and especially under the pretense of offering a pleasing sacrifice to that God who is the Father of mankind, and the Fountain of love, mercy, and compassion

        December 7, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
        • Matthew

          Good points, Sir. Further, zconsider Lev 20:2 (KJV) which states, "Whosoever...giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones".  -The Israelites were specifically forbidden to offer their children as sacrifices and the entire Israelitish Old Testament sacrifical system forbid human sacrifices and used only animals.
           Also, the context of Judges 11:37-39 is crucial. Vs 37 states,  "And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and BEWAIL MY VIRGINITY, I and my fellows...(vs 38) and [she] bewailed her virginity upon the mountains...(vs 39) And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and SHE KNEW NO MAN".
            -So it is obvious from the text that what she "bewailed", that thing which she was going to LOSE, was NOT her life but her virginity. So those who say otherwise, first, don't know how to properly exegete scripture (at least this passage) and secondly, don't seem to care but are looking to twist scripture for their own personal agenda. God will "not be mocked"...He will remember.

          December 8, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      OV, You know that there are transitional fossils. Fossils were quite rare in Darwin's time but there are many found since. It's unlikely we'll have a complete set as skeletons normally decay, so fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of animals that have lived. DNA was unknown in Darwin's time and that confirms evolution and matches distribution, etc.
      You may want to believe that a pattern logically explained by evolution was the random work of a supernatural being but it's not a credible explanation. Creation by a loving god also doesn't explain why there are, for example, worms that eat human eyes.

      December 6, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
  16. Opposing View

    MYTH: I feel that God should do something to convince me of the truth and to convince me he exists. Otherwise he is wrong for sending me to hell…

    FACT: God has already done something. He has sent you his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, as proof of his existence. So why have you accepted him?… Secondly, it is not God's job to convince you of anything. Instead, it is your own responsibility to seek out the truth. If you fail to seek out the truth or if you don't desire the truth, then you shall continue on to hell. It's that simple. God owes you nothing…

    Luke 11:10 – (Jesus speaking) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened…

    If you ask, seek, and knock (meaning, if you search for God) then God will lead you to the truth. But if you do nothing, then you will continue on to hell…

    John 10:27 – My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me…

    A true sheep doesn't have to be convinced. They simply hear the voice of God calling to them and they follow. Whereas, with goats, no amount of convincing is good enough. Therefore, they will continue on to hell where the flames of hell will convince them…

    December 6, 2013 at 8:01 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Strive though I might, listening wtih an open heart and mind, I've yet to receive a divine, psychic message.
      The only voice in my head is my own, I'm afraid.
      And so for many years I've studied the writings and works of those who say they have "The Truth".
      Every religionist is quite certain that what's in their heart is right – so certain that they seldom will deign to explore the beliefs of others, unless it is to condemn their heresies.
      But of course, God does speak to some people.
      The news is rife with stories of folk with whom He has had a few words.
      In 2008, He told Boyce Singleton Jr. to shoot and stab his pregnant girlfriend.
      Deanna Laney heard God direct her to bludgeon her three sons, aged 9, 6 and 15 months. Only the youngest survived.
      Blair Donnelly received instructions to stab to death his 16 year old daughter, Stephanie.
      Christopher Varian was slaughtered with a cheese knife after God spoke with one of his employees.
      God told Jennifer Cisowski to dash her infant's head on the rocks, so ""Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool."
      Khandi Busby got a direct message from God advising her that the only way to save her 6 and 8 year old boys was to toss them off a bridge in Dallas. Fortunately, they survived.
      Angel Rico says he received a divine command to strangle his 4 year old son, so he did just that and left him at the side of the highway.
      Lashaun Harris threw her 3 young kids into the San Francisco Bay after God let her know that He wanted a human sacrifice.

      December 6, 2013 at 8:18 am |
      • Opposing View

        I stated… "Whereas, with goats, no amount of convincing is good enough."… So what part of that did you not understand?...

        John 10:27 – But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...

        December 6, 2013 at 8:42 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LET's Religiosity Law #6 – If you routinely ignore physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc., and are happy with “god did it” then you are mentally retarded.

          December 6, 2013 at 9:04 am |
        • Opposing View

          Better to be retarded and go to heaven. Than to receive the admiration of men and wind up in hell…

          Luke 16:15 – For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God...

          December 6, 2013 at 9:07 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "Better to be retarded and go to heaven. Than to receive the admiration of men and wind up in hell" LOL... OK genius... It is apparent to me that you are as smart as a box of rocks... so other than making fun of your idiocy... I will no longer attempt to actually converse with you... ciao

          December 6, 2013 at 9:41 am |
        • Bones McCoy

          "Luke 16:15 – For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God..."

          Bahahaha! How long has Christianity been highly esteemed for? I love when you can quote the bible itself to prove idiot creationists wrong. Too funny.

