home
RSS
April 29th, 2014
12:35 PM ET

New clues cast doubt on 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife'

Opinion by Joel S. Baden and Candida R. Moss, special to CNN

(CNN) - It seemed real; it seemed fake; it seemed real again; now we’re back to fake.

"It” is the controversial little scrap of papyrus, written in Coptic, that seems to have Jesus referring to “my wife,” in contrast to the traditional stance that affirms Jesus’ perpetual bachelorhood.

The quick backstory: In 2012, a Harvard professor, Karen King, brought this papyrus to the attention of scholars and the public.

Both the material and the script looked authentically ancient at first glance, and though the notion of Jesus having a wife was remarkable, these “lost” Christian writings, such as the Gnostic Gospels, are full of unorthodoxies.

It was good enough for King, who is widely respected in the scholarly world.

From the beginning, there were doubts, however, beyond the unlikelihood that the tiny scrap that survived the centuries would happen to be the one that contained the reference to Jesus’ wife.

The papyrus, along with a few other ancient papyri of lesser novelty, had been passed to King by an anonymous figure.

Anonymity, in the world of antiquities, is often a bad sign, compounding the inherent uncertainty when dealing with texts that are bought and sold rather than discovered in a firm archaeological setting.

Then there were aspects of the text itself that seemed suspicious.

For a fragmented scrap of papyrus, it seemed to have an awful lot of important content on it. Not only did Jesus refer to “my wife,” he also potentially described a certain Mary – perhaps Mary Magdalene? – as “worthy” and capable of being a disciple.

It is (almost) too good to be true.

At the same time, the handwriting seemed surprisingly sloppy.

Then again, other scholars noted that just because a scribe has poor handwriting and a text is informative does not make it a forgery. Perhaps we just got lucky this time.

More specific issues arose in the perceived familiarity of the document.

The text of the Jesus’ wife fragment is remarkably close to published editions, available online, of another Coptic Christian text, called the “Gospel of Thomas.”

So close, in fact, that one of the typographical errors in an online edition of the “Gospel of Thomas” is replicated, uniquely, in the Jesus’ wife fragment.

What are the chances of that?

Yet some would say that the fact that there is considerable overlap with the wording of the “Gospel of Thomas” isn’t a problem: Christian authors regularly copied word-for-word from other texts.

The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke, for example, reproduce much of the Gospel of Mark, with only slight alterations. And the vocabulary used in the papyrus is remarkably common.

The most compelling argument for authenticity is the flip-side (or verso) of the manuscript.

There are faint traces of ink on this side that have been worn away, suggesting that they are truly ancient.

It would be highly unusual for a modern forger to get his hands on an ancient papyrus written on only one side and equally difficult to imagine how the verso might have been made today.

Yet for all the arguments and efforts, there was no smoking gun - on either side.

And so the papyrus was submitted for testing: carbon-dating of the papyrus itself as well as chemical testing of the ink. Just last month, those test results came back.

It turns out that the papyrus is genuinely ancient. The ink has the chemical composition of ancient ink. The news spread, including here, that the papyrus was the real McCoy.

Of course, tests like those can’t really prove authenticity; they can prove only potential authenticity. And they are hardly foolproof.

Once we started carbon-dating papyrus, forgers started using authentically ancient papyrus. Once we discovered how to identify ancient ink by its chemical composition, forgers started creating precisely the same ink.

Like steroids in sports, it’s safe to assume that the best bad guys are always one step ahead of the science.

And yet, the dating of the papyrus and ink did shift the burden back on to the doubters. And just this past week, they seem to have discovered something as close to proof as we can really expect in cases like this.

Although we knew in 2012 that there were other papyri in the same group that included the “Jesus' wife” fragment – the batch the anonymous donor gave King - none of them had been seen.

That changed with the release of the test results, which used some of these other papyri for the purposes of comparison.

One of those papyri was a fragment of the canonical Gospel of John. For all the uncertainty about the Jesus’ wife papyrus, this text of John evoked no such indecision. It is a forgery.

How do we know? This Gospel of John purports to be a version in a relatively rare ancient dialect of Coptic known as Lycopolitan.

Just such a Lycopolitan version of John was published in 1924 and is now available online. And this newly revealed gospel fragment just so happens to look awfully similar to the 1924 (now-online) version of John. How similar? Here’s how similar:

Herbert Thompson's "Gospel of St John," page 7 (left); Coptic John fragment recto (right), illustrating how a forger could have copied every second line of this text.

Whoever created this new Gospel of John fragment simply copied the beginning of every other line from the online version.

Turns out that if you check the other side of the fragment against its online parallel, the same thing is true (though with the end of every line rather than the beginning, logically enough).

Add to this the fact that the carbon dating of the John papyrus puts it in the seventh to ninth centuries, but Lycopolitan died out as a language sometime before the sixth century. No one wrote anything in Lycopolitan in the period in which this text would have to be dated.

So what does it matter to the Jesus’ wife fragment that this scrap of John is forgery?

Well, it’s never a good sign for a text of doubtful authenticity to be found in the company of a sure forgery.

More directly: Multiple experts agree that the fragment of John and the Jesus’ wife papyrus are written in the same hand, using the same ink and even the same writing instrument.

Simply put: If one is a forgery, they’re both forgeries.

Although 100% certainty is never achievable in such cases, given everything we know now (lab tests included), the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” never existed — or, rather, it never existed, for all intents and purposes, before 2012.

There are no great revelations to be gleaned from this text, no astounding new information about Jesus or Mary.

What the entire episode does, rather, is remind us — scholars included — that science might not always have all the answers.

This forgery was detected not through lab analysis but through good old-fashioned humanities-based detective work. This was Sherlock Holmes, not "CSI."

There remains no substitute for deep, thorough, scholarly expertise in ancient languages and texts.

Even in a case that ended up wasting such time and energy in the academic community, that community, and its collective body of knowledge, have rarely been more valuable and necessary.

Joel S. Baden is an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. Candida Moss is a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden and Moss. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: archaeology • Bible • Christianity • Opinion

soundoff (1,337 Responses)
  1. Reality

    So we have two fake passages written on ancient papyrus and written in some form of Coptic. Assuming they are fake, who is the con artist(s)? What are their motives? Who has access to ancient papyrus and ancient ink formulas and their components? Hmmm, sounds like the making of a good reality show i.e. chasing down the culprit(s) using all the modern analytical techniques available. Shall we begin the process? And Egypt appears to be the place to start. So who in Egypt would benefit from a married Jesus? A Coptic Christian? No, that does not compute. A Muslim. Hmmm, Mohammed always takes a lot of heat for having seven wives. Sounds plausible that some imam sponsored the con?

    Or maybe not. Has Dan Brown been to Egypt recently? Can he wrirte in Coptic? Considering the money he has made from the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, he could afford to buy the papyrus and hire the forgers. Hmmmm??

    Then there is this:

    According to many "experts", many Mormon leaders believed Jesus was married and it is one of the reasons that polygamy was approved by these "lattered" saints!

    And the circu-mstantial evidence continues to grow:

    To wit:

    "The Book of Abraham is an 1835 work produced by Joseph Smith[1] that he said was based on Egyptian papyri purchased from a traveling mummy exhibition. According to Smith, the book was "a translation of some ancient records ... purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus".[2] Smith's translation of the papyri describes a story of Abraham's early life, including a vision of the cosmos.

    The work was canonized in 1880 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as part of its Pearl of Great Price.[1] Thus, it forms a doctrinal foundation for the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalist denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. It is not a religious text by the Community of Christ. Other groups in the Latter Day Saint movement have various opinions regarding the Book of Abraham, with some rejecting and some accepting the text as inspired scripture. The book contains several doctrines that are unique to Mormonism, such as the concept of God organizing eternal, pre-existing elements to create the universe instead of creating it ex nihilo.

    The Book of Abraham papyri were thought lost in the 1871 Great Chicago Fire. However, in 1966 several fragments of the papyri were found in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and in the LDS Church archives. They are now referred to as the Joseph Smith Papyri. "

    Could it be Mitt Romney is behind all of this adding some added fire to his next run for the presidency which failed the first time because of the Mormon anchor around his neck?

    Please add your theories below:

    May 1, 2014 at 6:33 am |
  2. bostontola

    The degree of willful ignorance regarding evolution on this blog is astounding. To claim there is no evidence for evolution is scary, at the same level as saying there is no evidence that the earth is a near sphere.

    There is so much evidence for evolution from so many different fields of science that the only conclusions are, 1. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, or 2. a God created life to look like it came from evolution with an extraordinary level of detail.

    If it's 2, and that God created skeptical people and consigns people to hell that don't believe, that would be an immoral God.

    April 30, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Ignorance is the best friend that religion and conservative politics ever had.

      May 1, 2014 at 2:07 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      It seems as though there is some fear in accepting evolution. It does tend to break down the very beginnings of the bible and should make one question the legitimacy of the rest of the book.

      May 1, 2014 at 7:15 am |
      • bostontola

        Parables don't erode legitimacy to me, it's the condoning of slavery, subjugation of women, condemning of personal choices that don't affect society, etc. that impact legitimacy to me. Genesis vs science is only a threat to the minority that treats Genesis as literal.

        May 1, 2014 at 7:29 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I agree with you. A different perspective is always appreciated.

          May 1, 2014 at 7:38 am |
  3. Doris

    From Science Daily 4/24/2014

    An international research team, including a George Washington University (GW) professor, has discovered and named the earliest and most primitive pterodactyloid - a group of flying reptiles that would go on to become the largest known flying creatures to have ever existed - and established they flew above Earth some 163 million years ago, longer than previously known.

    Working from a fossil discovered in northwest China, the project - led by University of South Florida (USF) paleontologist Brian Andres, James Clark of the GW Columbian College of Arts and Sciences and Xu Xing of the Chinese Academy of Sciences - named the new pterosaur species Kryptodrakon progenitor.

    Through scientific analysis the team established it as the first pterosaur to bear the characteristics of the Pterodactyloidea, which would become the dominant winged creatures of the prehistoric world. Their research will be published online Thursday in the journal Current Biology.

    "This finding represents the earliest and most primitive pterodactyloid pterosaur, a flying reptile in a highly specialized group that includes the largest flying organisms," says Chris Liu, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Earth Sciences. "The research has extended the fossil record of pterodactyloids by at least five million years to the Middle-Upper Jurassic boundary about 163 million years ago."

    Kryptodrakon progenitor lived around the time of the Middle-Upper Jurassic boundary. Through studying the fossil fragments, researchers also determined that the pterodactyloids originated, lived, and evolved in terrestrial environments - rather than marine environments where other specimens have been found.

    Full article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140424124652.htm

    April 30, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
  4. Salero21

    Well anyways we knew all along from the very beginning this was a fake of all fakes. I meant, just by looking at the picture you can tell that it looks too good to be true. Or as they say: Simply put: If one is a forgery, they’re both forgeries.

    April 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      "Anyways" ?
      I guess we all knew you were from the trailer park.

      April 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
      • Salero21

        Anyways we all know you are trailer park, but in Colorado even the trash is turning green.

        May 1, 2014 at 10:39 am |
  5. Doris

    Unlearning Violence: Daniel Dennett & Steven Pinker

    As part of the February 2014 conference, "Unlearning Violence: Evidence and Policies for Early Childhood Development and Peace," Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker addressed the question, "can we become a more peaceful species?" Discussion moderated by Alex de Waal.

    Dan Dennett is currently the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University.

    Steven Pinker is a Canadian experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist, and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNBEM3jMLY&w=640&h=390]

    Dan Dennett responds to a statement by Richard Dawkins at 14:00 in this video. I couldn't agree more with Dan Dennett on the notion that many kids today are so heavily influenced by characters from television, internet, etc., where these characters lead lives of great meaning – what Dennett refers to as a "great narrative arc", and that consequently many kids that don't see much meaning in their lives are ready to drop all skepticism and be martyrs for the chance to be "heroes" in this life first. Dan seems to indicate this as a Western influence on non-Western cultures, but I think this effect on some people in this information age is universal.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWrDo2DW3xI&w=640&h=390]

    April 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
  6. Doris

    From Science News Daily:

    Underwater archaeologists have discovered evidence of prehistoric caribou hunts that provide unprecedented insight into the social and seasonal organization of early peoples in the Great Lakes region.

    An article detailing the discovery of a 9,000-year-old caribou hunting drive lane under Lake Huron appears in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    "This site and its associated artifacts, along with environmental and simulation studies, suggest that Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic caribou hunters employed distinctly different seasonal approaches," said John O'Shea, the Emerson F. Greenman Professor of Anthropological Archaeology at the University of Michigan and lead author of the article.

    "In autumn, small groups carried out the caribou hunts, and in spring, larger groups of hunters cooperated."

