home
RSS
World Cup final: It's Pope versus Pope
Pope Francis looks pretty confident, don't ya think?
July 9th, 2014
12:51 PM ET

World Cup final: It's Pope versus Pope

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor

(CNN)– Will the World Cup final become a "Holy War"?

At the very least, Sunday's match could put millions of Catholics - not to mention Vatican employees - in a bit of a bind.

Will they root for Argentina, the homeland of Pope Francis, who is known to be an ardent soccer aficionado? Or will they back Germany, the native country of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, also a football fan?

And what about the Big Referee Upstairs? Whose prayers will he heed when the game is on the line?

Germany reached the final match on Tuesday by blowing out Brazil, the host country. Argentina beat the Netherlands on Wednesday afternoon.

Of course, both Popes (not to mention God) have more important things on their minds. But the pontiffs have also said that sports can be more than fun and games.

"The sport of football can be a vehicle of education for the values of honesty, solidarity and fraternity, especially for the younger generation," Benedict told Italy's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper back in 2008.

His successor, Francis has echoed those remarks, and even promised not to pray for Argentina.

But a Catholic who met Pope Francis this week to discuss more serious matters said that the pontiff seemed to be secretly pulling for his home team.

"He absolutely wants for Argentina to win," Peter Saunders, a victim of sexual abuse from England who met Francis on Monday, told the Boston Globe. "He didn’t say it out loud, but you could see it in his eyes, he’s a closet fan."

And earlier this month, before Argentina played Switzerland, Francis jokingly told his Swiss Guards, "It's going to be war!"

It will be interesting to see what the Vatican says about the Argentina-Germany matchup. The men are known to be close, with Francis saying he and Benedict "are brothers."

Maybe the "brothers" will put a little wager on the high-stakes soccer match, or maybe this just means that God has a really good sense of humor.

On Thursday, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi dashed hopes for a World Cup papal watch party, but left often the possibility that something could be afoot.

"We'll see in the coming days," Lombardi told reporters.

 

 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Argentina • Brazil • Catholic Church • Church and state • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis • Social media • Sports • Vatican

soundoff (661 Responses)
  1. MidwestKen

    awanderingscot,
    Your Gould qoute is addressed in the Quote Mine Project as quote #3.12

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

    July 14, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      If you are too lazy to articulate it or don't have the mental capacity then don't expect me to go chasing links.

      July 14, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        I'm just pointing out that your quotes are so old and discredited there they dealt with in a Quote Mine project, I.e. Quote mining is taking quotes out of context to portray them as saying pretty much the opposite of their intent, which is basically a lie of omission, if you are worried about such things.

        July 14, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          I should say that your interpretation of them is discredited, not the quote.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      MWK

      The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties. – Ernst Mayr

      – was Ernst in error when he stated that producing a viable new type was akin to a miracle and if not, then why not?
      – is the establishment of reproductive isolation in this new type really an insurmountable difficulty and if not why then?

      July 14, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Wikipedia :
        Ernst Walter Mayr (/ˈmaɪər/; July 5, 1904 – February 3, 2005)[1][2] was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, and historian of science.[3] His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.

        Although Charles Darwin and others posited that multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor, the mechanism by which this occurred was not understood, creating the species problem. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations within a species become isolated by geography, feeding strategy, mate selection, or other means, they may start to differ from other populations through genetic drift and natural selection, and over time may evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).

        His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced), based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Mayr is sometimes credited with inventing modern philosophy of biology, particularly the part related to evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics due to its introduction of (natural) history into science.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          'The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).'

          – Mayr DID NOT believe this at all. this is just more revisionist propaganda from evolution cultists.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        and this follow-up quote from Ernst has special implication for punctuated equilibrium

        “I published that theory [of speciation evolution] in a 1954 paper…and I clearly related it to paleontology. Darwin argued that the fossil record is very incomplete because some species fossilize better than others... I noted that you are never going to find evidence of a small local population that changed very rapidly in the fossil record... Gould was my course assistant at Harvard where I presented this theory again and again for three years. So he knew it thoroughly. So did Eldredge. In fact, in his 1971 paper Eldredge credited me with it. But that was lost over time.”
        ― Ernst Mayr

        – Why did Mayr put a silver bullet into the theory of punctuated equilibrium again and again for three years and what do Gould and Eldredge know that Mayr didn't know? As far as i can tell, Mayr never retracted this assertion.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • Doris

          Well you're not embarrassed by lying and misrepresenting scientists on here all day – you may as well fabricate a reason for this one....

          July 14, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Don't you think it's time to stop quote-mining and start trying to be at least a little honest ?

        July 14, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        awanderingscot,
        "- was Ernst in error when he stated that producing a viable new type was akin to a miracle and if not, then why not?"

        I am unfamiliar with the context of this "quote", but it appears to be talking about "monsterous" types. There are many non-viable mutations, but what does that have to do with the viable mutations?

        "- is the establishment of reproductive isolation in this new type really an insurmountable difficulty and if not why then?"

        In "monsterous" types? it may be.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no, you are obfuscating and distorting the record again. we are talking viable new types, not non-viable types.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          cite your source

          July 14, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          awanderingscot,
          You're quote mining again, I think. The first line goes like this, does it not?

          "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.'

          Homeotic mutants are non-viable, if for no other reason then their drastic mutations do cause reproductive isolation. This is not an example of evolution by natural selection at all, but mutational non-viability, not to mention lab generated mutations.

          "In normal flies, structures like legs, wings, and antennae develop on particular segments, and this process requires the action of homeotic genes. Enter Ed Lewis, who discovered homeotic mutants – mutant flies in which structures characteristic of one part of the embryo are found at some other location. "

          July 14, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        awanderingscot,
        What silver bullet? He seems to be wanting to take credit for PE.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          hint: only drastic mutations produce viable new types.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "I noted that you are never going to find evidence of a small local population that changed very rapidly in the fossil record."

          – you are not going to make a case for evolution ever when there is NO EVIDENCE. get it? you belong to an ever dwindling cult of arrogant pseudo-scientific dreamers.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          http://www.scq.ubc.ca/evolutionary-dead-ends/

          July 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          As Gould tried to correct creationists misrepresenting his quotes, like you, not finding small changes in local groups does not equate to "no evidence", but is just acknowledging the va.garies of the fossilization process. There are however many transitional forms between higher orders.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          awanderingscot,
          "you belong to an ever dwindling cult of arrogant pseudo-scientific dreamers."

          wow, that is rich coming from you of all people.

          good luck with that.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering,
          There is so much evidence for evolution that it's hard to know how you missed it.
          One example would be DNA mapping; the % that human DNA matches apes, then monkeys, etc. gets smaller. What other explanation is there for this gradual divergence other than the various species diverging from a common ancestor? This is also supported in the fossil record.
          Try this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

          July 14, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
      • LaBella

        "- Mayr DID NOT believe this at all. this is just more revisionist propaganda from evolution cultists."
        Then what did he believe, Scot? What does AIG tell you to say?

        Stop lying. You're continuously breaking a very important Commandment because you do not understand what you're trying to dismiss. Shame on you, and grow the hell up.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        That's exactly right. At some point, the "monster" is weeded out as no one will mate with it. Nothing about this refutes anything.

        July 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        awanderingscot, in reply to a posting by realbuckyball providing information on Ernst Mayr's views, you responded with "'The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).' – Mayr DID NOT believe this at all. this is just more revisionist propaganda from evolution cultists."