          December 12, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
      • Opposing View

        Doc… I find it really funny that you can write this long post filled with attempts to criticize others and to belittle their beliefs and to dismiss them as fiction… while at the same time boldly making the statement – "The only voice in my head is my own"…

        You are deceived. That voice in your head is actually Lucifer. Only you're too ignorant to even realize it. So in truth, both you and those people you mentioned are of the devil. Whatever they said or did, had nothing to do with God. God was not involved. In the same manner that they were deceived into thinking that God was involved, you've also been deceived into thinking the voice in your head is your own. You're both wrong….

        John 10:27 – But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...

        December 6, 2013 at 9:05 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Is it your assertion that each person's internal dialog is actually either Satan or God?
          Look, if the voices in your head are battling for dominance so fiercly that you've lost your own identi/ty and will, perhaps it is time to visit the nice men with the huggy jackets.
          I know it can be scary when the voices go quiet. Life is harder when there's is nobody to tell you what to condemn or who is a demon, but just keep taking the pills and everything will be fine.

          BTW – are you going to cite the scriptural references that have convinced you of the young age of the Earth?
          How did you come to that conclusion?
          There are many thousands of sects of Christianity, but very few of them adhere to Young Earth Creationism. In fact, outside of the U.S., you'll have a tough time finding anybody who does....

          December 6, 2013 at 9:19 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          God and Lucifer are figments of your imagination...

          December 6, 2013 at 10:37 am |
        • Tess

          Lucifer? Oh, brother.

          December 7, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
      • god the father

        You really need help ....the only voice in your head is satan??...You really are mentally ill when you begin to believe this. This egocentric religious psychosis may still be treatable IF you get help soon. You are welcome to your unevidenced and psychotic beliefs that only promote hatred and hostility like it always had since it's inception of the "sheep" philosophy. You can be led anywhere in your deslusion...and are......down the tubes of mental illness with your kind. Pity on you.

        December 7, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Tess

      What's with all the goat stuff? You/God have something against goats?

      And, by the way, I searched for the truth and the truth said, "Nope, no God."

      December 7, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
      • Romans1:20

        The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14:1.

        December 7, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
        • Bones Mccoy

          Psalms 118:8 – "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."

          Please explain why you have put your confidence in man, believing that this book, written by man, is the word of god? Do you have faith in man or god? Right now you are picking man.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Bones Mccoy

      FACT: God has not EVER sent me his "only son".

      There is an ancient book that claims it happened thousands of years ago, but none of it is verified. How am I to determine the truth of that story compared to the thousands of other ancient creation myths?

      FACT: I've been seeking the truth all of my life, and to this day see no logical reason whatsoever to just believe that Christianity has it right.

      You claim that we shouldn't expect an all powerful being to simply demonstrate his existence for us, yet we are suppose to guess in the dark as to which version of him is true? Muslim would say that god sent Mohammed and that proves Islam. A Hebrew would mention Moses. Again, that just proves that god either doesn't care what people believe about him, or doesn't exist as depicted by the bible. There's only so many ways you can slice it.

      December 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
  17. Opposing View

    MYTH: We are all God's children…

    FACT: Not true. That is a common misconception. We are NOT all God's children. Some people are actually the children of Lucifer. They are the offspring of Lucifer because they follow his ways. This is confirmed via the following scripture…

    John 8::44 – (Jesus speaking) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do…

    Thus, Jesus is telling those people to their face that their father is Lucifer.

    And the following is how he knows they are not the children of God...

    John 8:47 – (Jesus speaking) He that is of God heareth God's words. Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God...

    Jesus also said this…

    John 8:42 – (Jesus speaking) If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

    In other words, the reason they do not accept him and cannot understand his words, is because they are not of God, and God is not their father (Lucifer is)…

    December 6, 2013 at 7:28 am |
    • Science Works

      Hey OV was the bible/devil around back then ?

      Fossils OV what do you say ?

      Researchers found a partial skeleton - including arm, hand, leg and foot fragments - dated to 1.34 million years old and belonging to Paranthropus boisei at the Olduvai Gorge World Heritage fossil site in Tanzania. The find, published in the latest edition of the scientific journal PLOS ONE, represents one of the most recent occurrences of P. boisei before its extinction in East Africa.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205185609.htm

      December 6, 2013 at 7:56 am |
      • Opposing View

        Science Works… You are deceived. The earth did not exist millions of years ago. The scientific dating instruments are wrong….

        December 6, 2013 at 8:07 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          How old do you believe the Earth to be?
          How specifically did you come to that conclusion?
          Please don't just answer with something like "Because God said so in the Bible" – if that is the case, where is it mentioned in Scripture?

          December 6, 2013 at 8:21 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LET's Religiosity Law #3 – If you habitually spout off verses from your "holy" book to make whatever inane point you're trying to make, and not once does it occur to you to question whether your book is accurate in the first place, then you are definitely mentally retarded. (See Law #4 & #5)

          December 6, 2013 at 8:54 am |
        • Science Works

          OV this might to difficult for you – but it is all relative

          [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg&w=640&h=390]

          It works !

          December 6, 2013 at 11:52 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I find it sad that one of the greatest theories ever contemplated by man is not taught in their school 😦

          I recall learning about the E=MC2 in Jr High... and that was in 1979/1980... what happened?

          December 6, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
        • Science Works

          Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Yeah evolution back in the 70's was in the text books too .