    According to O'Shea, who is also Curator of U-M's Great Lakes Division of the Museum of Anthropological Archaeology, the site was discovered on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, under 121 feet of water, about 35 miles southeast of Alpena, Mich., on what was once a dry land corridor connecting northeast Michigan to southern Ontario.

    The main feature, called Drop 45 Drive Lane, is the most complex hunting structure found to date beneath the Great Lakes. Constructed on level limestone bedrock, the stone lane is composed of two parallel lines of stones leading toward a cul-de-sac formed by the natural cobble pavement. Three circular hunting blinds are built into the stone lines, with additional stone alignments that may have served as blinds and obstructions for corralling caribou.

    Although autumn was the preferred hunting season for caribou, the orientation of Drop 45 shows that it would only have been effective if the animals were moving in a northwesterly direction, which they would have done during the spring migration from modern day Ontario.

    "It is noteworthy that V-shaped hunting blinds located upslope from Drop 45 are oriented to intercept animals moving to the southeast in the autumn," O'Shea said. "This concentration of differing types of hunting structures associated with alternative seasons of migration is consistent with caribou herd movement simulation data indicating that the area was a convergence point along different migration routes, where the landform tended to compress the animals in both the spring and autumn."

    The structures in and around Drop 45, and the chipped stone debris for repairing stone tools, provide unambiguous evidence for intentional human construction and use of the feature, O'Shea said. And they also provide important insight into the social and economic organization of the ancient hunters using this area.

    "The larger size and multiple parts of the complex drive lanes would have necessitated a larger cooperating group of individuals involved in the hunt," he said. "The smaller V-shaped hunting blinds could be operated by very small family groups relying on the natural shape of the landform to channel caribou towards them."
    .

    April 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
  7. Bootyfunk

    long hair, great tan, wash board abs, hung out with 12 dudes, never got with a woman...
    pretty sure jesus didn't have a wife...
    a husband, maybe, but not a wife.

    April 30, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
  8. jbhollen

    Blah, blah, blah, god. Blah, blah, blah.

    April 30, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
  9. Akira

    Peace, if you think that Salero is "morally superior", you need to re-evaluate what "moral" means to you.

    April 30, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
    • Salero21

      I learned long ago to take things depending from where and/or from who they're coming from!! Can't disprove neither refute what I've been saying huh?

      April 30, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
      • Somebody, somewhere

        Illiterate toad. Shut up.

        April 30, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
        • Salero21

          WHAAT!! Some people have a gull!!

          So here is an atheist/evolutionist/cultist/faithless/pagan/idolater/unbeliever, in a Belief Blog for people who believe in God or in whatever. Pretending with all gall and pretentious pretense to tell me a Godly Believer to shut up in a Blog that is precisely for believers to express our opinions. Opinions which BTW are a God given right acknowledge be as such be all men of reason and reasonable men. Some people have some gall!!

          April 30, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          Salero and his WHAT???? outrage. I have the same rights, asshole. You've been a rude little shit for way too long and it's about time someone told you what a scumbag you are. Shove it.
          Now go fap away, because I'm sure that you've been waiting to get a response from someone, somewhere...here it is. Enjoy your gasm, queeb.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        You never say anything of consequence, just crazy rantings which you surely cannot expect to have taken seriously. If you start providing something to back up your posts then maybe, but I've only ever seen incoherent nonsense from you.

        April 30, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
        • Salero21

          Your trust is in Satan. That's because either you either trust God or not, there are no middle terms. It would be better for you to be a doubter, of little faith or Faithless than to place you trust in Satan. Because he is and has been a Murderer and a thief from the beginning.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          And STILL you post incoherent nonsense.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • Salero21

          somebody somewhere in Colorado must be smoking something or too much moon shine.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • Salero21

          By now the moon shine and the trash in Colorado must be all green.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        From "whom". More trailer park talk.

        April 30, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
    • Salero21

      OMG Akira Sharkira or whatever he/she/it is, I didn't know I could become so "important"!! OMG!

      April 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
      • Somebody, somewhere

        Do us all a favor and die. Finish the job your mother started with the rusty coat hanger in your soft spot. Yours worthless.

        April 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • Salero21

          If I don't blame your momma for your miserable condition; why are you trying to blame mine? See... this is why I say that atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE An Orangutan have more social graces than an atheist/evolutionist/cultist/pagan/idolater!!!

          April 30, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          As annoying as Salero can be that is completely inappropriate.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Not unexpected from the faithful. In the next post he'll claim the moral high ground.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          You're an idiot. Shut the hell up.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          Ken, I say what I please. Don't like it ? Tough. Don't read it. JAJAJAJAJA. Bite me.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • Salero21

          Atheism is Total NONSENSE all over, here there, anywhere and everywhere, any time all the time, every single time and forevermore. So if anybody, anyone anywhere can prove me wrong or disprove/refute what I've been saying then maybe I could stop saying it. So far nobody, no one, here, there anywhere can disprove neither refute what I say. Than Akira appears to think that I'm all so important. Gee even somebody somewhere who is a nobody everywhere thinks so.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Dude, we are just saying we believe in what is observable and probable and nothing more. We have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. You on the other hand have a lot to prove that you can't. Let us know how that is going for you.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          What is this fucking high school?

          grow up, both of you.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          Atheism is blah blah blah blah curiously random capitalized word blah blah blah.

          Yo, Kenny, stifle yourself.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • Salero21

          Atheists are extreme hypocrites, compulsive pathological Liars and basely Vulgar. Not only they are what they are, they also made all the effort and take all the necessary time and more to show it off to the WWW. That maybe a Congenital trait in them if it not a learned vice among many others.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Right we should learn how to converse like you. Rusty coat hanger,etc.

          April 30, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • Doris

          Whatever it is they (atheists) are doing, it sure is a hell of a lot less boring than what you're doing on here Blablero.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          "Than Akira appears to think that I’m all so important."

          She was talking to somebody else and plainly you lack reading comprehension, which isn't surprising because you used "than" incorrectly. You're the type that would rape someone and them say they had it coming to them because they said hello you, aren't you? You think you're important? Impotent would be more like it. This isn't attention, asshole. This is flat out derision. But if that gives you an ego boost, have at it, you sick shit.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          What the hell is your fixation on capitalizing random words, you imbecile? Stuck on that lesson in your 2nd grade class? You write like a 7 year old.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
  10. justpro86

    There are two types of science. Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable. Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, themselves, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

    April 30, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
    • guidedans

      JP,

      It is funny because there is a Bible verse that is relevant to just about everything that the Atheists on this forum spew out. Who would have thought that the Bible could be so useful?

      In this case, I think the following verse from Romans 1 is appropriate. The Atheists all have access to God's glory, they just choose not to see it.

      Romans 1:
      18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

      April 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
      • Madtown

        The writings of men, credited to God. I wonder if God is bothered by this false crediting? I'd think so. Clearly God is powerful enough to create his own word, he doesn't need human assistance.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • guidedans

          Madtown,

          Everything good on this world should be credited to God. Every involuntary heartbeat and every atom sticking together is all given to us by the grace of God.

          The Bible is inspired by God and contains the truths that He wanted the world to know. Even without the Bible however, as the verse I quoted demonstrates, there is more than enough evidence in nature to point to a creator with divine attributes.

          I think the bigger thing that irritates God would be NOT attributing things to Him that are rightly His.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans

          "Everything good on this world should be credited to God."

          Yes, as long as you credit him for everything bad in this world, too. He supposedly create it ALL.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          dans....then who should we attribute all the bad things? Diseases, natural disasters, intolerance, 3/4 of the world not believing in your particular god, etc? Please don't say something stupid like the bad things are all Satan....it would just make you look foolish.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • guidedans

          gullible and observer,

          You guys know this already. We have been over this. God gets the good things. Mankind gets the bad. God made us perfect. We fell from grace. We caused evil to enter the world.

          Anything good is a remnant of God's original creation. Anything bad is a result of our sin.

          Not Satan's fault, although he did pull a fast one on us early on. We did this, and we are accountable for all the bad in this town.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • Doris

          If Satan was able to "pull a fast one" in various ways including those defended by Justin Martyr and others, then what evidence do you have that the extent of his trickery didn't go beyond what was claimed by the early apologists? If Satan was able to plagiarize backward in time, what makes you think he couldn't have plagiarized much more, including stories from the OT?

          April 30, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • Madtown

          The Bible is inspired by God and contains the truths that He wanted the world to know.
          ---–
          Then, what's your best guess as to why God hasn't provided this word to the entire world? If the bible contains "the truths" he wants us to know, it's curious that he creates so many humans who will never have the chance to learn the first thing about it. How many humans has he created today, that will never even have a concept of the existence of christianity? Seems he doesn't "want the world to know", or much more likely.........it's not his word to begin with. It's human-crafted.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
        • fintronics

          "The Bible is inspired by God and contains the truths that He wanted the world to know."

          Your opinion, based on your imagination. Try reality for a change.

          May 1, 2014 at 8:53 am |
        • fintronics

          "God gets the good things. Mankind gets the bad. God made us perfect. We fell from grace. We caused evil to enter the world. "

          Yea, how convenient ... and utterly ridiculous at the same time..

          May 1, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • jbhollen

          It just kills me that people hang this kind of baggage voluntarily around their necks. “God gets the good things. Mankind gets the bad". God's goodness per scripture is built on the back of genocide, patricide, matricide, fratricide, infanticide, incest, misogyny, slavery and an abundance of bloody violence in general. If this makes god good it is a sad statement for this belief system.

          I had to remove some of gods deeds because the blog word filter was blocking the post. That tells you something right there.

          May 1, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • joey3467

          God obviously didn't care if the whole world knew about him, or he would have told people living outside of the Ancient Middle East about his presence. The fact that Christianity relies on missionaries to spread the word of the bible is a strike against it in my opinion.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so you assume God should do everything..and let us people be like islands in the stram..not having anything to do with one another..or showing love ion anyway..we just sit here and twiddle our thumbs waiting for his return...thsts pretty silly....God is allowing us to be a part of that work which is an honor and a way for us to show love to others...

          May 1, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • joey3467

          if god had made man kind perfect then how did they make a mistake, or sin, in the first place. If humans had been perfect they could not have sinned. So I can only conclude that Adam and Eve were never perfect, or all of humanity would still be perfect.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • joey3467

          The bible points out repeatedly that all humans are flawed, and personally I don't think a god would rely on his flawed creation to spread the word of its existence. So to me for a god to be real every single person who has ever lived needs to know about the god and have access to any books about it. Since this is not the case with Christianity, to me, there is no reason to even consider it.

          May 1, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        dans....I've seen over your past several posts that you are pretty much a flaming azzhole. Just because you have this bizarre relationship with an invisible deity does not mean that everybody needs one. I am much too intelligent to have some sort of ecclesiastical experience in my bathroom mirror, but that doesn't mean you can't have one. The problem here is that you Christians have this crazy way of attributing facts to a book....a book that tells you that you must believe it because it tells you to.

        I personally do not need a crutch to get through life. I don't need either drugs or your god, as depending on either is particularly harmful. You and your ilk may need this invisible deity, so have at it. However, don't bother trying to chastise the atheists on this blog, as we are much more in touch with our lives seeing that we have absolutely no use whatsoever for a vengeful, worthless, and downright evil deity. The BS that you try to pass off as 'facts' may work in your little god world, but in the real world, facts need to be provable, and not just words in your book.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • guidedans

          I apologize if I come across as an azzhole. I know I get a little flippant at times, but that's just my style.

          I was an agnostic/atheist guy for a long time (about 15 years) growing up. I came to Christianity through intellectual and practical reasons. Plus, as the folks on this forum like to point out, it made my wife happy (not the main reason, but a contributing factor nonetheless).

          Anyhow, you should expect Christians to try to convert you and to tell you that you are wrong. In our world-view, you are going to Hell. We are commanded to go out and preach the Gospel to prevent you from going to Hell. If we didn't do that, we would be bad Christians. It is not out of hate that I am trying to convince you that your ideas are incorrect, it is because I genuinely worry about your eternal soul.

          I would tell you to believe whatever you want, but I would really rather you just jump on the Christian train than stick on the one you are currently on.

          If a Christian is not trying to convert you, then it shows that they have either given up on you, or really just don't like you all that much.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans,

          Trying to force your religion on others and telling people that they will go to hell if they don't follow what you say, is just one more example of a Christian PREACHING, but not PRACTICING the Golden Rule.

          Well done.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • guidedans

          If I were going to Hell, I would expect you to preach to me.

          I am treating you exactly the way I would want to be treated. Totes Golden.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans,

          Everyone else in the world thinks they have the right solution to life. You wouldn't want people constantly telling you are wrong, so skip the HYPOCRISY and start following the Golden Rule, which many believers like you IGNORE.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          dans....that is why I addressed that last message to you and not to the other Christians that post on this site. Most of them, salero21, Theo, Kermit, and a couple of others have absolutely lost their minds. They are buffoons with a computer and have absolutely nothing valuable to add to the conversation.