        On the contrary, if one examines Mayr's writings, one can see that the Wikipedia summation of Mayr's view posted by realbuckyball correctly summarizes Mayr's view. E.g., from page 367 of Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, a collection of twenty-eight articles and essays by Ernst Mayr published in 1988 by Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:

        Already Darwin, when comparing South American with Galapagos species, knew that speciation is far more active among small island populations than among large continental species. That there is a roughly inverse relation between population size and rate of speciation had long been intuitively appreciated by many students of mammals, birds, fishes, and certain groups of insects, as is evident from the taxonomic literature. Ever since the publication in 1942 of my Systematics and the Origin of Species, I puzzled over this difference of rates, but it was not until 1954 that I proposed an entirely new theory of allopatric speciation4 How drastically different from traditional geographic speciation this new theory was is missed by all those who, like Michael White, lump the two models and still speak of "the allopatric model of speciation." Actually, the two allopatric models are worlds apart. To make this even clearer than it has been in the past, and in order to preclude the continuous confounding of my new model of speciation with traditional geographic speciation of large populations, I propose that my 1954 model be designated as peripatric speciation.

        Here, the gene pool of a small either founder or relict population is rapidly, and more or less drastically, reorganized, resulting in the quick acquisition of isolating mechanisms and usually also in drastic morphological modifications and ecological shifts. It involves populations that pass through a bottleneck in population size.

        I illustrated this process by the distribution pattern of the Tanysiptera galathea species group of birds which shows hardly any geographic variation on the mainland of New Guinea over a distance of more than 1,000 kilometers and with a distribution over several climatic zones and across several geographical barriers, whereas all populations on islands off New Guinea (for example, Koffiao, Biak, Numfor) are so strikingly different that they were considered to be separate species. Each of these islands, none of which could have been in recent continental connection with New Guinea, was almost certainly colonized by a founding pair of birds, giving rise to a highly distinct population.

        From page 461:

        The major novelty of my theory was its claim that the most rapid evolutionary change does not occur in widespread, populous species, as claimed by most geneticists, but in small founder populations....Living in an entirely different physical as well as biotic environment, such a population would have unique opportunities to enter new niches and to select novel adaptive pathways. My conclusion was that a drastic reorganization of the gene pool is far more easily accomplished in a small founder population than in any other kind of population.

        In regards to the quote you attributed to Ernst Mayr to which realbuckyball responded, I don't have access to the material from which it may have been extracted, but from other writings of Ernst Mayr it is apparent he is referring to the "hopeful monsters" of Richard Goldschmidt (1878 – 1958), a German-born American geneticist, with whom he disagreed regarding saltation, i.e., a sudden change from one generation to the next. Goldschmidt believed that large evolutionary changes were caused by sudden macromutations (large mutations) and advanced a model of evolution through macromutations that is popularly known as the "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis. It appears Mayr is sarcastically referring to Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" as a "hopeless monster" in the quote you posted. E.g., Mayr wrote in the article Goldschmidt and the Evolutionary Synthesis: A Response, which was published in the Journal of the History of Biology in 1997:

        The reason why I launched such a vigorous attack on Goldschmidt in my Systematics and the Origin of Species was not that I tried to convert Goldschmidt, but rather because I thought his presentation of geographic speciation was unscientific, if not disreputable.3 In at least one long session I had demonstrated to Goldschmidt at the American Museum the overwhelming evidence for geographic speciation, and I was shocked that he completely
        neglected to present it and to try to rebut this evidence in his Material Basis, except for a very short reference to my publications. It struck me as rather ironic that Goldschmidt was so obsessed with his chromosomal speciation theory that he ignored even his own Lymantria evidence for geographic speciation. Lymantria [dispar] had colonized the Ja_panese Islands twice: one colonization had reached Hokkaido Island from the Amur region in the north, and a second colonization in the south had reached Honshu from Korea. ...

        ...

        Did those of us who made efforts to refute Goldschmidt’s claims feel that our own theories were threatened by him? Not in any way. However, at that time there was still a large consti_tuency of anti-Darwinians who would, of course, eagerly take up Goldschmidt’s claim as support for their anti-Darwinian viewpoint. It was necessary to refute Goldschmidt as quickly and completely as possible.

        When Mayr speaks of "miracles" and an "insurmountable difficulty", he is criticizing Goldschmidt's "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis not evolutionary theory. I.e., he is criticizing Goldschmidt's position that "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation." I'd judge the quote you posted as typical of what one finds on creationist sites, i.e., it is misleading and relies upon readers having little familiarity with science and the actual writings and findings of scientists.

        July 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
  2. MidwestKen

    awanderingscot,
    Your Dawkins quote is addressed at the Quote Mine Project, quote #40:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

    July 14, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      If you are too lazy to articulate it or don't have the mental capacity then don't expect me to go chasing links

      July 14, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        You are the one copying quotes from what I suspect is a creationist web site listing these supposedly damaging quotes from scientists.

        At least do your own quote mining.

        July 14, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Please provide the instance of a quote i posted in which by itself it can be construed to fit in any other construct.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          awanderingscot,
          "Please provide the instance of a quote i posted in which by itself it can be construed to fit in any other construct."

          Do you not understand the concept of quote mining? It means mining a quote out of context. Your quotes are misrepresenting the original intent because they are by themselves.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • hal 9001

          I'm sorry, "MidwestKen", but you are asking "awanderingscot" to understand too much information.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering,
          I've seen Doris provide at least two examples today. I can only find one a bit further down

          "How convenient that you left out Gould's very next sentence:
          'But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times.'"

          Which totally changes the understanding of your partial quote.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
        • joey3467

          Scotty, just with a quick glance it looks like every single quote you posted would fall into that group.

          July 15, 2014 at 9:57 am |
  3. MidwestKen

    awanderingscot,
    Your Wooddruff quote is addressed at the Quote Mine Project, quote #30:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

    July 14, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      If you are too lazy to articulate it or don't have the mental capacity then don't expect me to go chasing links

      July 14, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
      • Doris

        Nothing really needs articulating for you, Snotty, since it's quite obvious that people have answered you many times over on issues that have been addressed for years. So do you have anything other than outdated resolved claims to make or is your intent just to waste everyone's time?

        July 14, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
  4. Dyslexic doG

    Stephen Jay Gould campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap. It is disingenuous to see people in this forum mis-using fractions of his words to lie about his overall purpose. Dishonesty is a sin, I think.

    July 14, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Depends. You see as far as Christians are concerned, "the ends justify the means". Deception was awell recognized and approved tool used and promoted by the Chruch Fathers. If it's "useful to the cause", then it's ok. Even St. Paul agreed with and approved the idea that lying to good purpose was ok. "But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

      In fact there are entire chapters on the subject and how to use deception to good purpose in the writings of the Church Fathers. St. Jerome even accused St. Paul of deliberatly doing what Scotty does.
      http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Deception-in-the-early-church

      July 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I don't think that is what Romans 3:7 states. It is clear that Paul is not talking about himself, but quoting a foolish person's idea of trying to take advantage of God's grace.

        Some translations begin with.... "Someone might argue..." But in other translations it is implied.

        July 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey dala

          Beyond foolish – the witch ?

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/14/pat-robertson-tells-mother-your-sons-stomach-pains-are-caused-by-a-witch-ancestor/

          July 14, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You probably have more in common with Pat Robertson, than I.

          If you really exist?

          http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

          July 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey dala for the kids – not some ideology .
          Please check it out thanks.

          Climate Science Students Bill of Rights
          ALL KIDS DESERVE THE BEST CLIMATE SCIENCE EDUCATION AVAILABLE.

          http://ncse.com/taking-action/climate-bill-rights

          July 14, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I went to one of the best science schools in the nation. Right on.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • Science Works

          Well science does have a hard time trumping the emotional side of people it looks like.

          http://www.i-f-lscience.com/brain/political-religious-ident-ity-more-influential-scientific-literacy

          July 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
        • midwest rail

          I won't argue what is implied in the verse, but it is clear (if you spend any time here at all ) that many have no problem "lying for the cause".