          And we as a country are still debating the issue ! Texas !

          December 6, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
        • lol??

          Which came first, the energy or the mass??

          December 7, 2013 at 12:14 am |
        • Romans1:20

          In Job 38:4 – God says to Job and I would submit – to us today: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much." As it says in Romans 3:4 – "Let God be true, and every human being a liar."

          December 7, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
        • Bones Mccoy

          "Science Works… You are deceived. The earth did not exist millions of years ago. The scientific dating instruments are wrong…."

          Prove it?

          December 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          "In Job 38:4 – God says to Job and I would submit – to us today: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much." As it says in Romans 3:4 – "Let God be true, and every human being a liar.""

          YES! I love it. More bible quotes that go more against creationists than non believers. Where were the creationists when the earth was created? They seem to know 100% absolute fact that it happened, but funny they weren't there.

          December 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
      • Scince Works

        come on lol?? get it right it is matter amd gravity.

        How Stuff Works

        http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/can-we-manufacture-matter.htm

        December 7, 2013 at 6:52 am |
      • Rio Lee

        I am a Christian and I am a biologist too. But trust me, I don't believe in the THEORY of evolution but I believe in God. As a scientist we should always follow the Scientific Method, which is why most of scientists that I know doesn't believe in God because they cannot prove he exists. However, I am different. It takes FAITH. That's just it. But for me, I believe Science proves God's existence.

        Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

        We all able to see how beautiful our world and our universe is.

        Psalm 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

        See? We are made wonderfully and science prooved that, you may want to learn Anatomy and Physiology.

        December 7, 2013 at 10:57 am |
        • Science Works

          This might help but....

          Open Access Peer-Reviewed
          Research Article
          MicroRNA-Driven Developmental Remodeling in the Brain Distinguishes Humans from Other Primates

          http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001214

          December 7, 2013 at 11:03 am |
        • Street Epistemologist In Training

          Why don't you believe in evolution?

          December 7, 2013 at 11:32 am |
        • Bones Mccoy

          "I am a Christian and I am a biologist too. But trust me, I don't believe in the THEORY of evolution but I believe in God."

          Nice lie! You obviously are not a biologist, because if you were you'd understand that evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Without it, nothing makes sense at all. Now there's nothing wrong with having faith in something more, but to call yourself a biologist when you blatantly ignore the scientific method in regards to evolution cracks me up. Where did you get your education in your major? You know what a scientific theory is right? since you're... you know... a SCIENTIST? I don't think I've ever met an honest creationist.

          December 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Rio Lee

      @ OV
      just a piece of advice, Proverbs 23:8 Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words.

      Instead, give your time to those people willing and have the desire to know God, to learn about and God and those who wants to be with God eternally.

      December 7, 2013 at 10:45 am |
      • redzoa

        Listen to Rio OV . . . Go find a choir to preach at rather than share you ignorance with us. Remember St. Augustine's warning:

        Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

        December 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
  18. GOOD NEWS

    I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.

    Let's talk about PROOF and REASON, Mr. Silverman!

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
    UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES

    December 6, 2013 at 4:16 am |
    • Opposing View

      Newflash: No one is trying to attract atheists. Not one atheist will ever be saved. We're only trying to save the sheep. Sheep have no problem with believing...

      December 6, 2013 at 5:59 am |
      • Science Works

        No gods needed.

        Human Stem Cells Converted to Functional Lung Cells

        Dec. 1, 2013 — For the first time, scientists have succeeded in transforming human stem cells into functional lung and airway cells.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131201140209.htm

        Remember CN and OV Bush did not like stem cells to be played with !

        December 6, 2013 at 7:09 am |
        • Opposing View

          Science Works… Better hope they find the stem cell that can get you out of hell. Because you're certainly going to need it…

          Psalms 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man...

          Luke 16:15 – For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God...

          December 6, 2013 at 7:34 am |
        • Science Works

          Wow OV is that all you have ?

          By the way do a little research, hell is in Michigan USA !

          December 6, 2013 at 8:41 am |
        • Opposing View

          Science Works… Trust me. Michigan USA is NOT where you are going….

          December 6, 2013 at 9:13 am |
        • Paul

          "Remember CN and OV Bush did not like stem cells to be played with !"

          Not quite. He was referring to embryonic stem cells, not adult stem cells.

          December 7, 2013 at 12:42 am |
        • Former Xtian

          "Psalms 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man..."

          Bahahaha!! Oh wow. From within the bible itself! Guess who wrote the bible? Hilarious that the bible itself says not to put confidence in man, yet you are doing EXACTLY THAT by blindly believing it as god's word!

          December 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • oo oo

      Please keep deleting donkey Puncher's comments about 12 gauge suicide. I really think she's on to something Dorothy.

      December 6, 2013 at 7:14 am |
  19. Bender Bending Rodriguez

    Here is an excellent discussion about science and religion with a Catholic priest/scientist and biologist Richard Dawkins. As a religious individual I agree with nearly everything Father Coyne said.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzkS1B0huWX4

    December 5, 2013 at 7:30 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
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.