          I grew up Catholic and have had the exact opposite experience as you. I was indoctrinated by my family, because that is what the Irish Catholic did back in the 60's and 70's. It was only through looking at religion and god in particular that I realized that logically, it made no sense.

          I'll tell you the thing that bothers me most about the so-called Christians on this site. Many of them came to their belief in god when they experienced some sort of visitation from their god. Then they chastise us for just not believing in god because they tell us to. Well sorry....I'm taking nobody's word for anything....I need proof. And, if god were to appear to me like he did to them, then fine, but I look at that as an impossibility because I don't need a belief in god to get through my life.

          As much as I disagree with your position on this subject, I respect your dedication. Just don't sink to the levels of that idiot salero, or Theo...who believes that the Jews had the Holocaust coming to them, or Kermit, who just makes the most idiotic statements. Or worse....those morons that quote the bible as the answer for everything. Quotes only work for people that believe that your book is infallible. We do not. We need proof, and will always need proof, not conjecture.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          "I am treating you exactly the way I would want to be treated. Totes Golden."

          Therein lies the flaw. Perhaps I do not like your own taste in what should be done unto others.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
      • jbhollen

        Romans 1/19? Sorry god hasn't shown me squat.

        April 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
    • Akira

      Justpro's theme song:
      ♫♫♪♪ ♫♪
      I've been caught stealing;
      once when I was 5... ♫♫♪♪ ♫♪
      I enjoy stealing.
      It's just as simple as that.
      Well, it's just a simple fact.
      ♫♫♪♪ ♫♪
      ~Jane's Addiction

      April 30, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
    • jbhollen

      Fossil records provide empirical evidence today that prove out evolution. It is not a conclusion based on faith. But wow, you made a clear and concise argument why little in Christian teaching can or ever will be proved.

      April 30, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
      • fintronics

        It's really amazing, isn't it?.. When I see someone post that they don't believe in evolution, I think to myself, how can someone in this day and age be so incredibly ignorant?.... truly amazing.

        May 1, 2014 at 9:07 am |
    • MidwestKen

      @justpro86,
      Historical vs Operational science is a red-herring argument often used by AIG and Ken Ham. There is no distinction in the use of science.

      We currently observe the Cosmic Background Radiation. How is that not what you would consider "Operational"?

      April 30, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • speediejoe

        You are of course correct. But, FYI, Justpro isn't just using a Ken Ham argument, he is copy 'n pasting a Ken Ham argument without giving credit to source. I was responding to him, but, now I see he is just a cut 'n paste troll don't bother with him.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:05 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Why would you choose the imaginings of Bronze Age goat-herders over verifiable science? I know you use a computer and the internet; I'll bet you use GPS, satellite TV, drive a car, have had vaccinations and medication, etc. Why do you only reject the science that disproves the bible. Oh I see now.

      April 30, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        silly argument santa.....GPS and driving a car have nothing to do with evolution....evolution is nOT the crux of science..it is only one part of it......

        May 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • joey3467

          But the conclusions are reached by using the same process. Why do you feel the scientific method works in the case of GPS systems, but not in the case of evolution?

          May 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • speediejoe

          You are right that evolution is not the "crux of science". It is, however, the foundation of biology from which EVERYTHING in biology is based on. If evolution is false, DNA courtroom evidence wouldn't not work and vaccines would not work. Or at least, they would have no discernible reason to work and no reason to believe they would work.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:08 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT neccesarily..its just bad correlation they are making..as you are....the fact that apes and humans have very close DNA does not prove they have a common ancestor..and THAT would be a moot point in the courtroom..since we are not looking for pawes who murdered someone..or a common ancestor..but humans.....sorry...that is bad correlation on your part

          May 2, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • ssq41

          I just can't stop laughing that kermy would accuse anyone of poor correlation....lets review all his posts for the past few months....

          May 2, 2014 at 2:33 am |
        • sam stone

          really, kermy? how's that tailbone doing?

          May 3, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • kermit4jc

          YOu implying out tailbone is vestigial? go study the anatomy of it.....cant take a poop woithout it very well....look at the muscles that are attached to it.....

          May 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      there is only one kind of science. it can be applied to the present and the past. there are NOT two kinds of science. that's the silly creationist way of trying to negate science when applied on the past. it's very silly.

      if someone is killed and we find (via science) matching hair fibers, dna, saliva samples, fingerprints, if there is a clear motive and the murderer knew the victim, etc. - we don't have to be there to know what happened, all using science.

      April 30, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Ninja'd!

        April 30, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
      • speediejoe

        FYI, Justpro isn't just using a Ken Ham argument, he is copy 'n pasting a Ken Ham argument without giving credit to source. I was responding to him, but, now I see he is just a cut 'n paste troll don't bother with him.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:09 am |
    • Sungrazer

      There are no conclusions outside mathematics that are 100% definitive, even in the "operational science" you want to define for us. Yet conclusions can indeed be drawn, including those within the scope of your "historical science". There is more substance to these conclusions than you are giving credit for. It is disingenuous to ascribe these conclusions to faith.

      Defendants in murder trials would love to have you on the jury. If there were no witnesses, you would insist on an innocent verdict no matter the strength of the evidence, because the prosecutor is asking you to take it all "on faith".

      April 30, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
    • igaftr

      Justp
      Plagarizing is stealing you petty theif. Your entire post was stolen from
      http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/

      Your posted rerason 10 in its entirety.without giving credit. You are a proven liar and theif.

      May 1, 2014 at 8:13 am |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Isn't this just a cut and paste from Ken Ham's lame excuses when he got his ass beat like a redheaded stepchild by Bill Nye?

      May 1, 2014 at 8:24 am |
    • speediejoe

      No, there is just "science". This false distinction your hero Ham made up is just to try to weasel out of accepting science. And, by the way, there is also no "future science". If I build an airplane, or a car, bridge, etc., I assume that the laws of science won't change on me. If they did, the plane I build today might crash tomorrow. If you have a problem with so-called historical science, then you should also have a problem with "future science" and not trust that airplanes designed yesterday still fly today. Since you do NOT make this distinction, that is proof positive that your "historical science" distinction is 100% pure horse-sh1t to avoid accepting science where it encroaches on your fairy tale.

      May 2, 2014 at 1:51 am |
      • justpro86

        Ham is not my hero me and him have many disagreements. Sorry pal Science and the Bible agree with eachother

        May 2, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Justpro....anytime somebody makes the stupid statement that science and the bible are compatible, I have to respond. Science proclaims that evolution is the progression of animals and man, the bible completely contradicts that. Science has shown that the earth is 14.5 million years old....the bible claims 6000 years. Science has shown absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood that would completely wipe out every species of plants and animals. The story of Noah contradicts that. Science is provable...the bible is speculation.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • justpro86

          No science does not proclaim anything about evolution. Evolution goes against the laws of science. Majority of evolutions claims are only claimed to try to take GOd out of society that is the only reason why evolution was born. Science is in the bible if you read the book the Bible is the most scientifically sound religious book out there. Sorry your post is ridiculous

          May 2, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          JustP....you know, if you want to continue to be a dick, that's fine. It just makes you look really petty and foolish. However, you might want to actually address the questions that are posed to you instead of trying to sound pithy. There is nothing...absolutely nothing in the bible that can be qualified or proven scientifically. I mentioned Noah and the age of the earth as 2 instances. Also, Adam and Eve vs evolution. I noticed you didn't respond to any of that.....just wanting to try to sound like some sort of tough guy moron.....which you only got half right. Give me realities and not silly responses if you want to be taken seriously. Tell me some evidential, provable science in your book of myths.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • justpro86

          If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
          In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
          Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          justp....you can rationalize all you want, but the simple fact is, that not every element of evolution has been discovered. That does not mean that we get to say that a god with a magic wand must have created us. I have been given explanations of how the universe came about. There are 400 million suns with probably countless billions of planets. I am not so naïve as to think that if there was a god, that he would make billions of planets and then only populate one with life. There are way too many reasons to not believe in a god. The fact that there have been hundreds, if not thousands of gods made up by man over the years. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any gods exist, much less the 'right one'. You believe on faith, and that is fine.....but....you really have no proof, other than the bible, which was put together by men. It's simple really....you either believe a 2000 year old unproven book, or you say you don't really know, but are willing to wait for proven, logical answers. I have chosen the latter of the two, and am quite happy in my decision. I just do not need the crutch of a god to get through my life.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • justpro86

          Bible is more proven today than unproven your ignorance is bliss.... Please spare me the BS... Proof of intelligent design is all around us... Evolution was made by a simple man with a great imagination and no scientific background.. Sorry everybody needs God and its fact many tend to need God when during hard times like death... There is proof of God in science and the heavens which is outer space... There is NO proof of Evolution why it remains a theory...

          May 2, 2014 at 11:05 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          justp....I don't have to believe in evolution in order to not believe that an invisible sky wizard waved a magic wand. I think that is the part that you are missing. The bible is only proven to you and your ilk....there are thousands of different interpretations of the bible, all based on the exact same book. Odd that the catholics, Baptists, etc all believe different aspects of a supposed proven book. And...I hate to disappoint you, but I do not need god.....period! You may....you might be the type of person that needs drugs, alcohol, or religion in order to get by your daily life, but I do not. Your dependence on an invisible deity is your business, but I see absolutely no need to pull me into your fantasy world. I don't want any of your silly bible stories dictating my life through governmental laws. I don't think that is asking too much, really.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • justpro86

          99% atheists believe in evolution because they solemnly believe its a good excuse and explanation of not having to believe in a God. Without God there is no purpose in life... You die you eat you sleep you get married and its a revolving cycle and when you die you vanish as if we don't have souls that live forever which we certainly do.... With God you have a purpose and a better understanding of our origins and what not... Without God we all are accidents

          May 2, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • jbhollen

          You think evolution is a reason to not believe in got? No reasons are needed.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • justpro86

          Yes evolution is the only thing contradicting God existance and a poor attempt of one too

          May 2, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • jbhollen

          You forgot the laws of physics.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • justpro86

          That God created in order for to support life

          May 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Sure. I assume you have many proofs and references to support this.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • justpro86

          I posted many

          May 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Somehow I missed them all. Can you point out the day and time you made the posts and I'll go look.

          Also, I made the offer to clear up our misunderstanding regarding my claim that I debunked all your anti-evolution evidence. I proposed that we go through each one of your posts a point at a time starting with the trilobite "paper" you posted. Do you want me to repost my rebuttal and we can spend some time going point by point or can you just find my original response and reply to each point.

          May 2, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          jbh....your posts have been very patient and filled with logical thought. But....I'm sure you have already figured out that you are dealing with an infantile mind here. I have no idea why these so-called Christians act so un-Christian like. But, however nice and patient your posts are, you will never get through to the idiots that don't believe in fossil history or evolution. These idiots think that The Flintstones are a doc-umentary. Don't waste your time.....you are much smarter than this clown.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • jbhollen

          This response credited to redzoa. Posted 4/30 @ 11:14PM

          Positive supporting evidence for evolution: the progressive order of the fossil record complete with a nice progression of hominid and pre-hominid forms; phylogenetic analyses of extinct and extant forms which corroborate the order of the fossil record; biogeographical analyses which corroborate the distributions within the fossil record; the presence of forms bearing traits which bridge the alleged specially-created “kinds” (e.g. Tiktaalik with both fish and tetrapod features, Archeopteryx with both dino and bird features); the presence of anatomical and molecular vestigial features (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the defunct human gene for egg-yolk protein); direct observation of speciation events; direct observation of the ability of mutation and selection to yield new and additional “complex and specified” genetic “information” validation of the theory of evolution in disciplines ranging from medicine to agricultural to engineering; etc, etc.

          Negative supporting evidence for evolution: no observations of confounding fossils (i.e. no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, no humans alongside dinosaurs); no observations of true chimeras; no observations of forms appearing ex nihilo; no observations of truly “irreducibly complex” structures; etc, etc.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • justpro86

          As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
          Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
          It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
          Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
          Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
          The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • jbhollen

          justpro86 – you keep posting plagiarized material from apologetic websites with out reading or fact checking. First, Francis Hitching who is referenced in the the post was a non-Darwinian Evolutionary biologist who was harsh on creationists. Below is a quote for the very book referenced in your post, The neck of the Giraffe from page 12.

          "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this... the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms."

          What Hitching observed, and what your post refers to is the unevenness of evolution. Sometimes it is slow and sometimes it explodes with new species. The entire premise of your post is false. There are 20,000 unique species that your author lumped into one (ref:http://thedarwinreport.wordpress.com). Go to this link (http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm) and you will see the wild diversity in the evolution of trilobites. You'll like it – lots of pictures.