          July 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          All kinds of people are guilty of that.

          All scripture I've read describes the consequences of lying as not good. No matter what ends you are trying to meet. A Christian who twists scripture to justify his dishonesty must have some issues.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          That's not what he said. And he said nothing about it being a "bad argument", made by a "foolish person". That's your rationalization of the verse.

          5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. THEIR CONDEMNATION IS JUST."

          And anyway, in the link are many others. In an age of "pious fraud", deceit was acceptable, (as the other examples prove).

          July 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't know, RBC. What about this translation:

          Romans 3 New International Version (NIV)

          But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

          July 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Looks like Paul is quoting a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it. No?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "I will only mention the Apostle Paul. He, then, if anyone, ought to be cal'um'niated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'." St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

          "We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result." St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

          Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, ent'itles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

          Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
          "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

          Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith: "Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
          Clement (M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

          St. John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and Bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived." Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

          "Golden Mouth" John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:
          "Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty." (St.?) John Chrysostom

          The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor by his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

          In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

          Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

          "The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Bucky,

          What lead you to study religion?

          July 14, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          The debil. The debil made me do it.

          Duh. I wanted the truth. And discovered the preachers were not in possession of it.

          July 14, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Evolutionist's creed: Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

        July 14, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty, the only person you are fooling is yourself. The only person you are making look bad is yourself. Your pride won't let you admit that you are wrong, so all you have left is lies and dishonest quote mining. We see you for who you are, scotty, and who you are is very ugly indeed.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Tallulah, what did Dawkins mean by "an advanced state of evolution"? Did he mean as the fossil record indicates that we went from bacteria to complex bony structured organisms? How is this possible and how do YOU explain the gap?

          "and we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. it is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history." – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, concerning the earliest fossil record of complex organisms.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Doris

          Now there you go again living in the past, Snotty. I'm assuming when you say "hoped for" you mean transitional fossils that we already know about for which there are many:

          Prominent examples:

          Archaeopteryx
          Australopithecus afarensis
          Pakicetids, Ambulocetus
          Tiktaalik
          Amphistium
          Runcaria

          July 14, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • Doris

          Lol – even with Dawkins, Snotty can't seem to get his head beyond anything that's decades old. I can only guess that he has no cable, no library card and has some phobia of any web page that doesn't have a theological connotation associated with it.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Yet again you have deflected the question Doris. What did Dawkins mean? And by the way, none of those you mention are intermediate species, what did they evolve into and what is the predecessor?

          July 14, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          awanderingscot,
          Your Dawkins quote is addressed at the Quote Mine Project, quote #40:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

          July 14, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          You continue to duck and run from the question Doris. That can only mean one or two things. You are dishonest in your approbation of evolution or you yourself see it as a fatal flaw. Which is it?

          what did Dawkins mean by "an advanced state of evolution"? Did he mean as the fossil record indicates that we went from bacteria to complex bony structured organisms? How is this possible and how do YOU explain the gap?

          July 14, 2014 at 8:49 pm |
        • Doris

          Nonsense, Snotty – no ducking.

          Dawkins: "I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: 'It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.' Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appeti.te for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore 'gaps' in the fossil record."

          Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

          The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

          "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

          July 14, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Really? Then what did Steven J Gould mean when he stated the following. Try to be honest in your answer.
      "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ..we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
      Stephen J Gould, evolutionary biologist.

      July 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        No one cares what LONG DEAD scientists said. Evolution IN NO WAY rests on dead scientists. There are mountains of evidence from TODAY, which you would know if you were not so totally ignorant of present day science.
        But please keep it up. You make yourself look like an idiot, and do non-believers job for us.

        July 14, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
      • Doris

        How convenient that Snotty left out Gould's very next sentence:

        "But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times."

        July 14, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          has no bearing on what he stated. just answer the question or continue to obfuscate.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Doris

          Of course the follow-up sentence has bearing. Because it indicates that they were looking for one thing as evidence but found something unexpected as evidence instead. It think even a bright high-schooler can see this. So what's your problem, Snotty?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
          – why is it necessary for a scientist to "impose a pattern"?
          – and why do evolutionists continue trying to impose this pattern, albeit with minor variations as time progresses?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot.

          Evolutionists –
          -– have fossils with some features of humans and some features of apes and some of BOTH

          Creationists, for PROOF of the Garden of Eden or Adam or Eve –
          -– have NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nil. NOT a thing.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • LaBella

          You are misrepresenting and lying, the same as if I would be by posting just
          Numbers 31:17
          Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man
          ...without any context. Stop lying. If you don't believe evolution, don't!
          Why do you not get that lying about it weakens your position, Scot?!?
          You're looking increasingly more foolish with every quote you misrepresent.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          unable to deflect any longer Doris? isn't this yet another admission that there is ZERO evidence for evolution?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • Doris

          Lol – you really don't seem to have the foggiest idea how scientists work, do you Snotty?

          Have you ever heard of the expression "test a hyposthesis"? In case you haven't, scientists do this all the time. Often in many ways – in ways that they think might best give evidence for their suspi.cions, but also in ways to test where they don't expect evidence – because they are used to being surprised when they think they are confident. Some of our greatest discoveries have taken place when scientists were looking for something completely different.

          Now, Snotty – ready slowly what you wrote again: "we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."

          Sounds generally like unexpected results of a suspi.cion. The problem is, Snotty – you give up too easily. It's a good thing for us that Gould was not like that. And it's a good thing that the scientists who study evolution since Gould have not give up either. Evidence of evolution is still all around and the theory is as strong as ever. That you only want to focus on some scientific expectations turned out differently and that you only want to pretend that the theory has failed only shows your agenda: to keep your head in the sand and be comfy with your book of spells.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          Here's the words of Steven Gould, a source so TRUSTED and RELIABLE for you that you have quoted him many times:

          "Evolution is a FACT"

          Oooops.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • Doris

          So speaking of deflecting, Snotty, you never answered my question I asked when you said evolutionists are a cult of theories (where you capitalized the word theory as if in disdain):

          If you let go of a ball and it falls to the ground, are you blaming it on the devil or are you praising some god somewhere for it?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Doris, why didn't he just say "hypotheses" then? And how would he "test" this hypotheses? Please, no more obfuscation.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • Doris

          I would think in that area of science you look to see what you find and analyze matches up to your suspi.cions. Are you really having trouble with notions this simple?

          July 14, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        "no one cares"
        – typical response from a dishonest cultist who doesn't have an answer.

        July 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • midwest rail

          More pigeon chess – you ignore every answer you're given.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          More dishonesty from Jebus' Great Liar. I didn't say "no one cares". I said "no one cares about LONG DEAD scientists". YOur usual dishonest desperate attempt to mke your position look reasonable.It's not. It's complete crap.

          And Snotty, EVEN IF, by some monumental change of evidence, Evolution were to be seen to need adjusting, IN NO WAY would that lead to "oh god done it". Creationism is the LEAST probable answer, thus goes to the BACK of the line. There would be COUNTLESS other explanations, none of which would involve your deities.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        awanderingscot,
        That is addressed in the Quote Mine Project as quote #3.12

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

        July 14, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
    • observer

      awanderingscot is the HYPOCRITE who constantly calls others liars while LYING himself.

      It's a shame that there can't be an INTEGRITY test before allowing comments.

      July 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
  5. Science Works

    Hey scot how is the tail hanging ?

    July 14, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
  6. bostontola

    The wanderingscot preaches Christianity. If I were Christian, I would consider him an embarrassment and would wish he went away. He directly lies and even worse, the lies are libelous, smearing the character of people doing honest work.
    Evidence from his posts:
    Referring to Darwin – "by his own admission he was totally wrong"
    Archaeopteryx – a forgery, feather imprinted in wet cement on slab and counterslab
    Australopithecus afarensis – "Lucy", another thoroughly discredited hoax, a modern version Piltdown man.
    This is reprehensible behavior that should be shunned by all honest people.