          Do you see a pattern emerging here? Creationist make up facts and present them as truth, hoping no one (like you) will fact check them.

          May 2, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • justpro86

          What you proven is that Evolutionists change their theories from time to time to go with their new found discoveries... Proves Evolution is silly... Darwin invented the evolution theory and more scientists have discovered a lot of flaws in darwins theory and change a few passages... Sorry does not convince me... At least the Bible never changed through its 2,000 year existance and 1/3 of the world population believes in this great book... Christianity will never be outed and taken out of the US as much as you Atheists think you can... You won't

          May 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Yes, theories can and are modified as new evidence is discovered. It is part of the scientific method.

          Quoting your post "more scientists have discovered a lot of flaws in darwins theory and change a few passages". Im not sure what all of this means but I understand that "more scientists" have discovered "flaws" in evolution. Please tell me what scientists you are referring to and what flaws they have discovered. Be specific please. This is supposed to be about facts.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Agree with all except the age of the earth. It's 4.5 Billion years old.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          jb.....sorry....I thought that was the age of the universe. I just know it is a heck of a lot older than 6000 years. I'm done with justpro though. He is much more of an idiot than I originally thought. Actually, I have no idea why the so-called Christians on this blog are such azzholes! This nut, Theo, that lunatic salero, Kermit.....they never have anything worthwhile to say. I do like to debate issues in the attempt to learn something, but I don't think it is worth it with these morons on this site.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • speediejoe

          Whether you have "disagreements" with Ham or not, you still find him a sufficiently good source to cut and paste his arguments, which have been refuted. Go away troll.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • justpro86

          NO I don't Ham is not even a scientist of any field. he is more of a politician for Young earth Creationsim which teaches against what I believe. I believe in the Bible and I believe in science

          May 2, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • jbhollen

          Sorry Bud but science and the bible cannot be reconciled. As a suggestion you may want to tackle the mysteries of the english language first and then think about moving up to something more difficult such as science.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • justpro86

          Sorry already proven so they are compatable

          May 2, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • jbhollen

          Good to know.

          Next time there is a worldwide flood I'll be secure in the knowledge that one 600 year old man and his 100 year old sons can build a boat by themselves with one window and one door that can fit 2 of each unclean animal and 7 of each clean animal on earth – call it 22.5 million animals and load them all on the same day.

          Since science and the bible are comparable,

          – I'll just assume we have not discovered the talking donkeys and snakes yet.
          – If god stops the world from turning again I won't be surprised
          – If I ever get lost at sea I will try to get a whale to swallow me because the bible says I could live for at least 3 days in there.

          Most importantly once we trash this planet for good god can whip up another one in 6 days.

          justpro86 – are feeling ridiculous yet? I know the answer. Probably not.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • justpro86

          No your stupidity does not make me feel ridiculous at all

          May 2, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • jbhollen

          Justpro86 – Forgive my stupidity. I am here to learn. I provided a number of events from the bible that are considered gods word by the faithful. I tried and tried but I can't reconcile any of them with known science. Can you please help me out and provide the scientific basis for each event? Thanks very much in advance.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • justpro86

          Scientific Fact or Principle Bible reference Date of discovery by man
          Both man and woman possess the seed of life Genesis 3:15 17th Century
          There is a place void of stars in the North Job 26:7 19th Century
          Earth is held in place by invisible forces Job 26:7 1650
          Taxonomic classification of matter Genesis 1 1735
          The Earth is round Isaiah 40:22 15th Century
          Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man Leviticus 11 16th Century
          Early diagnosis of leprosy Leviticus 13 17th Century
          Quarantine for disease control Leviticus 13 17th Century
          Blood of animals carries diseases Leviticus 17 17th Century
          Blood is necessary for life Leviticus 17:11 19th Century
          Oceans have natural paths in them Psalms 8:8 1854
          Earth was in nebular form initially Genesis 1:2 1911
          Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3 Genesis 6 1860
          Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) Job 38:19 1932
          Radio astronomy (stars give off signals) Job 38:7 1945
          Oceans contain fresh water springs Job 38:16 1920
          Snow has material value Job 38:22 1905, 1966
          Infinite number of stars exist Genesis 15:5 1940
          Dust is important to survival Isaiah 40:12 1935
          Hubert Spencer's scientific principles Genesis 1 1820
          Air has weight Job 28:25 16th Century
          Light can be split up into component colors Job 38:24 1650
          Matter is made up of invisible particles Romans 1:20 20th Century
          Plants use sunlight to manufacture food Job 8:16 1920
          Arcturus and other stars move through space Job 38:32 19th Century
          Water cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7 17th Century
          Life originated in the sea Genesis 1 19th Century
          Lightning and thunder are related Job 38:25 19th Century
          Human beings were the last living things created Genesis 1 15th Century

          May 2, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • jbhollen

          justpro86. I assume this post is supposed to "reconcile the bible with science". One of the references in your post caught my eye. The third one from the bottom says that in Genesis 1 it says "Life originated in the Sea". How do reconcile that with the Adam and Eve Myth? I don't believe the bible can be reconciled with itself let alone science.

          Anyway, I have spent way to much time researching and shooting down each of your plagiarized posts. Time for you to do some work. If the bible can be reconciled with science then it "all" has to be reconciled with science. In a previous post I gave you 5 or 6 biblical truths. Please show me how these reconcile with science. I look forward to your response.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • justpro86

          You never shot down any of my posts LOL you only confirmed your ignorance to the truth nice try

          May 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Alright,I am about done with you. Let me ask a simple question.

          How do you reconcile a talking snake with science?

          May 2, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • justpro86

          Satan is a great deceiver he is like a snake or a dragon.... Being a snake Satan talked Eve into eating the apple....

          May 2, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • jbhollen

          The topic was reconciling the bible with science. Is this you scientific reconciliation? That the devil did it?

          May 2, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • jbhollen

          I shot them all down. Your trilobite paper, the bee/flower coevolution paper, you could not reconcile the biblical story's I referenced with science. There wasn't one material fact you presented that I did not counter. I am coming to the conclusion that you are severely narcissistic and are incapable of seeing any thing or any fact that has not already been programmed in your pea brain by your Madrasa teachers. But let's assume I'm wrong. Let's revisit each post you made presenting proof against evolution starting with the one regarding trilobites. Do you remember that one? It was the one that was so sloppy it referenced the anti- creationist author. Can you please reply point by point to the response I made? Do you need me to repost my response?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • jbhollen

          I shot them all down. Your trilobite paper, the bee/flower coevolution paper, you could not reconcile the biblical story's I referenced with science. There wasn't one material point you presented that I did not counter. But let's assume I'm wrong. Let's revisit each post you made presenting proof against evolution starting with the one regarding trilobites. Do you remember that one? Can you please reply point by point to the response I made because you didn't the first time? Do you need me to repost my response?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • redzoa

          justpro86 offers two sources, from 1982 and 1970 contesting pre-Cambrian forms and transitional forms. In the 32/44 yrs since these arguments were initially made, we've discovered a wealth of pre-Cambrian forms, both soft and hard-bodied, which very likely represent the stem groups from which the Cambrian diversification transpired. Interestingly, these pre-Cambrian forms also represent a progression from single to complex multi-cellular life. Furthermore, we have discovered transitional forms bearing traits which bridge all of the major vertebrate classes (and plenty more with respect to plants and other forms of life). The problem remains for both old and young-earth creationists that the existence of just one fossil which bears traits bridging the alleged specially-created "kinds" is a confounding piece of evidence. As noted before, Tiktaalik and Archeopteryx (among many others) provide this confounding evidence for the specially-created "kinds" position because they represent forms which are simultaneously fish and tetrapod, and dino and bird, respectively. Regarding feather evolution, see:
          http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/02/feathers/zimmer-text/1

          @jbhollen – I truly appreciate your effort in responding to justpro86, but it appears you've been pulled into a game of "pigeon chess" . . . http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

          May 5, 2014 at 2:02 am |
        • jbhollen

          redzoa – Thanks for the heads-up. I went to the link and understand your point. However I am unsure if the bar of pigeon intelligence has been met.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • tallulah131

          This is the site that justin stole his list of "scientific proof of the bible":

          http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php

          It's amazing that people who believe this nonsense don't get dizzy from all the spinning.

          May 5, 2014 at 2:07 am |
        • jbhollen

          I've made a part time job out of finding the sources of justpro's plagiarism. The rule of thumb is, if his post is other than a jumble of misspelled words connected by "......" instead of any punctuation and third grade diction, then he lifted it from somewhere. It's usually not hard to find.

          May 5, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
  11. justpro86

    If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

    April 30, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
    • Madtown

      ^^^ Incredible simpleton

      April 30, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
      • justpro86

        ^^^Ignorant fool

        April 30, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Madtown

          Pot, meet Kettle.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
        • justpro86

          LOL not even close

          April 30, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • Akira

          Justpro, you STOLE this, and you are going to sit in judgement of someone else's character when you possess none yourself?

          April 30, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • justpro86

          LMAO

          April 30, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
      • Akira

        Lying little sack of shit. LMAO.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
    • observer

      justpro86,

      Species Lived where Height Weight Fossil record Discovery/Publ.
      Denisova hominin Russia 1 site 2010
      H. antecessor Spain 5’7” 200 lb 2 sites 1997
      H. cepranensis Italy 1 skull cap 1994/2003
      H. erectus Africa, Eurasia 5’9” 130 lb Many 1891/1892
      H. ergaster East/South Africa 6’2” Many 1975
      H. floresiensis Indonesia 3’4” 55 lb 7 individuals 2003/2004
      H. gautengensis South Africa 3’4” 1 individual 2010/2010
      H. habilis Africa 4’10” 121 lb, Many, 1960/1964
      H. heidelbergensis Eur., Africa,China 5’10” 200 lb Many 1908
      H. neanderthalensis Europe, W. Asia 5’3” 150 lb Many (1829)/1864
      H. rhodesiensis Zambia Very few 1921
      H. rudolfensis Kenya 2 sites 1972/1986
      Red Deer Cave people China Very few 2012
      H. sapiens idaltu Ethiopia 3 craniums 1997/2003
      H. sapiens

      April 30, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      "None is on the verge of being some other life form."

      Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

      April 30, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Science in general and evolution in particular have advanced exponentially since Darwin's time. Very few fossils had been found at that point and we do now have those transitional fossils – bear in mind that the majority of bodies just rot away without leaving a skeleton. We do have have what Darwin could not imagine – DNA which proves evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt.

      April 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
    • tallulah131

      justin's original post was stolen from this site:

      http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/

      May 1, 2014 at 2:11 am |
    • fintronics

      More lies for jeebus... how sad..

      May 1, 2014 at 8:12 am |
    • igaftr

      Justp

      STEALING AGAIN.
      your entire post stolen from
      http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/
      reason 5.

      LIAR AND THEIF

      May 1, 2014 at 8:18 am |
    • G to the T

      "If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form"

      You have it backwards I believe. All species are transitional forms, otherwise there would only be one species of animal. Dogs are different from cats because they have both transitioned from a common ancestor into the forms they have today.

      May 2, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • justpro86

        A dog no matter what kind is a dog... A cat no matter what kind is a cat always have been and never was anyother species... A monkey was always a monkey and a human was always a human... Our minds evolve yes with learning and understanding new things thats it... No bodys ancestor was a monkey never was...

        May 2, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • igaftr

          justp

          The canides and the felides broke from their common ancestor approximately 65 million years ago. The difference between them today is the result of evolution happening for 65 million years.

          May 3, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • jbhollen

          justpro86 – Yes/No question. Are you saying that once upon a time tiny miniature Yorkshire Terriers and "Teacup" Poodles ran wild?

          May 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • jbhollen

          justpro86 – I am still waiting to hear from you regarding my offer to discuss point -by-point your evolution posts of a couple days ago. Again, I will make the offer to repost my original response if you like.

          May 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • justpro86

          Evolution is false

          May 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Do you still deny plagerizing Dr. Morris's article and posting it as your own work?

          May 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
      • hotairace

        Justpro, where can we find your scholarly article debunking evolution, or any scholarly article published in a credible, peer-reviewed, scientific journal on any non-religious subject that successfully concludes with "some god did it!"? I think there is not a single one, but go ahead, prove me wrong.

        May 5, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • jbhollen

          hotairace – justpro86 has plagiarized a couple of articles and posted them as his own work. Both were easily disproved. It is amazing what this guy and others will post assuming no one will fact check them. Since I started calling him out on his plagiarism and fact checking his stolen material he has gone pretty silent. So I guess this strategy is working pretty well on a couple of levels.

          May 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • hotairace

          Only the truly delusional believers hang around when it becomes clear they have no actual rational reasons to believe the crap they do.

          May 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |
    • jbhollen

      justpro86 – I'll keep putting this in front of you hoping that you might accidentally read it.

      This response credited to redzoa. Posted 4/30 @ 11:14PM

      Positive supporting evidence for evolution: the progressive order of the fossil record complete with a nice progression of hominid and pre-hominid forms; phylogenetic analyses of extinct and extant forms which corroborate the order of the fossil record; biogeographical analyses which corroborate the distributions within the fossil record; the presence of forms bearing traits which bridge the alleged specially-created “kinds” (e.g. Tiktaalik with both fish and tetrapod features, Archeopteryx with both dino and bird features); the presence of anatomical and molecular vestigial features (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the defunct human gene for egg-yolk protein); direct observation of speciation events; direct observation of the ability of mutation and selection to yield new and additional “complex and specified” genetic “information” validation of the theory of evolution in disciplines ranging from medicine to agricultural to engineering; etc, etc.

      Negative supporting evidence for evolution: no observations of confounding fossils (i.e. no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, no humans alongside dinosaurs); no observations of true chimeras; no observations of forms appearing ex nihilo; no observations of truly “irreducibly complex” structures; etc, etc.

      May 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • justpro86

        You can place that in front of me all you want I already posted something debunking that statement...

        May 4, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • jbhollen

          I looked and cannot find that post. Can you please tell me what day and time you posted your response?

          May 4, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • jbhollen

          I can't seem to find that post. Can you please provide the day and time you posted it?

          May 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
    • jbhollen

      justpro86 posted another uncredited rip-off on 4/30 at 7:49pm. This time he plagiarized an article by Randy Alcom and Jim Darnall called "Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – Revised". Justpro plagiarized the entirety of the 5th point called "There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true". You can visit the scene of the crime by going to http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised.

      justpro, when are you going to admit that all of your intelligible posts are uncredited rip-offs of other peoples work?

      May 5, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
  12. justpro86

    Doctor Luke was surely a great man specially called of God—a scientist, physician, historian, brilliant writer, inspired writer, Christian apologist, and Biblical creationist! Thank God for his unique ministry.

    April 30, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • Doris

      Your over-glorification and exaggeration of Luke are showing, pro.

      I'll quote "speedijoe" from the previous page, who I believe correctly puts things into perspective:

      "If Luke meant he actually talked to eyewitnesses, he would have said he talked to eyewitnesses. If he actually talked to eyewitnesses, and doesn't tell us that, that makes him a BAD historian. Not a good one, like a the Christians claim. The fact is, Luke never tells us his sources, other than a few ancillary sources. He does a copy and paste job, and yet does not tell the reader he did a copy and paste job. Basically, the ONLY thing Luke tells is is a claim that he investigated carefully. And I'm sure if you talked to early Muslims they would say they investigated carefully. And early Mormons, etc. Simply somebody who is otherwise totally unknown to us making a claim of careful investigation is insufficient to conclude everything is accurate."

      April 30, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
      • justpro86

        No its an accurate description and speedijoe is a moron I could care less what his simple mind thinks. Just because he did not state his sources does not mean he is a bad historian. And yes he did interview the way people wrote back than is totally different than how we write today... Nobody cared about plagirism which is the only reason why today people state their sources because law prohibits it. Back than the law did not. So really stating sources is not necessary. He was a brilliant writer, Historian and was accurate to the fullest.

        April 30, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
        • Madtown

          is a moron I could care less what his simple mind thinks
          ----
          High irony alert.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • justpro86

          Ok fine correct word Ignoramus

          April 30, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • Doris

          "Nobody cared about plagiarism". Lol – several of the early Christian "historian"-apologists such as Justin Martyr cared about plagiarism. They even attributed some of it to Satan.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
        • joey3467

          AS someone with a degree in history, I can assure you that not citing your sources would make you a poor historian.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • justpro86

          Not really

          May 2, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • speediejoe

          Hey, Justpro, why do you hate your Bible so much that you disregard it so? 2 Tim 2:24-26 " And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

          Since you so flagrantly violate your own holy words, I can only conclude you are not actually a Christian and that if there is a hell, you can look forward to it.

          If there was actually a God, He wouldn't want a massive tool such as yourself to be his representative.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:15 am |
        • justpro86

          Biggest arrogant reply I ever heard but nice try your false accusations make you sound ridiculous

          May 2, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • speediejoe

          Why don't you try reading Bart Ehrman, a scholar even most Christians are forced to admit is a legitimate scholar and knows what he is talking about. According to Ehrman, even in ancient times, plagarism was highly frowned upon and could get you killed, although not commonly. But the entire claim that it was "okay" to write books as if they were written by your mentor is a complete Christian fabrication to avoid admitting that the fake works of Paul are just that - FAKES.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:18 am |
        • justpro86

          Funny atheists turn to plagiarism as the only out to try to some how win the argument however you are only a fool.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • speediejoe

          Translation: you have no response so you just try to divert. Go away troll.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • justpro86

          THe only troll is you sir coming on a blog mainly for Christians and trash our beliefs. You need to go back to the main CNN site and comment there and leave these blogs alone

          May 2, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • speediejoe

          " leave these blogs alone" Translation, "whaaa!! I don't like it when people try to make me think!!! I don't like it when I'm shown over and over to be a liar and a troll! Whaaa!!!!!"

          May 2, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
      • speediejoe

        Thanks.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:11 am |
    • jbhollen

      justpro86 – Imagine my surprise when I came across yet another word-for-word post where you plagiarized another author and presented it as your own. Actually it is the same author you got caught plagiarizing last time. On 4/30 at 7:44pm ct you posted another "Dr. Luke" paragraph. You lifted this one from the same article called "Dr. Luke" by Henry Morris that you plagiarized last time. It is the closing paragraph. For those that want to visit the scene of the crime go to http://www.icr.org/article/doctor-luke.

      You steal material, get called on it and lie through your teeth in the face of the evidence. I am asking you again to fess up or refute the evidence.

      May 5, 2014 at 10:00 am |
  13. justpro86

    Luke's writings are of special interest to me, not only because of his scientific accuracy in reporting but also because of his desire to defend the gospel and give evidence for its truth. In fact, most commentators on Luke's Gospel and especially his book of Acts agree that one important purpose was, indeed, that of apologetics. However, their main reason for understanding Acts this way is usually because of Luke's repeated emphasis on the legitimacy of Christianity

    as far as Rome was concerned, noting that practically all the initial opposition and persecution had been fomented by the Jewish leaders. The attempted defenses of Christ by Pilate and of Paul by Felix, Festus, Agrippa, etc., are recounted.

    However, Luke's interest in apo-logetics is broader than that. For example, he begins his two-book narrative with the most in-depth account of Christ's incarnation and birth to be found anywhere. Then he begins his book of Acts by noting that there had been "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3) of Christ's resurrection. This is followed by the supernatural events on the day of Pentecost, and then many miracles performed by the apostles as they began preaching the gospel, continually stressing the great truth of His resurrection. There was also much rehearsing of the evidence of fulfilled Messianic prophecy. The presence and power of the Holy Spirit is also evident through much of Luke's record in Acts. Although the book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, he is still free to preach the gospel to anyone who will listen, especially to the Gentiles.

    Finally, the book of Acts closes with the testimony that, despite his nominal status as a Roman prisoner, Paul spent "two whole years" free to preach to all who came to hear, "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him" (Acts 28:30-31).

    Also to note that Luke so happened to be a Gentile.

    April 30, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
    • Akira

      Been caught stealing again.
      Fraud.

      April 30, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
      • justpro86

        Nope

        April 30, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • Akira

          What site did you steal that from?

          Yep.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          justp
          You stole this from Henry Morris, Ph.D. In HIS article ent!tled "Doctor Luke" on
          http://www.icr.org/article/doctor-luke/

          Proven theif and liar Justin.

          May 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • justpro86

          All you got lol

          May 2, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • speediejoe

          How do we get this liar and theif banned? If there is a God, he should be the one afraid of God's wrath.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • justpro86

          Can't ban a person for posting his beliefs in a belief blog.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          and yet that's what you think should happen to atheists. funny how that works – sauce gander goose.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:41 am |
    • tallulah131

      Justin's original post was stolen (extra space and all) from this site:

      http://www.icr.org/article/doctor-luke/

      May 1, 2014 at 2:13 am |
    • speediejoe

      Posting beliefs is one thing, trolling is another. You are trolling, that should be sufficient for banning.

      May 2, 2014 at 10:32 am |
      • justpro86

        You are trolling coming on a christian blog and just littering the blog with you stupidity

        May 2, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • otoh2

          justpro,

          1. This is not a "christian blog".

          2. I don't know if the "86" in your name is for your birth year, but you don't seem very mature nor educated. You really sound like a teenager who is in the midst of indoctrination at some Christian high school.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • justpro86

          It is! Its a post about Jesus so in all technicality it is

          May 2, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • jbhollen

      For someone who claims to possess the purported values of the christian faith you are a consummate liar and thief.

      I found where you plagiarized your post from. You ripped off Dr. Henry Morris's article "Doctor Luke". His article consists of three sections and you stole the entirety of the second one called "Luke and Apologetics. I made another discovery that supports an earlier claim I made about you. In the section you plagiarized, the original article had a formatting error where a paragraph break was accidentally inserted in the middle of a sentence. Your stolen post is word for word identical including the accidental paragraph break. The point I made earlier that you just confirmed is that you do not even read the material you steal and post. For those who would like to visit the scene of the crime you can go to http://www.icr.org/article/doctor-luke.

      NOTE TO THE BLOG COMMUNITY, BOTH BELIEVERS AND NON. I propose that every post from justpro86 be responded to with a request for him to come clean on this.

      May 3, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
      • justpro86

        Your a fool I post facts that is all

        May 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Do you still deny lifting your post from Dr. Henry Morris's article?

          May 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • justpro86

          I Could care less

          May 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • jbhollen

          The rest of us care. Do you still deny lifting your post from Dr. Morris's article and claiming it was your work?

          May 4, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Justpro86 – You made a post and were called on it immediately. You said it was your work. I posted the original author, the article you took it from and the website the article was posted on. You need to either admit your plagerism or refute the evidence. You can't claim all the virtues of Christianity and then get away with stealing and then lying about it.

          May 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • justpro86

          I don't care about plagiarism and who cares.. All I care about is giving out facts for all too see... You can't call me out and seems like whenever I am right and deep down you know.. You take another avenue... Keep trying you fail

          May 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • jbhollen

          You stole and then lied about it. Then you wrap yourself in the cloak of Christian values. I cannot believe that the other believers on the blog are not speaking up. It is an indictment of the entire Christian community.

          May 4, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
  14. justpro86

    There is no evidence for Evolution it still remains JUST A THEORY

    April 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      A scientific Theory is well substantiated by evidence. "Just a Theory" is a rhetorical tactic by those who don't understand science.

      April 30, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
      • justpro86

        Wrong a theory is an educated guess that evolutionists have on how the world came to existance so far majority of their theory already been debunked and more the discovery the more proof God exists

        April 30, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Maybe you're just a troll, but do you really think there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution? I'm asking seriously. If you truly think that, my follow up question is where are you from and what is your education? It's concerning to think that there are people who are so lacking in education that they think there isn't evidence to support the theory of evolution.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • justpro86

          I know there is no evidence and no I am not a troll for I am in a Christian blog so apparently you atheists are the ones trolling

          April 30, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • jbhollen

          You make my point for me that you are really not equipped to even be in this disussion. You state that evolution is " an educated guess that evolutionists have on how the world came to existance" (your spelling). I am not even going to point out your demonstration of ignorance. Let's see if you can find it yourself

          April 30, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @justpro86,
          You are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution.
          Biochemistry like Cytochrome-c
          fossils like Tiktaalik, ambulocetus, etc.
          biogeography like marsupials
          genetics like Human Chromosome 2, ERVs, etc.

          and as far as i'm aware there is no evidence that refutes or contradicts evolution.

          p.s. this is NOT a "Christian blog", read the about info.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          And....don't forget Ken that there is no proof that some god waved a magic wand and created man either

          May 1, 2014 at 8:00 am |
        • SeaVik

          justpro, what do you mean you know there is no evidence? There is endless evidence for evolution unless you were taught in a Rick Perry school where you're sheltered from reality. Since you're posting here, you must have access to the internet and therefore, can see that no legitimate scientists dispute evolution.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • fintronics

          "There is no evidence for Evolution it still remains JUST A THEORY"

          The moron has spoken!!!