    To the factual part of his assertions:
    Archaeopteryx has a number of fossils found by different people. Was there a conspiracy as well? More important, there are dozens of dinosaur fossils species found now that had feathers (Psittacosaurus, Anchiornis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Ichthyornis, and many more). Not only that, there is a clear progression of feather development in those fossils. The oldest and most primitive feathers have integumentary structures that are seen in the dorsal spines of reptiles and fish. The feathers of later dinosaur species evolve step by step into feathers that are structured very similar to flying birds today.

    Tiktaalik – no feet, no legs. not like the dumb evolution symbol of a fish with legs and feet
    The actual story of this fossil also is best looked at as one step in a sequence. It had bones in it's fins that are in between normal fin bones nad feet/hand bones. It also had ears that were structured to work above and below the surface of the water. Most important, it had a neck. Right after that a new species evolved, Acanthostega. It had legs/feet but kept it's gills and tail fin for swimming. After that another species evolved, Ichthyostega. It had bones with strong shoulders which allows it support itself outside the buoyancy of water.

    The sad part is, not only are there transitional species, there is a progression of fossil species that trace the evolution between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to flying reptiles, reptiles to aquatic reptiles (reptilian version of whales/dolphins), reptiles to birds, reptiles to land mammals, and land mammals to whales/dolphins.

    wanderingscot's accusations of forgery, and hoaxes is just like any other conspiracy theorist. They have beliefs in imaginary things so powerful, that it is easy to imagine these conspiracies. It does harm when it impugns the reputation of honest people.

    July 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
    • colin31714

      Yes, he is a closed system, every bit as nutty as the Area 51 or 9-11 conspiracy theorists. That, coupled with his regular invective, makes me think he might be a little mental.

      July 14, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • bostontola

        I also fear that he has gone beyond the healthy psychosis of benign belief in Christianity and is into an unhealthy place.

        July 14, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
          – Stephen J. Gould

          – he's "infuriated" that people would dare question his "proposal" which lacks ANY scientific test and out the other corner of his mouth states that "transitional form are "generally lacking" at the species level. well then, what are we talking about if not speciation? is he going to prove now adaptation in the fossil record? evolution cultists are delusional. hey boston, with your lovely imagination you should get a job as an artist rendering ancient fish earbones and the like you just 'know' had to exist.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey scot it is between your ears – what is it ?

          http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2014/07/09/study-cracks-how-the-brain-processes-emotions/

          July 14, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Awanderingscot,
          That is one of the most egregious misuses of a quote I've seen yet.
          To misuse a qoute about having ones quotes misused.

          You sir, have reached new depths!

          July 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
        • Doris

          Hey scot, you never answered my question I asked when you said evolutionists are a cult of theories (where you capitalized the word theory as if in disdain):

          If you let go of a ball and it falls to the ground, are you blaming it on the devil or are you praising some god?

          July 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • LaBella

          Scot, people like you keep lying about what he said! Of course he was infuriated! Who wouldn't be??
          Why do you feel the need to LIE about these people??

          July 14, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Boston
      "It also had ears that were structured to work above and below the surface of the water."

      – this is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty that evolution cultists practice only in this case an outright lie unless you will now tell me those ears were made of bone? how would you know how those ears functioned so many "millions of years ago"?

      July 14, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
      • bostontola

        Actually, part of the ear is made of bone material. Scales are also not made of bone, and there are fossils of scales. Not just bones fossilize.

        What about all the other parts of the post? You accuse honest people of terrible things with no evidence. In fact, all the evidence is on their side. You should be ashamed.

        Now please stop your incessant requests for transitional fossils.

        July 14, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." – D.S. Woodroff, evolutionary biologist

          July 14, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • bostontola

          As a religious person, you clearly are comfortable with authority. As a person of the scientific method, I'm not. The scientific method works.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • LaBella

          Awanderingscot, read this and tell me why you aren't the exact type of Christian that is the subject of the article.
          And please stop taking the quotes out of context, as you do not like it when someone does that with the Bible. You're being unregenerately dishonest.

          http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5576576

          July 14, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          awanderingscot,
          Your Wooddruff quote is addressed at the Quote Mine Project, quote #30:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

          July 14, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        so we're all supposed to somehow believe a tiny threadlike earbone survived millions of years? you're an evolution cultist with ZERO common sense.

        July 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • bostontola

          There are many fish fossils with the stapes bone. The trail of it traces an imitable path to the stapes bone in human ears.

          You falsely accuse scientists of fabrication, when it is you that desperately lie, then try to cover that lie only to expose yourself further.

          I'm done with you, I feel dirty having a conversation with you.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Doris

          LOL – oh you're just being silly, dufus. You must be a poe troll, snotty. lol.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          as a bit of perspective ... you're willing to believe the word of bronze age desert dwellers with no scientific knowledge over 21st century scientists with masses and masses of observed and verified data.

          You seem to think that if there is even a little doubt on the scientific findings, your source of a 2,000+ year old book suddenly trumps it as the explanation.

          It really is asinine.

          July 14, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome .. brings terrible distress. The may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it." -Stephen J Gould, evolutionary biologist

      – If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it." LOL

      July 14, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • bostontola

        That is the equilibrium part of punctuated equilibrium. You ignore the 'punctuated' part (dishonest, or just incompetent?) Also, while much of evolutionary history is punctuated equilibrium, there are other times/places where there was more gradual/extended change. It depends on the stability of the environment, just like evolution would expect.

        July 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          oh i get it alright, it's FAST EVOLUTION now. LOL .. funny people actually believe this crap. you're gullible for sure.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • bostontola

          First you use Gould to base your argument, then you ridicule his theory. You are a sad piece of work. I'm done with you.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • joey3467

          The only people I know who believe in "fast evolution" would be young earth creationists who claim not to even believe in evolution and at the same time claim Noah took two cats on the ark and then in 4,000 years we got all of the different kinds of cats that we see today, from your house cat to lions and tigers.

          July 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
      • observer

        awanderingscot,

        Gould, who you like to quote, has stated that evolution is FACT and that people falsely using his words to try to dispute it are doing so by DESIGN or STUPIDITY.

        So are your quotes by DESIGN or just plain STUPIDITY?

        July 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        More copy-pasta from Creationist sites. We all know Snotty has not read the original works, from which he dishonestly lifts things from context, and is not capable of finding that stuff himself. And yet he calls ME out for copy pasting.

        My question is, Snotty : "Were you always this intellectually dishonest, or did religion make you this way ?" I realixe one of the big jobs of religionists in 2014 is to keep cogniotive dissonances at bay, whatever the cost. But really, it must get awfully tiresome to haver to try to refute almost all of modern science.

        ANd how exactly are you qualified to comment on any of this ? When and at what lever, and where did you take you alsdt Biology/Genetics class, and what was your grade ?

        July 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Archaeopteryx
      – shows feather structure and form found in modern birds, interesting considering this is supposedly a transitional species
      (this is a load of crap but i'm glad your gullible mind can accept it.)
      – does not have the bone structure in the breast to support flight of such a heavy "bird"
      (any grade school biology student is going to look at this and know immediately this is not going to work)
      – this thing never would have made it off the ground. birds and reptiles have completely different cardio-respiratory systems. physics would never allow this creature flight
      (but hey, if your 'scientific' mind can't go out of bounds to reason this falsehood, then by all means continue on with your cultist fantasy)

      July 14, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
      • LaBella

        Pretty much why it evolved, Scot. You asked for a transitional fossil, and there it is!