          May 1, 2014 at 8:15 am |
        • joey3467

          Honest question, did you not learn what a scientific theory is in school? I know for a fact that we went over it every year starting in like third grade.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • justpro86

          Schools scientific theory is all wrong because it discredits God and teaches our common ancestors were monkeys sorry fail

          May 2, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • jbhollen

          I am somewhat sympathetic to your cause because the schools you have experience with obviously failed you on several fronts. God cannot be discredited in school or anywhere else because he/she/it was never proven to exist in the first place. You can't discredit what is not there. I think you mean to say that schools discredit you, because you have irrational beliefs that they refuse to force feed innocent and flexible minds. However, unfortunately there are a lot of people trying to change that.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • justpro86

          Yes because schools teach the false theory of evolution why they fail EVERYBODY

          May 2, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • jbhollen

          Like I said, work on the english skills and then move on to science.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • justpro86

          Already aced all my science classes regardless of what I believed in... My english skills are fine sense you can reasonably comment on what I post unless you are posting with out understanding what I say which makes you more of a fool

          May 2, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • jbhollen

          Dude – I have to wade through your posts like I am grading first grade work written with crayons, but since your comments are pretty predictable I am able to glean a meaning. Just go back and read this post where you say your english skills are fine. Can you really not see the errors?

          May 2, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • justpro86

          LOL Dude you need to stop because I know my english skills are fine... I know I could read at a college level when in 3rd grade so yes I can understand fully what I read and what I type...

          May 2, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Like everything else in our exchanges, that is not evident.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • igaftr

          justp
          "I am in a Christian blog "

          False. You don't even know where you are. It is a BELIEF blog and everyone has belief.

          What arrogance to think that belief means christianity. So you are not only a liar, and a theif, but now you are also ignorant and apparently lost.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • justpro86

          Belief goes hand in hand with Religion so I guess you are right because you believe in Evolution which is the Atheist religion thanks for clarifying you dunce

          May 2, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Justpro....Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby (not sure who to give credit for that). Evolution is also not a religion, but I'm guessing you don't know too much about science, so you are forgiven for your transgression. Evolution is scientific theory, like gravity is a theory. All atheism says is....we do not believe in any gods. You don't believe in every single other god.....we just trump you by one.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • justpro86

          Evolution is a religion sorry its based on a theory its based on an secular belief that God does not exist. It has already been debunked please stop the stupidity

          May 2, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • jbhollen

          Religion is belief without evidence. Belief in science, such as evolution, starts with empirical evidence. Atheism is not a religion but a belief system based on the observable universe.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • justpro86

          Evolution is not science its a theory

          May 2, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • jbhollen

          You know what? I would agree with you exert for one thing. Your wrong.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • justpro86

          ah not at all

          May 2, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Then you obviously do not understand what science is. Here's a good starting point for evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
          To a couple of other points I've seen you make
          – this is a belief blog not a christian blog
          – if you accept that cats, for example, can evolve what is the mechanism that prevents the evolution you don't want to accept?

          May 2, 2014 at 10:49 am |
        • justpro86

          When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
          A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?
          Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

          May 2, 2014 at 10:57 am |
        • jbhollen

          Not sure what your point is. The current relationship between the bee and flower is symbiotic. How that occurred over time is called Coevolution. I explained it and gave you a reference to many papers. No one is stumped. It has been common knowledge for a long time. Please read one or more of the papers and we can discuss further.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • justpro86

          The Bee always had a relationship with the flower your point not made

          May 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • jbhollen

          How do you know that? I do not think that can be true. Do some actual research using the link I provided.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • justpro86

          I do research from recognized scholars not from people looking to destroy the bible

          May 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • jbhollen

          I think I am on firm ground when I say you have not researched a thing in your life. You plagiarized sites who's authors have drunk the same cool-aid as you. Evidence indicates that you did not even read what you posted and you sure didn't fact check it. You are insulated and sequestered from any information that is not part of the predigested pap you call christian dogma. The concept of free thought is so foreign to you that I do not think you can even see the words in the posts I made. I know you didn't respond to them. You have not demonstrated the ability to have an original thought.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • justpro86

          I think your vision of firm land is the sandy beaches of Florida

          May 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Again, I propose that we revisit each of the posts you copied from other sites and go through them a point at a time. Let me know if you can't find them as I would be happy to repost my rebuttals.

          May 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Still waiting to hear when you want to go through my response to your evolution posts point by point.

          May 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • jbhollen

          So to put it another way you only use research sources that you know in advance already agree with the views you already have. You will not consider any source that may conflict with your preconceived beliefs. Assuming that I have stated this accurately, the result is that you will never learn something new in your "research".

          May 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • justpro86

          I learned so much new from my research... There was a time I actually believed in young earth creation but when i researched about the old earth creation side of things it made more sense and was more clear using Science to explain Gods work...

          May 2, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
        • jbhollen

          That cannot be research because there are no facts to weigh on each side of the argument.

          Seeing young-earth and old-earth christians duke it out is the same thing as watching Sunni and Shia muslims kill each other. I think what the hell are you fighting for? The problem is that you are muslim, not that you are Sunni or Shia. Same goes for you. Young-earth or old-earth doesn't matter one whit. The problem is that you believe in an invisible creator with magical powers.

          May 2, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • otoh2

          justpro,
          "Evolution is a religion sorry its based on a theory its based on an secular belief that God does not exist."

          Evolution does not say anything one way or the other about your "God" (or any god) - any more than geology or chemistry or mathematics say anything about your "God" (or any god).

          May 2, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • justpro86

          Each new discovery tends to lead to God

          May 2, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          justp....How? How exactly does any discovery lead you to believe that an invisible deity waved a magic wand?

          May 2, 2014 at 11:05 am |
        • justpro86

          God does not need a wand but his own hands... He created us in his image... The Marvels of God is discovered but often he is rejected by men who are afraid of judgement. Nothing cannot create it self if so than just place a scrap metal on the floor and lets wait several years for it to evolve into a engine for a car... LOL you evolutionists are stupid or just plain blind

          May 2, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          justp....ok....I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I do see now that you are a condescending, flaming azzhole, completely unworthy of my time. I certainly don't need some worthless idiot trying to tell me how and what to believe. I have absolutely no respect for people that can't argue their point without sounding as ridiculous as you. I will not respond to your childish ridiculousness again.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • justpro86

          You can believe whatever you want to believe... But to come on a Christian blog just to try to castrate mine and other christian world views should be unnecessary if you want to remain ignorant you can and post elsewhere where religion is not discussed but dont come on here and call the Christain world view stupid and try to cram your beliefs that we came from monkeys down our throats... Sorry not going to fly

          May 2, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          justp....THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN BLOG YOU STUPID, FVCKING IDIOT! It is a belief blog....nothing more. I will still continue to blog....just not with you, as you have proven on more than one occasion that you are a jerk and unworthy of a discussion by me.

          May 2, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • justpro86

          It is on my web address it says....http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ This tells me this blog is about religion... Majority of the posts on this blog talks to Christians so I can safetly say its a Christian blog... And if you are an atheist and don't care about the world view than why should you even care to comment on this blog..... Your wasting your time... Also your trolling... Simple... You come on here trashing the Christain world view and everyones posts that has a bible scripture or anything that contains a Christian view point...That is trolling...

          May 2, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Although you're not making a convincing case against evolution, what scientific evidence do you have for the biblical account?

          May 2, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • justpro86

          Thats what you think because you have this mindset that you cannot be wrong or some scientists who believe in evolution cannot be wrong.... YOu refuse to believe in God because if God exists maybe you can be morally wrong in some of your personal endeavors in life... The only reason why Evolution exists is because of one man who simply did not want to believe in God because he did not want to be morally accountable in life so he came up with a believable at the time theory.... If someone pitched that idea today they would laugh in their face

          May 2, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What scientific evidence do you have for the biblical account?

          May 2, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • justpro86

          Heres one; The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

          Ecclesiastes 1:6
          The wind goes toward the south,
          And turns around to the north;
          The wind whirls about continually,
          And comes again on its circuit.

          The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

          Job 28:25
          To establish a weight for the wind,
          And apportion the waters by measure.
          The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

          May 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • otoh2

          justpro,

          Ecclesiastes 1:6 says nothing profound. Simple observation.

          The passage of poetic language from Job says nothing scientific either. "The Hebrew word öql means weight, or shekel. It corresponds to the Akkadian öiqlu, and Aramaic and Ugaritic tql (NIDOTTE Vol.4, 235-7). The NIV translates, "the force of the wind." Job is not talking about the atmospheric pressure, but the force of the wind." –http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm (and *that's* from a believer's research site)

          May 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • justpro86

          The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

          Genesis 1:11,12
          Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

          Genesis 1:21
          So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

          Genesis 1:25
          And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
          The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]

          May 2, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Doris

          (Creationists say the darndest things)

          Especially the young-earth variety.

          One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the recent Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
          ==========

          Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

          Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

          Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

          For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

          These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

          Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

          There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

          Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

          But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

          For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

          (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

          (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

          Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
          Snelling 1

          For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

          Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

          Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

          CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

          "(A) PRIORITIES

          1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

          (B) BASICS

          3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

          5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

          (D) GENERAL

          The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

          (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

          (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
          (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

          (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

          (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

          These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

          Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

          From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

          This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

          Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

          "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

          "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

          Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

          "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

          Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

          "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

          Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

          "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

          Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

          "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

          It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

          DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
          READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
          SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.
          SNELLING 2

          If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

          The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

          In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

          "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

          For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

          "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

          There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

          One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

          There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

          1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

          2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

          3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

          Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

          The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

          One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

          Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

          I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?

          POSTSCRIPT

          Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

          I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

          For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

          In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • justpro86

          Well that is why I am an old earth creationist

          May 2, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          It's no surprise that our primitive ancestors were aware of the wind – it affected their ability to hunt and influenced where they chose to camp/sleep; the fact that they recorded wind behavior is not scientific evidence of the bible's scientific accuracy and especially not on the topics you were discussing – creation of the universe and origin of the species.
          Do you have any scientific evidence to support your positions?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • speediejoe

          Another cut 'n paste plagiarism from our local scholar justpro86:

          http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

          May 2, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
      • guidedans

        Hey Ken,

        Who was that one guy who thought up the scientific method? I keep forgetting. Wasn't it Francis Bacon or something?

        Naw, it couldn't have been, because Francis Bacon was a Christian, and I think we all know how you feel about Christians.

        Maybe you could help me identifying who came up with the scientific method.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • observer

          Bacon was sharp, but he was no Einstein.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • guidedans

          "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an atti/tude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

          "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

          Albert Einstein

          Still sounds to me like he still believed in God.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans,

          As HE SAID, he was an agnostic and CERTAINLY did not believe in the God you believe in.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @guidedans,
          I'm confused, what possible relevance could that have on whether or not evolution is accurate or not?

          April 30, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Aristotle, Archimedes, Ibn al-Haytham and Galileo are all credited with understanding and employing the scientific method long before the Bacon Brothers.

          Apologists have no shame in throwing "facts" out there hoping no one will check them. Really makes one think whenever Christians speak of "truths".

          April 30, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • joey3467

          The scientific method was first started by Arabs.

          May 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Actually, I believe it goes back to Aristotle.

          May 1, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
      • Salero21

        HAHAHA are you trying to kill me by laughter? A hypothesis [Theory] can be (as many have been), formulated from simple Observation; Remember Newton? Observation being the True First Step in the Scientific Method. Evidence or additional Evidence can be obtained after/later by experimentation and/or Duplication of the previously OBSERVED phenomena.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @Salero21,
          "A hypothesis [Theory] can be.."

          You do realize that an hypothesis is very different than a theory, right?

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml

          April 30, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
    • Madtown

      Some people aren't smart enough to troll effectively.

      April 30, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
      • justpro86

        Yeah you

        April 30, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
    • Salero21

      Not even a real theory but a preconceived idea a Pseudo-theory based on their unbelief and rejection of Creation.
      In order to do that they had to change the scientific method abolishing the Observation Step as the First. Thus replacing it with just "Ask a question". They also changed the Propose a Hypothesis for "Construct a Hypothesis". Just the stuff of what Charlatans are made of.

      April 30, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
      • justpro86

        Ok you said it better

        April 30, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
    • jbhollen

      It was a theory when Darwin proposed it. Due to the abundance of evidence it has been considered scientific fact for decades.

      April 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • justpro86

        True till modern science disproved most of its theories.

        April 30, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Specifics please. What aspect was disproved? Who disproved it? When? Reference papers? Published work?

          April 30, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • Salero21

        HAHAHA, you got to be smoking something in the State of Colorado!!! When was the last time the entire Pseudo-theory of the Pseudo-science of evolution tested and duplicated/reproduced their findings in a Lab?

        April 30, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
      • speediejoe

        jbhollen,

        I realize you are on the side of science. You are on the right side. But, your terminology is wrong. Although it isn't helped when even scientists use the world theory for two different things. It can be used to be just a hypothesis. Or it can mean an established body of science. It would be more accurate to say that in Darwin's time, it would have just been a hypothesis. But it has become a theory.

        And, "facts" do not replace theories. They ware which theories are based upon. For example, there are facts of gravity, things fall when you drop. There is gravitation theory,which attempts to explain why. There are facts of evolution. Life does change with time. That is a fact. Then there is evolutionary theory which tries to explain how and why.

        Facts do NOT ever "replace" theories.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • jbhollen

          Working hypothesis or proven hypothesis. The latter is generally accepted as scientific fact. We are splitting hairs given the general discussion on this blog is a rejection of science as a whole.

          May 2, 2014 at 8:16 am |
    • jbhollen

      Why don't you walk off the roof of your house. After all gravity is just a theory.

      May 1, 2014 at 1:15 am |
      • fintronics

        Electronics theory college level courses?...... yup ... just a theory

        May 1, 2014 at 8:24 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      justpro: An education would do you a world of good.
      This site explains why you are using the wrong definition of theory in regards to evolution: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

      Or does the creation story appeal to you? Two people who had children that had to have 'relations' with each other (incest) to produce the next generation. Big supporter of incest-are you?

      May 1, 2014 at 5:52 am |
    • speediejoe

      It is unfortunate that scientists use the word "theory" to mean two very different things. Scientists do indeed use the word as a synonym for hypothesis. But it is also used to mean a well established body of science. You know, like GRAVITATIONAL THEORY you simpleton. Go to wikipedia and search for "scientific theory".

      May 2, 2014 at 1:57 am |
      • jbhollen

        Evolution was a theory in Darwin's time. It has been accepted as scientific fact for decades now.

        May 2, 2014 at 5:48 am |
      • justpro86

        Science i know far more than you

        May 2, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • speediejoe

          LOL! Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep this convoy rollin'!

          May 2, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • justpro86

          Yes you are

          May 2, 2014 at 10:39 am |
  15. Doris

    Sorry for posting unrelated things today. Call it the weather – but something keeps tickling my funny bone. Like this one from AP:

    ===
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court opinions are rarely susceptible to the kind of fact-checking that reporters usually employ on politics. But Justice Antonin Scalia's hearty dissent in an environmental case Tuesday contained such a glaring error of fact — misreporting an earlier case in which Scalia himself wrote the majority opinion — that the justice changed the opinion. The court quietly posted the corrected version on its website without notice.

    [..] Scalia took the unusual step of reading a summary of his dissent in court Tuesday.
    [..] Among those who first pointed out the problem were law professors Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University and Dan Farber of the University of California at Berkeley.

    Adler called the mistake merely "noticeable." Farber called it "a cringe-worthy blunder," "hugely embarrassing" and doubly so because Scalia wrote the opinion he mistakenly cited for support.
    ===

    Oh my. And this from the justice who not that long ago said: "I even believe in the devil. Yeah, he's a real person ... that's standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that."

    April 30, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
    • Akira

      Scalia. (Shudders)

      April 30, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
  16. Russ

    Baden & Moss said: "It seemed real; it seemed fake; it seemed real again; now we’re back to fake."

    interesting how a how slew of scholars said it was fake from the outset for a variety of reasons (Sept '12):
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/09/22/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-how-a-fake-gospel-fragment-was-composed/

    for example, here's Frances Watson from TWO YEARS AGO (Sept.19, 2012) making virtually the SAME insights that here Moss & Baden are just now presenting as supposedly 'new'...

    "The text has been constructed out of small pieces – words or phrases – culled mostly from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (GTh), Sayings 101 and 114, and set in new contexts. This is most probably the compositional procedure of a modern author who is not a native speaker of Coptic."

    SUM: this is only *news* to those who desperately wanted an obvious fake to be real.

    April 30, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
    • jbhollen

      Nothing obvious about it. It was approached scientifically using evidence available. It was not assumed from the start it was fake because it conflicted with religious sensibilities.

      April 30, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
      • Russ

        @ jbhollen:
        you clearly did not go to the link.
        note well: other *scholars* immediately panned it – for many of the SAME reasons Moss & Baden are just NOW mentioning.

        May 1, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • jbhollen

          Because the rejection was" immediate" it makes their finding suspect in my eyes of being based on pre-conceived beliefs and not scientific process. You reference "other scholars" so I assume there are at least two. Can you provide their names? I would like to see what their rejection was based on.

          May 1, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • Russ

          @ jbhollen: i gave you the link. are you really so unwilling to read?
          if you actually go there you'll find 9 scholars listed, all of which have links to their own articles (with varied reasons from the scholarship) for rejecting this fragment.

          take "immediate" in the context of "scholars." the SAME scholarship principles that guide those whom you're defending (Moss & Baden) also guide their peers. if you'll go to the link, you'll find Watson has a six page analysis of the problems (again, pressing your objection to "immediate"). consider, if you're a scholar in a particular field, you come to have a set of givens derived from your studies which enable you to smell a rat pretty quickly – especially when you have been trained to distinguish the genuine article from the spurious.

          and again, these scholars made many of the SAME arguments TWO YEARS AGO that Baden & Moss are just now making. it's not a question of the scholarship – it's a question of *why* Baden & Moss were so reticent to accept the very same reasoning in the first place.

          May 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Part 1 (I am having trouble getting this to post. I will send in 2 or 3 posts)

          Russ – you are absolutely correct. I read right by the link and did not go there before I replied. Sorry about that and sorry in advance for the long post. To start with I don't really have a horse in this race. I am not emotionally leaning one way or the other regarding the fragments authenticity. My comment had to do with the process and bias of making a conclusion. After looking at the link and its content I came up with the following observations.

          => The link is to a Christian apologist website "The Gospel Coalition"
          => The author of the referenced paper (Francis Watson) is a professor of religion and theology.
          => His paper calls the fragment into question as a "fake" in the first sentence as does the entire first page. Credible papers and analysis usually start with a question and end with a conclusion. This one pretty much made the conclusion in the first sentence. As a side note I could not find Mr. Watson's academic credentials anywhere on the internet. His formal training is an unknown.

          May 1, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Part II

          ===> The "other scholars" weighing in...
          => Gary Manning, Jr. an Associate Professor of New Testament who also runs an Apologist website called the Good Book Blog. He has a Phd. The only comments he has made in writing are on his blog where he says it is unknown if the fragment is genuine or not. Interestingly he also commented on his blog that it would be very unusual for a man such as Jesus to not be married and that if Jesus was indeed married it would not really matter.
          => Dr. Darrell Boch is a professor at a Dallas and runs a blog called Bloch's Blog, bible.org. Dr. Boch does not overtly dispute the authenticity of the fragment but on his blog but discusses the context and meaning of specific words. Like Dr. Manning he indicates that the discovery is really not significant. In 2003 Dr. Boch wrote an article saying that Jesus was not likely ever married. His only written commentary that I could find on the fragment is one article on his blog.
          =>Dr. Christian Askeland is a researcher on what looks like a privately funded project. He has posted on several blogs and produced a 10 minute video on the fragment. It is simple to watch and makes an excellent case that the fragment is "probably" not authentic but he does not actually draw that conclusion.

          May 1, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • jbhollen

          => Dr. Michael J. Kruger is a professor of New Testament. The only writing by him I could find regarding the fragment was back on the Gospel Coalition Blog. He said the fragments authenticity is unknown but makes the case like Dr. Boch that its content is not significant.
          => Dr. Peter Williams and Simon Gather both are biblical scholars. They wrote very little on the fragment but what I could find, like others above said that its authenticity is unknown, but if real it really doesn't change anything.
          => Daniel B. Wallace – professor of New Testament studies. He does not conclude that the fragment is real or not but like others he down plays its importance.
          So it appears that your post was incorrect on pretty much all fronts. None of the scholars you mention reject the authenticity of the fragment. Even the Paper by Watson does not actually conclude it is a fake but rather in his summary he says that it is "unlikely" to be authentic. It is also incorrect that all the other scholars wrote articles rejecting the fragment. As I said before they did not reject the fragment in the first place and other than a couple comprehensive blogs there were no articles. Just some comments in different forums. Other theme's I picked up were that most of the other scholars had high regard for Professor King other than Watson who flat disagrees with her. Lastly it appears that the least credentialed scholar, Mr. Watson is the most outspoken. As I said before I think his paper is pretty contrived.

          The original point I was going to make was that the scholars concerned were biased by their own views and would not look at the fragment objectively. But I never got there. They all seem pretty objective in their written comments.

          May 1, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Evil doers will contantly discredit, distort jesus the bible and god to justify their evil ways.

      April 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        What about those of us who just work hard, love our families, pay our taxes, volunteer in our communities and try our best to help others but just don't believe in your God? Are our ways still "evil"?

        April 30, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Never,

          Excellent question. No. You may have unknowingly following the teachings of God and would be accepted more than a believer like me.

          I also talked about illness at birth. Sums up like this:
          There is no guilt to those who are blind but guilt remains to those who can see.

          Question is how would you know the true meaning of Gods teachings.no need to join a religious denomination but understand Gods teachings.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "guilt remains to those who can see."

          But see what exactly? Where is the sin in my comment above? You seem to be saying that if a person just doesn't know anything about God then he'll likely be just fine but if he knows about God but then doesn't pick the right one or worships it the wrong way then they will be guilty of sin. This seems silly at best and just down right stupid at worst.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Never,

          You mentioned no sins. I am the one who can see coz i am born catholic that is why there is guilt when i sin. I presume You are an atheist at birth, therefore, is blind and has no guilt. Right?

          See my stupidity reply below.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • Madtown

          coz i am born catholic
          --
          LOL. No, you were not born Catholic, you were MADE Catholic, presumably by your parents/family.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Mad,

          U misunderstood, i learned not to believe but think for myself. I also have objections in the traditions of the roman catholic church.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
      • jbhollen

        Sorry Bud, we don't have to do anything. Jesus, God and Bible come pre-distorted.

        April 30, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • jbhollen

        Follow on questions. How does distorting jesus, the bible and god "Justify our Evil ways". Specifically what evil ways are you talking about? Just curious.

        April 30, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Jb,

          Ahh yes. What are evil acts? I think first you have to know gods teachings, if not, you would not understand or would not accept evil acts i would mention to be evil.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Peaceadvocate2014 – I have a fair understanding of gods biblical teachings. I consider these teachings a good reference when defining "evil acts". I tried listing biblical atrocities but the word filter wouldn't let me. That's kind of a statement in itself. You have a lot of gall saying that someone can't understand "evil acts" unless they believe as you do. Your belief system is built on atrocities. So, answer my question – what "evil acts" am I trying to justify per your post.

          May 1, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          evil is subjective and humans are the subjects. There is no such thing as sin against anything other than other humans. Urinating on the face of your pillow isn't going to make it mad. Stabbing your pillow will only make a mess. Doing either to a human is considered quite evil. Why? Because it's not the act so much as it is the victim.

          The bible however claims that humans can sin against invisible fairys if they don't show the invisible fairys enough respect. This is the evil that peace will likely fill you in on if you ask. They are called blasphemy laws and are still quite alive in many countries around the world where insulting an invisible fairy can get you beheaded.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Never,

          Just coz humans cant agree on what is evil does not mean it is subjective.

          Understand the teachings of god. Pls try to undertand.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Evil is subjective. There are over a billion Muslims who absolutely know that depicting Muhammad in a picture or statue is Evil. Western civilization knows that child abuse is evil. And since you ask that we understand gods teachings, I will say that I do, probably better than you, and many aspects of them are evil. Murder, slavery, genocide and much, much more. And anticipating your reply I will say that the atrocities in the bible are not righteous as long as you have gods love in your heart. Also, you did not reply to my reply to your "evil acts" post. Do you plan to?

          May 2, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "Understand the teachings of god."

          We do and that is why we don't adhere to them. Any god that according to the men who wrote the book about it condones murder; child abuse; rape; oppression of women; oppression of LGBT; supports slavery and is a hypocrite (condemns idolatry but yet demands it)...simply is not a god worthy of following.

          May 1, 2014 at 8:25 am |
        • igaftr

          "Understand the teachings of god. "
          As if you had any teachings of god. You do have teachings of men claiming they are from god, but that is all you have.

          May 1, 2014 at 8:30 am |
      • speediejoe

        Peaceadvocate2014, sounds like you are a "liberal Christian", that you accept that good people can be accepted into heaven even if they don't accept the Bible. Great, that puts you ahead of fundamentalist bozos. But, by extension, perhaps people that you say are "evildoors trying to distort the Bible", might it not actually be the case that they are simply good, non-believers who do not understand the Bible? I'm just saying that once you make the leap to acknowledging that people who don't accept the Bible are not necessarily evil, then many other people whom are typically deemed "evil" maybe not either. Just saying...