        July 14, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
    • LaBella

      bostontola, he doesn't speak for Christians. He speaks for only himself, and in a way that solidifies the sobriquet "hateful Christian."
      What point is gained by lying and misrepresenting? Awanderingscot? Care to answer that?

      July 14, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
      • bostontola

        LaBella,
        Thank you for standing tall for Christians.

        July 14, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • LaBella

          You're welcome.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
  7. colin31714

    Why, when asked for evidence of their God, do Dalahast and others think they can offer nonsense as a response?

    If, for example, the electric company said I did not pay my bill and I disputed it, I would be asked to provide evidence that I paid it – a cancelled check, a receipt, a bank statement etc. Think how stupid it would be if, when asked for evidence that I paid my bill, I replied;

    “Well, if you haven’t found evidence that I paid my bill, maybe you’re not searching in the right place.”

    “Open your heart to the possibility that I paid my bill.”

    “I know I paid my bill. This might not work for you, but it works for me.”

    “What is evidence, anyway? Have you searched for all possible evidence that I paid my bill and discounted it.”

    “Prove I didn’t pay my electricity bill.”

    This is exactly the nauseating garbage they respond with when asked the simple question of evidence for their god, Jesus etc.

    July 14, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • new-man

      the same manner in which you have to actually READ what's written on the receipt/cancelled check etc. to verify, it's the same manner in which you have to read a believers proof/doc.ument/paid for check/will & testament (you get the point) -IT'S THE WRITTEN & LIVING WORD THAT IS A BELIEVER's PROOF.
      So the question is, can you read?

      July 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
      • colin31714

        No, that is the assertion. Just like the Qur'an and other books contain assertions. Look, if a believer ever once offered convincing evidence to me, I would convert to belief of that particular god of which the evidence was compelling. But I never get anything.

        For years now, whenever I ask the question, it is the same evasive non-answers like those above.

        July 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • new-man

          that's actually your conclusion regarding their evidence or proof.

          A huge mistake many unbelievers make is in thinking it's a believers job to convert them. Not true. A believer doesn't even use their faith to believe in God, when a person decides to believe the word of God over the lies of the enemy, it's the faith of God that propels them.
          There is natural faith, and there is the supernatural faith of God which is a gift to us.
          Without faith it is impossible to please God, because everything that is not of faith is sin.
          Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. So how does one obtain faith.. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Why... the word of God is a seed – this is a fundamental parable Jesus gave and said if a person does not understand this parable, they will not understand any other parables. A seed -the word- must first be sown, then puts down strong roots, grows, then it begins to produce abundantly.

          unfortunately, the reason you're not seeing the fullness of the Spirit of Christ in many believers around you, is because they have not taken hold of the word of God and done what He's said.

          I will recommend you visit Curry Blake's Church – it's somewhere in the Plano area. It's called Dominion Life Ministries. If you go there and you do not see the manifestation of the Spirit of God then you have a point... until you do, you're just speaking for speaking sakes.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • colin31714

          In other words, in order to believe, I first have to believe. "Yes mister power company, I paid my bill. All you have to do is have faith and open your heart and you will see I paid my bill. There is a meeting hall in Plano Texas, where all of us who paid our power bills (but can't demonstrate it) gather. If you would only join us, you would see.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • new-man

          I've seen mentioned in the past that if God would appear in the sky and declare Himself God or some other similar type thing, then there would be no unbelievers. This is resoundingly FALSE.

          God led the Israelites out of Egypt through mighty miracles. He Himself appeared as a pillar of cloud by day-to protect them from the desert heat and a pillar of fire by night-to provide light and to protect them from the desert cold; provided food for them, their sandals never wore out etc. yet these very same people went ahead and made a golden calf to worship and said it brought them out of Egypt.

          So tell me again how some great evidence/proof will be enough to convince a person.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • colin31714

          Once again, that Biblical story is the assertion. Evidence is material from outside the Bible that supports the account. There is none that I am aware of.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • new-man

          actually no.
          in order to believe, you have to first decide God is true and everyone else a liar.
          You have decided God is a liar and all else is true.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • colin31714

          No, I have decided that your god does not exist. I have seen no evidence for his existence and all you have done is further prove my point. The only evidence you offer is the assertion itself.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • G to the T

          New-man – I think you may be confusing monality with monotheism. It wasn't that the jews didn't believe "Yahweh" existed, they didn't necessarily believe he was worthy of exclusive worship (monality) – thus the golden calf.

          Now if any of them were atheists, and maintained that non-theistic belief in the face of these repeated and obvious miracles, I would say you have a case, but that's isn't what was described.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • new-man

          and as you said... "yes mr. power company I paid my bill, the receipt or doc-ument is right here. Likewise, I am of God, I am the righteousness of God in Christ, I have the mind of Christ, there is power in the name of Jesus, as Christ is so am I in this world. Here is the receipt or ti.tle deed or doc-ument right here."

          Colin, dare to believe Jesus.
          Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also...

          "He who believes. What a word! God's Word changes us, and we enter into fellowship and communion. We enter into assurance and Godlikeness, for we see the truth and believe. Faith is an effective power; God opens the understanding and reveals Himself. "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace."
          Grace is God's blessing coming down to you. You open the door to God as an act of faith, and God does all you want."

          cr.S.W.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • fkahodor

          i don't think truth is determined by simply deciding to believe something is true. it's either true or it's not, regardless of any individual's decision on the matter. and how can you know so much about a being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension? i assume the answer boils down to 'the bible says...,' but why take such stock in such an outmoded and self-contradicting book?

          July 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • colin31714

          It is common for Christians to claim God is "outside the Universe" or "beyond understanding" when backed into a corner. They then turn around and claim they know what he wants, e.g., "God wants us to live good lives." Inherent contradictions do not phase them in the slightest.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • new-man

          fka,
          you have spoken correctly in saying that truth IS and it is not determined by whether one chooses to believe. Jesus is Truth "regardless of any individual's decision on the matter."

          I know so much because I have the life of Christ in me and I dwell in the secret place of the Most High.
          As Mr. Reinhard would say, I don't see you complaining because the sun is old and the only persons who say the Bible is contradictory are those who do not read nor understand the Bible.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          If any of the Israelites were atheists... I doubt they would have followed some fool around the desert for 40 years...

          July 14, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • new-man

          G to the T
          I didn't say the Jews disbelieved in the existence of Yahweh.
          I said after ALL that they had seen Yahweh done on their behalf, they gave the credit elsewhere.
          reiterating the point I made to colin..

          I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken if you're waiting around for someone to show you proof or evidence of God and to convince you that God is who He said He is... the great I AM.

          The children of Israel were lead out of slavery by the miracles of God. God protected them from been slaughtered by the brutal inhabitants all around them. He protected them from the heat of the desert at day by appearing as a pillar of cloud, and from the cold at night by appearing as You notice that all those supernatural miracles did absolutely nothing to help Israel as a whole to follow God. They were in constant rebellion nonstop throughout their history against God despite all of the supernatural "intervention". Humans have always given the lousy excuse that if we could just see some "supernatural" sign, then we would "believe". However, the Bible proves that if your belief isn't grounded on the principles, morals, and teachings of God's form of government, then all of the supernatural "wonders" are going to be completely worthless to you."

          cr. awanderingscot ? or some other commenter sorry I don't have the name, thought I did.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • new-man

          colin,
          it's very easy to know the will of God. Jesus came to do God's will. He did nothing of His own but all that He saw the Father doing.
          When we do as Jesus did then we are doing God's will... and Jesus Himself told us what to do in the great commission – heal the sick, cleanse the leper raise the dead, freely you have received, freely give.
          what's so difficult to understand there?

          July 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • observer

          new-man

          "However, the Bible proves that if your belief isn't grounded on the principles, morals, and teachings of God's form of government, then all of the supernatural "wonders" are going to be completely worthless to you."