        May 2, 2014 at 2:30 am |
        • kermit4jc

          allowing "good" people to go to heaven is wishful thinking by those who don't want to accept they are sinners...no one is good enough...God is a JUST, HOLY and RIHTEOUS God...sin can NOT simply coexist side by side within His presence...I don't know why people want to lower it and say good people go too....except they cant imagine a good person going to hell....a good person is as much a sinner as anyone else...there is no such thing as one person is better than another...according to GODS standard..we ALL are sinners..period..and sins have to be paid for

          May 2, 2014 at 2:34 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....that is a load of c-rap! Sins have to be paid for? Do you make this stuff up as you go along? I would really hate to be you....living in constant fear that I was going to do something to upset an invisible deity that virtually ignores you and your life here on earth. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but just know that regardless of what crazy agenda you try to push on the intelligent atheists here, we will NEVER fall for such nonsense! Proof...that is all we want...proof. It is completely illogical that anybody is in charge of this complete mess we have on earth. Because I can't prove a negative, there is no way I can disprove any such deity. But....if there truly is a god, he is really lousy at his job and somebody else needs to run for god. I'd rather believe in no god than to believe in an inept one.

          May 2, 2014 at 7:15 am |
        • kermit4jc

          constant fear??? WHo ever said I live in constant fear...you said intelligent atheists? you have not shown me any intellige4nce when you assume things...I did t make this as I went along.......God doe snot ignore me......wow...who is the one making up the load of carp? ANd you seem to blame God and not yourself for the proof...maybe God IS giving the peoof...then the rest on on you...but all I see ar atheists who plays the blame game.....and you tell me you guys are intelligenct? you know....intelligence requires some asking of questions on your part..it never really comes by assuming things..and pretty much all you said in the last post are assumptions..I do not live in constant fear of God...lol...

          May 2, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          kermit....I'm really not sure how you can make the ridiculous statements that you continue to do (I'm not the only one that thinks that way, by the way). If you live your life via the bible, then you live in constant fear of doing something to upset your god....period! I don't care if I p-iss off an invisible deity, because, since I know he is not real, I have nothing to fear from him. Atheists are the ones asking the questions....you live your life based on a book. You just do what it says, no questions asked, which is a foolish way to live. You want to do that, fine...but you are showing no intelligence whatsoever when you stop asking questions.

          May 2, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • kermit4jc

          this shows that you do NOT know the bIble..I do NOT live in constant fear..why should I? I am saved.....I have nothing to fear...God has given me a second chance..as he gives to all.....sorry..but you are assuming about me and never bothering to ASK me.....that does not show intellect...the Bible says perfect love casts out all fear....Im with a loving God....

          May 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          So Kermit....do you think now that you are saved that you can do anything you want and you will be fine? Lie, cheat, steal? Or....do you live with some moral code that you better not do anything wrong or you will be going to hell? If it is the second option, you are living in fear.....by definition.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          this shows again ignorance of the Bible..Paul talks of this in Romans 7 especially. I am in a RELATIONSHIP with God..MY motivation to do good is nOT fear..but out of LOVE..MY love for God compels me to do things...much like my love for my wife compels me to do good....I do not fear losing my wife or trying to earnbrownie points...I do things because I love my wife..in same way..I do things cause I love God.....as with my wife..I do not want to commit adultery..even if ever tempted...thatis nOT ok...same with God...its NOT a license to sin.....so your argument is duely out of ignorance of my beliefs and of the BIble itself

          May 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit, why do most of the so-called Christians on this site act so un-Christian like? Most of all of your posts are smarmy, nasty, condescending, and downright silly....and most are filled with extremely poor grammar. I don't know if there is a correlation between poor grammar and poor English skills and love of a 2000 year old book, but it does seem to go hand in hand. Frankly, I am really tired of getting drawn into these nasty back and forth messages with absolutely no substance whatsoever. It is a beautiful day today and I think I am going to go out and sit by my pool with a drink....none of which I got from yours or anybody else's god.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and most are filled with extremely poor grammar. I don’t know if there is a correlation between poor grammar and poor English skills <-but iuts sad you assume I truly don't know how to spell or use grammar..if you would follow the posts..You could see I am trying to answer as many as possible....so grammar and spelling (ACTUALLY due to my TYPONG skills-erver thought of that) will sometimes go out the window...so just look past that please

          May 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and there you go again..as if I don't ask questions? sorry..but that is a total lie and you have it backwards..FACT is..YOU never ask us quesiotns..you assume..FACT is..I QUESTION the Bible all the time...that's how I learn...its about time you did same thing..QUESTION..rather than assume

          May 2, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....I question all the time, but nobody ever gives me any answers. The Christians on this blog do more tap dancing than Al Jolson. All I ever asked for was proof positive that god exists (without using the bible, because the bible is BS put together by men). Got any?

          May 2, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • ssq41

          kermy, you and your brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ are quite obese on the "just god" part....

          You really are just another Jonah...demanding that God punish....when are you going to show some mercy and grace there, kerm...

          No point holding ones breath...you guys only love those who look, talk, think, and believe like you....

          31"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33"If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.…(Luke 6)

          Kermy, if you Christians actually cared about these folks in prisons and on death row, and moreso, before they get there, there wouldn't be a need for a death penalty.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:43 am |
  17. Salero21

    The amount of Evidence for the Total NONSENSE [stupidity] of atheism/evolutionism and idolatry is as big as the Universe. Yup!

    April 30, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Salero ... what is your religious background?

      April 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
      • Akira

        Rabid.

        April 30, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I don't think trolls have religious backgrounds.

        April 30, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Time and again I see free-thinkers shame the faithful on knowledge if scripture. It's because we read it all not just the warm fuzzy parts.

          April 30, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Jb,

          Jesus told judas (disciple who betrayed jesus):
          Think with your heart and not of your mind.

          It means being intellectually superior is not the answer. Being morally superior is.

          April 30, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014

          Why do Christians like to brag that the most intelligent people are not likely to be on their side? Not much of an endorsement; more like an EXCUSE.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Ob,

          It may coz its hard to do. Being morally superior.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014,

          What is morally superior about a book that supports slavery, discrimination against women, discrimination against gays, discrimination against the handicapped and beating children with rods for discipline?

          April 30, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Ob,

          U just cited how hard it is for humans to do. Does not mean it is the teachings of God. Jesus.

          April 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • Doris

          God, Jesus PA? You haven't brought them around for me to meet yet...

          April 30, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014,

          Those are all God's morals from the Bible. Haven't you read one?

          April 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Stupidity, often used but seldom understood. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty i guess,

      April 30, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        So you support Salero? Dolts like that help people stay away from your belief system-you should be cursing this person.

        May 1, 2014 at 6:02 am |
  18. Vic

    Reading other articles on this subject matter, it is interesting to note that not just the papyrus fragment of concern was accompanied by five other papyrus fragments of which is the proven forgery papyrus of 'Gospel of John,' which many scholars agree was written with the same ink by the same hand as the papyrus of 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife,' it is now determined that the proclaimed provenience of the papyrus fragments is bogus altogether.

    This part of the story is not covered by this Blog entry, and the papyrus fragments' provenience new findings have been submitted to Professor Carol King, who has previously published a document showing that they were purchased in 1999 from a man named Hans-Ulrich Laukamp, who, in turn, collected them in 1963 from Potsdam in then East Germany. While the current owner, who turned the papyri to Professor King, continues to remain anonymous, it turns out that Hans-Ulrich Laukamp did not collect nor own those papyri and was living in West Berlin in 1963, that he could not had crossed the Berlin Wall to Potsdam in East Germany back then.

    Harvard Professor Carol King is currently not available for comments as per Harvard Divinity School.

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/29/new-evidence-casts-doubt-on-gospel-of-jesus-wife/comment-page-2/#comment-2999980

    April 30, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
  19. gregoryjwiens

    Wouldn't it have been nice to have a well educated man go back in time, interview living eye witnesses of what they saw Jesus say and do and then after he did is research he compiled it into two books?
    Wouldn't it have been good if he had not been originally been a Jew but rather a non-believer but then converted to Christianity after the evidence spoke for itself. That he chose to follow because of the evidence?
    Wouldn't that be great?
    Oh wait other than the going back in time, that is the book of Luke/Acts

    April 30, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
    • Alias

      HAHAHHAHAHAAA!
      Wouldn't it be great if someone would claim to be god and tell us all how to live, miraculously heal the sick, walk on water, and rise from the dead?
      Well, other than the miracles .....

      April 30, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
    • Akira

      I see you're a fan of Luke.

      That's nice.

      April 30, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Wouldn't it be great if the people who witnesses these great miracles had found their own scribes to write their accounts of what they saw down within a few days of their occurence while it was still fresh in their minds? If I saw someone raised from the dead or healed of blindness or diseased (though you kind of wonder why Christ never healed an amputee) I would make sure I had put the facts down as to what I saw. I certainly wouldn't wait twenty years for the long dead miracle workers companions to write about it...

      April 30, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
    • justpro86

      Luke—the author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts—is of special interest for several reasons. He was the only Gentile who wrote any of the books of the Bible. Furthermore, he was the only scientist among the writers.

      He is also recognized as a great historian, with his excellent accounts of the key events of the most important era in the history of the world. He also was undoubtedly a devoted Christian, a truth especially demonstrated by his unselfish service and companionship to the apostle Paul. Finally, he was probably the first Christian apologist, zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ.

      April 30, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
      • jbhollen

        You said that the author of Luke and Acts was zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ. And he was in charge of writing two books? I assume objectivity went out the window and anything that was known that did not reflect well was dropped.

        Also, I thought that the authors of all four gospels were unknown. What is your source that identifies the author of Luke?

        April 30, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Akira

          JB, justpro plagiarizes posts and does not give credit for the author's work. You can tell when the posts start sounding more educated and the grammar is flawless that those are the stolen words...he has been called out his dishonesty but he just blatently states that he doesn't care if he steals or not.

          This post is one of the stolen posts.

          April 30, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • justpro86

          The only undetermined author is the Author of Hebrews..

          April 30, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Wow, that is news to me and I assume many others. Tell me, who are the authors of each book and what are your references pointing to their authorship?

          April 30, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
      • igaftr

        justp STOLE THIS In its entirety from
        http://www.icr.org/article/doctor-luke/

        He is a liar and a theif.

        May 1, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          lets call it dumpster diving instead of stealing since this was garbage to begin with. To call it stealing it should have to have had actual value.

          May 1, 2014 at 8:54 am |
  20. darkstar2371

    He had a wife; he didn't have a wife. It realyl doesn't matter. It all is a story anyway. Grow up people. There is no such thing as invisible sky daddies or supernatural events. 0% evidence. End of story.

    April 30, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • Alias

      You're new here, aren't you?
      A lot of people think you have to believe this book or get tortured in hell forever.
      Many of them think god has spoken to them, appeared before them, etc.
      They want us to believe so badly that they support legislation to force their views onto us and supress our science from the schools.

      April 30, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
      • Salero21

        HAHAHA!! Sharkira, by any chance; do you know where is that legislation in place forcing views or suppressing science teaching in schools? Isn't science and the so called evolution delusion, being taught freely in schools everyday all over the country? See this why I say that atheists/evolutionists/idolaters are compulsive, pathetic and pathological liars. Either that or you'r a suffering from Paranoia. Don't forget to take your Meds. today!

        April 30, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          a loser 21, There is a well-funded campaign to populate school boards with creationists so they can change the curriculum, another way is introducing voucher schemes and home-schooling so that creationism can be taught. Evolution is taught at all major universities around the world and creationism is taught at none – the reason is that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for creationism.

          April 30, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • jbhollen

          Right, and conservatives gnash their teeth that we rank 22 in the world behind Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The world laughs as we argue creationism in our school boards.

          April 30, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • Akira

          That's so nice that you have Alias a cute little nickname.
          I'm sure he'll get a kick out of getting a nickname from a 9 year old.

          April 30, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Salero21

          Wait a minute but didn't I ask Sharkira a question? Then why trust in Satan and jibollen answered? Trolls, trolls, trolls!!! JAJAJA... oops...pardon me please... I meant to say HAHAHA. See... this is why I say that atheism/evolutionism/cultism/paganism and idolatry are ALL Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE

          April 30, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
        • Salero21

          @ jbhollen,

          mmm... and by any chance; haven't you noticed that the fall of the US in those "rankings" do in Fact coincide and runs parallel with the increase of all sorts of addictions, amorality, atheism, crimes, delinquencies, sin and non-belief of a larger segment of the populace? Coincidence or Incidence?

          April 30, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • Somebody, somewhere

          Salero, you dumb fucking troll, Akira hadn't even posted on the thread yet, you ass. Why the hell would you ask her about creationism being taught in schools when she didn't even bring it up? God DAMN, you're dumb. Just admit that you read Alias's name wrong before you went on your typical asinine attack mode. Stupid moron.

          April 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Somebody....you are way to easy on salero. By the way, we are referring to him now by the anagram of his name....a loser.

          May 1, 2014 at 8:13 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.