          Yes. No supernatural wonders if you oppose DISCRIMINATIONS, beating children and slaves without punishment, etc.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • new-man

          observer,
          God has NEVER created a slave. He created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th not because He was tired and needed some slaves to finish the job, but because He was finished!
          Similarly, God has NEVER beaten a child or anyone for that matter! so your point is totally lost on me.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • observer

          new-man,

          God killed people, but no one said he created slaves or beat children.

          He just supported doing those horrible things.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          newman
          "Similarly, God has NEVER beaten a child or anyone for that matter"

          Really. That means one of two things. Your god exists entirely in your mind, that being the only way you would possibly know everything god has ever done. or, this "god" of yours does exist, and you are trying to claim to know all that your god has ever done, thoughout the entire history of humans.

          Your bible says otherwise though, unless there were no children when he allegedly flooded the earth, or destroyed cities, or told people to fling the children onto the rocks, or to kill your unruly children.

          How can you read the bible and not see how cruel your god is to children...and everyone else for that matter?

          July 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          God may have never beaten a child, but for an omnipotent being, she sure has permitted one hell of a lot. She also permits starvation, and thirst for millions of innocent babies each year, as well as countless deaths from storms, tornadoes and tsunamies. Yes indeed. You have a very loving god. Yes indeed.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • new-man

          realbuckyball,
          God DOES NOT permit any of these things. it's mankind that does!
          God has given us the power to overcome EVERYTHING that we face, the fact that we don't use the power and authority given to us is not His fault.
          Man is prideful and arrogant and keeps blaming God while taking offense at His Word instead of using it to reign in life!

          July 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • hal 9001

          "new-man": "God DOES NOT permit any of these things. it's mankind that does!"

          Your assertion is, in fact, correct, "new-man". Since "God" is a product of man's imagination, it is only mankind that can "permit any of these things".

          July 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • fkahodor

          new-man,

          "fka,
          you have spoken correctly in saying that truth IS and it is not determined by whether one chooses to believe. Jesus is Truth "regardless of any individual's decision on the matter.""

          well i'm certainly glad we can share half-a-point there. but how has jesus been established as "Truth" exactly? or is that merely a belief, not considered true per se, on the part of many an individual?

          "I know so much because I have the life of Christ in me and I dwell in the secret place of the Most High."

          i feel that our respective definitions of "life" differ. perhaps a deeper discussion is possible with an agreement of terms.

          "As Mr. Reinhard would say, I don't see you complaining because the sun is old and the only persons who say the Bible is contradictory are those who do not read nor understand the Bible."

          i don't complain about the age of the sun because proponents of the sun do not make incredible claims about the sun being an authority on truth. and don't forget about Mr. Logic and his opinion on the factuality of the bible!

          July 14, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          God DOES NOT permit any of these things. it's mankind that does!
          God has given us the power to overcome EVERYTHING that we face, the fact that we don't use the power and authority given to us is not His fault.
          Man is prideful and arrogant and keeps blaming God while taking offense at His Word instead of using it to reign in life!

          What a joke. Tornadoes and tsunamies ? Really ? Stop rationalizing for your god.

          July 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          And childhood cancer ?

          You really are deluded.

          July 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          e created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th not because He was tired and needed some slaves to finish the job, but because He was finished!
          Similarly, God has NEVER beaten a child or anyone for that matter! so your point is totally lost on me.

          Seriously. You actually buy that crap. That there were 'days' before the sun existed. Hahaha.

          July 14, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      The electric company is actually an authority. If I don't meet their demands for evidence of payment, they have the power to deny me service.

      You are not an authority on anything. If I don't meet your demands for evidence of God, you will just offer me complete nonsense and passive aggressive insults. Often that includes circular reasoning and extremely biased anti-theist opinions.

      God is the Authority. He gives evidence on His terms. Not yours. That is why I suggest seeking humility if you honestly want to find God in your life. Pride and self-righteousness were and are my stumbling blocks.

      July 14, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
      • colin31714

        Mr. Electric Company, it is pride that stops you from seeing I paid my bill. Seek humility and you will see I paid my bill.

        July 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Approaching God is not exactly like approaching the electric company. That is nonsense. If that is your approach, it might explain your results.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • colin31714

          lol. You outdo yourself in pathos. I don't believe that a dead Jew from 2,000 year ago is still alive in a place called heaven, that he reads my mind (or "hears my prayers" as you put it) and is somehow responsible for ensuring I will live happily ever after I die. That is not a "result." That is sanity. try it soemday – you might even find you have less need for your therapist, you weak, pathetic simpleton.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right, but just because you point at other people and scream that they are pathetic, doesn't mean you are not pathetic yourself.

          It is clear cut evidence of something within you that is troubled. Especially when you rephrase and retell the other person's beliefs to fit your own cherished preconceived notions.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • colin31714

          Dalahast, you said "Especially when you rephrase and retell the other person’s beliefs to fit your own cherished preconceived notions"

          That is your classic dodge and lie. I have stated exactly what you believe based on dozens of your own posts. You just don't like the way I express it (i.e. I call it what it is.)

          July 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala, It's an attempt to show you the cognitive dissonance between what you accept because of your faith and what you expect in your other dealings.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          'Mr. Electric Company, it is pride that stops you from seeing I paid my bill. Seek humility and you will see I paid my bill" That is the best line so far in this thread.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          That's the kind of nauseating garbage that passes for logic in their mind.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Could there be a cognitive dissonance between what you accept because of your faith and what you expect in your other dealings?

          I've got a non-scientist anti-theist (Colin) preaching an unproven philosophical system bordering between scienstism/naturalism who is in love with the fact he is in love with a science he doesn't really understand.

          And now he demonstrates hypocrisy (remember a couple days ago you criticized me for making personal insults).

          Colin, you are not a logical as you imagine. You are simply rationalizing your behavior to justify abandoning all the Humanist principles Humanists embrace.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • colin31714

          "An unproven philosophical system". So, not believing in gods, angels, heaven etc. is an "unproven philosophical system" hey? Is not believing in Leprechauns an "unproven philosophical system"?

          July 14, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Scientism, which is exactly what you believe based on dozens of your own posts (by your line of reasoning you can't deny that, because I said so), is an unproven philosophical system.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You should prove that you can do this:

          "Humanists try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion."

          Let us see the evidence.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          No cognitive dissonance. If someone tried to sell me ocean-front property in Arizona or the idea that leprechauns existed, there would be evidence or lack of that would be evident for all to examine. Despite you saying thousands of times that you have evidence of a god you have yet to provide any. What, for example, is the difference between your religion and mormonism? The "evidence" is in a book with no external corroboration and persists because some believers accepted that book. Same as your religion yet you don't believe – what is the differentiating objective evidence?

          July 14, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa

          Just because you wouldn't buy ocean front property in Arizona or don't believe in Leprechauns, doesn't mean you don't have cognitive dissonance. Sorry. I'm not convinced. Do you have any other evidence to prove you are not suffering from that condition?

          July 14, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @dala
          Why do you think your god won't show himself? Why the infantile game of hide and seek? Why is he willing to let people go to hell for not believing when he could so easily show himself and we would all believe. He showed himself a lot back in primitive times, why not now?

          July 14, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          You seem to have lost track again – you made your daily claim of a god and the evidence you have for said god and as usual you cannot produce any evidence. All these tangents are of your own making as you dodge and swerve.

          July 14, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • colin31714

          Dalahast is indeed the artful dodger......

          July 14, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala
          What is the evidence for your religion over mormonism?

          July 14, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          doG
          Who says God won't show himself? Who says remaining hidden is infantile? Who says he sends people to hell? Who says we don't have access to God now, more so than primitive people had?

          July 14, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is possible you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

          What Jesus says is my evidence over any religion, including Mormonism.

          July 14, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          More hypocrisy from Colin.

          July 14, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala,
          You know if existed and were as strong as you suggest you'd present it. Or better still your god could present it. Transparent dodges are not convincing.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't give that evidence. God does.

          If I didn't have it shown to me I'd probably be hostile and demanding as you are. That kind of mindset was part of my problem.

          I know you think I'm a dodger, liar, delusional and a weak, pathetic simpleton. And you say I have no evidence. Can you see I'm not that worried over your opinion? The only people that use derogatory names like that toward me and tell me I have absolutely NO evidence are... well, hostile anti-theists. And that is a group that is trying to sell me something I don't need.

          July 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Clearly god does not provide evidence – not your god not any god. Why post on here multiple times daily that you have evidence and then dance around for hours avoiding requests for the evidence you claim. You seem to forget that you initiate these posts and expect them to go unchallenged.

          July 14, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I do have evidence. It is not the type of evidence you request. God isn't a product of our world we can simply study using science. God is better than that.

          There are men and women who have demonstrated a greater understanding of evidence than you have. They are backed by credentials I'm not entirely sure you are even capable of obtaining. They aren't delusional idiots or the type of people that would buy ocean front property in Arizona. So you arguments, while important to you, really aren't that compelling. I used to believe what you say about God. I don't anymore. A better way has been proven to me.

          What do you hope to get from the evidence of God? What are you looking for? There are a few stories in the Bible that describe God asking the seeker "What do you want?". How would you answer that?

          July 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala,
          If someone were posting here daily that leprechauns exist and that they have proof or that the holy spirit told them that mormonism were the one true faith, you would be skeptical and require evidence before you believed them. Then when they provide no evidence but said "you’re not searching in the right place” or “open your heart to the possibility" etc. etc. would you find that convincing and realize the error of your ways or would you still require evidence.
          Why do you think others should accept your claims without evidence.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
  8. Salero21

    Well, the German team won! I guess that maybe a sign that my next car ought to be a Volkswagen or a Porsche, even a Mercedes if I could afford it.

    July 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      I see you practice abominations, Sally. Best beware. *Someone* might call YOU "unregenerate".
      Deuteronomy 18:10 : "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft"

      July 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
  9. igaftr

    scot

    Why did you lie about Darwin?

    You claim "no and by his own admission he was totally wrong"

    Where did he admit that?
    He posed two questions in your quote...that is what scientists do...we hypothesise, theoriize, and then spend most of our time trying to prove ourselves wrong...that process starts with asking questions.

    By all means show where Darwin "admitted" he was wrong...or prove you are lying once again.

    July 14, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • bostontola

      If Darwin had stood on the tallest tower and yelled at the top of his lungs that he was wrong about evolution it would have absolutely no bearing on whether evolution is fact. 150 years of scientific research, testing, and validation have established evolution as a scientific fact. Argument from authority is fallacious. Claiming Darwin retracted his evolutionary theory is just a common lie.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • igaftr

        Exactly, but scot has taken to misrepresenting what scientists say. In each case he presents, he takes questions as if they were statements, or claims they are refuting evolution, when that is not what they are saying at all.

        what do you expect out of him? He is clearly dishonest and quite immature.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          IGAFTR
          the quotes are actual quotes by those pseudo-scientists and you lie in saying they are not.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • LaBella

          Numbers 31:17
          Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot.
          First, they are scientists. The psuedo scientists are the creationists.
          Second, while the quotes are correct, the context is missing, so misrepresesnt the point they are making, so it is you being dishonest by not posting the complete context. They are not refuting evolution at all, rather questioning certain aspects of the theory.
          It is you who is being dishonest by misrepresenting the full position of the scientists.

          Also, questions do not mean that they are refuting, as questioning is part of the scientific process.

          Meanwhile in other news....there continues to be absolutely no evidence anywhere of any "gods".

          July 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        where are the transitional fossils then? stumped?

        July 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • bostontola

          asked and answered (many, many times).

          July 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • joey3467

          every single fossil that has ever been found is a "transitional" fossil.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          once again, where are the TRANSITIONAL fossils???

          July 14, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no Joey they are not. you need to brush up on fossils.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • joey3467

          Go dig in the ground until you find a fossil. Once you have found one you will have found a transitional fossil. Or you could go to any museum in the world and see them there, this option might be easier than digging for them yourself.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Doris

          Prominent examples:

          Archaeopteryx
          Australopithecus afarensis
          Pakicetids, Ambulocetus
          Tiktaalik
          Amphistium
          Runcaria

          July 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Snotty,
          99 % of all extant organisms do not die in the very specific conditions which are required for the formation of fossils, (ie the precise amouts of water, silicate/sand etc etc). The question is not "Where are all the transitional fossils, (and there are many which you are either lying about, or simply demented ...how OLD are you anyway ... like 95 ?? ) but why are there so many fossils ?

          July 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Archaeopteryx – a forgery, feather imprinted in wet cement on slab and counterslab
          Australopithecus afarensis – "Lucy", another thoroughly discredited hoax, a modern version Piltdown man.
          Tiktaalik – no feet, no legs. not like the dumb evolution symbol of a fish with legs and feet
          Amphistium – a flatfish, we have flatfishes today, ever heard of a halibut?
          Runcaria – nothing proven here, a plant that is now extinct, it happens

          July 14, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          We have PHYSICAL fossils with bones that are half-man and half-ape that YOU cannot account for.

          On the other hand, there is ZERO PROOF that the Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve EVER EXISTED.

          Oooops. Try again.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • LaBella

          So...they never existed?

          July 14, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          fakebuck,
          "99 % of all extant organisms do not die in the very specific conditions which are required for the formation of fossils"
          and "(ie the precise amounts of water, silicate/sand etc etc). "
          – this is such a load of crap, it's as if you are suggesting they consciously pick and choose where to die. pure rubbish.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Observer
          We have PHYSICAL fossils with bones that are half-man and half-ape that YOU cannot account for.
          – really Observer? most evolutionists chafe at the suggestion that man descended from ape and now you're going to tell me there's a half man, half ape out there? why am i not surprised you are a delusional evolutionist cultist who can't keep he/r lies straight. LOL.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          Speaking of LIES, where is there ANY PROOF AT ALL of the Garden of Eden or Adam or Eve? Fossils?

          Ooooooooooooooooooooooooops.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Doris

          Good grief, Snotty - is all you're good for is lying generalizations? Try to refute what anyone here is telling you with some real peer-reviewed science. If you dare......

          July 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering
          "... this is such a load of crap, it's as if you are suggesting they consciously pick and choose where to die. pure rubbish."

          Not at all – most animals cannot and do not choose. Then it is a question of chance as to how long the body will take to decompose – the majority of animals that are not buried in a coffin do not last more than a few decades. Do you have any science to support these claims?

          July 14, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • joey3467

          Of course he does, it is called Genesis. Duh!

          July 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Santa
          "Not at all – most animals cannot and do not choose. Then it is a question of chance as to how long the body will take to decompose – the majority of animals that are not buried in a coffin do not last more than a few decades. Do you have any science to support these claims?"
          – support what claims? the claim that most rational people would make, namely that at least SOME of the 'transitional species' would make it into the fossil record?

          July 14, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering
          The claims that all animals leave a fossil, that animals choose to die where a fossil would be formed.
          As to the transitional fossils – that has been answered many times with specific examples, and all of your responses are lacking in honesty.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Australopithecus afarensis – "Lucy", another thoroughly discredited hoax, a modern version Piltdown man.

          -- provide the source for this lie, please.

          As for fossils "deciding" where to fossilize, your ignorant comment proves you are totally unable to an'alyze the evidence at hand. They drop where they die. That's it. Most places are not conducive for fossilization. If you don't get that, there is little hope for you. Have you ever taken an IQ test ?

          July 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      – no lie. no transitional fossils, none have ever been found, none will ever be found. Darwin admitted the same in so many words. you continue to perpetuate the lie even though you know it's a lie, that makes you a liar sir.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • observer

        awanderingscot

        "none will ever be found."

        Bright.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
      • igaftr

        false once again scot.
        All fossils are transitional as evolution is ongoing.

        Since when are "transitional fossils" the only evidence that is necessary?
        You have once again shown you do not know what you are talking about, and more name calling...really?

        July 14, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
      • bostontola

        I have to say that scot has crossed the line from dogmatically supporting a false position to actively writing lies. This person should be ashamed.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Boston
          where is the transitional species found in the fossil record? stumped?

          July 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • bostontola

          Asked and answered (many times).

          July 14, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • Doris

          Prominent examples for you, Snotty:

          Archaeopteryx
          Australopithecus afarensis
          Pakicetids, Ambulocetus
          Tiktaalik
          Amphistium
          Runcaria

          (I'm now wondering if Snotty is a poe. Can anyone be truly this dense?)

          July 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Yes. Scotty keeps asking the same questions, then ignoring the answers. Either he's a troll or he just doesn't care that his lies are obvious and foolish.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I'm thinkin' *dementia*.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • Doris

      I wonder where lying for your belief comes from in some people. I can't imagine that it comes to them naturally. Maybe fear plays a role. I'm sure relying on misinformation plays a role too. It's easy to see by looking at some of the sources Scotty uses why this is a problem. And for some, profit is a factor. Yep – some of the members of the LOJ (Lying for Jesus) Club are in it for profit.

      Creationists Say the Darndest Things

      Case in point.

      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 Ham-Nye debate that was held not too long ago. 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.
      ============

      Yes it seems even some of our trained scientists will sell bad information (what creationists want to hear) for the almighty dollar.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • Salero21

      All the Pseudo-scientists with their Pseudo-science are around here today. Do they really expect anyone here, through this Media, to believe they're actual scientist postings here. Is all Copy & Paste from people who in order to continue with their NONSENSE must ignore the First Step of Scientific process. Which the Actual Factual Observation of something HAPPENING. That has not happened. All we hear from evolutionists and these Pseudo-scientists all over the Internet is mere INTERPRETATIONS of History.

      Atheism/evolutionism and idolatry are all connected and closely associated with one another. Therefore they're all Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE. And of course atheist/evolutionists/idolaters are Extreme Hypocrites and Compulsive, Pathological LIARS. I've known that first hand since, like forever.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
      • midwest rail

        Pigeon chess.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • Doris

        I suspected you were kind of crazy, but you another dolt who thinks evolution is a false theory? Really?

        July 14, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Where is the transitional species in the fossil record Doris?

          July 14, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • Doris

          Prominent examples:

          Archaeopteryx
          Australopithecus afarensis
          Pakicetids, Ambulocetus
          Tiktaalik
          Amphistium
          Runcaria

          July 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
      • Doris

        In case you didn't notice, Blablero, the point of my large post is to show that some of the scientists referenced by the ID community are selling two different stories for profit – one that would reflect what they have learned through their education that initially earned respect for them in the scientific community, and one story to creationists to give them what they want to hear. To bring it down to simple terms you might understand, much of the "expertise" that someone like Ken Ham relies on is simply the kind that can be bought.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
  10. PeterVN

    One of the great comments here that I'll quote is "Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the cowardly, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them." Our evolution-denying and fact-denying nutcase wanderingsnot is in both the stupid and ignorant categories, with a full shot each of major reality denial and quote context treachery thrown in for bad measure.

    July 14, 2014 at 10:44 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Have you heard this story?:

      It was a beautiful day when a rabbi and a soap maker decided to go out for a stroll. They both were enjoying the warm weather when the soap maker abruptly turned to the rabbi and asked, "What good is religion? Religion teaches all these highfalutin morals and all these lofty values and ethics, and yet look at this world!" Without giving the rabbi a chance to respond, the soap maker continued his rant, "The world is corrupt. It's filled with pain and evil and wickedness. So I ask you, Rabbi, what good is religion?"

      Before the rabbi answered, he saw a young boy walking by. As the boy ran off to join his friends, the rabbi said, "Just look at that young child. He's absolutely filthy! And you're a soap maker, so I ask you, what good is soap? There's all this soap in the world, and that young boy is still dirty!"

      The soap maker protested, "How can you say that about soap? You're a learned man, Rabbi, so surely you understand that soap is good only if it's used."

      "Aha," said the rabbi, with a slight grin. "And so it is with religion. We can teach it, and people can say they've learned it, but until they've used it and truly understand the meaning of its lessons, the power of its teachings, and the weightiness of its laws, then – and only then – can religion make a positive difference in the world."

      July 14, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • In Santa We Trust

        There is evidence that soap exists and can be demonstrated to remove dirt whereas there is no evidence that a god exists and can answer prayers or otherwise influence life on earth.

        July 14, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No evidence you can see. You can decide that for other people. Only yourself.

          July 14, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Same old dodge. If you had evidence you'd present it.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Seek humility. Pride, ego and self-righteousness may be the stumbling block to the evidence you seek. Keep asking.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Oh the arrogance. You made the claim, you should provide the evidence. If you can't do that you should avoid the pop-psychology to shift the focus and have the last word. The last word would to support what you post daily with evidence.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Santa
          where are the transitional fossils ??? where is the evidence???

          July 14, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You said there is no evidence.

          Do you mean there is no evidence for you? Or no evidence for anybody? Have you examined all the evidence? Is it possible you don't know everything there is to know about evidence?

          Everyone who believes in God has no evidence to support that belief? They are all, what – crazy, delusional, stupid, brainwashed or mentally retarded? With no evidence? It is that simple? Because you think so?

          July 14, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • G to the T

          "where are the transitional fossils ??? where is the evidence???"

          Your question itself shows your ignorance of what evolutionary theory tells us (here's hint they are ALL transitional fossils). As a wise man once said "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

          July 14, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          G to the T
          "all of them are transitional"
          – LOL, when you don't have an answer, just say "all of them are" .. LOL
          again, where are the TRANSITIONAL SPECIES in the fossil record ? don't have an answer? that's all right i don't expect you would. you belong to a delusional evolutionist cult.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • G to the T

          Scott – I'm not sure what else to tell you. You've built a strawman of what you think evolution says and then knocking it down. You are in no way casting any doubt on the theory, only exposing your own ignorance on what scientists are saying about it.

          But let's turn this around, if these aren't tranistional forms, then you believe all these creatures existed simultaneously?

          July 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Doris

          Prominent examples:

          Archaeopteryx
          Australopithecus afarensis
          Pakicetids, Ambulocetus
          Tiktaalik
          Amphistium
          Runcaria

          July 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • LaBella

          Awanderingscot,
          Isaiah 13:18
          Their bows will strike down the young men;
          they will have no mercy on infants,
          nor will they look with compassion on children.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala,
          You dodge and swerve the lack of evidence almost daily and not just with me – I see you doing the same with other posters. You're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. The bible is not literally true and at least you accept that but in some ways that makes your position even less tenable. Without the bible's creation myth what evidence is there?
          Nothing that is said about a god can be objectively verified.
          There's no more evidence for a god than there is for leprechauns, unicorns, alien abduction, etc.
          And then when challenged to support your claims, others are not "humble" enough to accept your word and assertions.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Generally speaking, those who routinely accuse me of "dodging" and "swerving" come from an anti-theist viewpoint. And some do not seem to be completely mentally stable or healthy.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          "And some do not seem to be completely mentally stable or healthy."

          Says the guy who not only misrepresents other's arguments, but his own as well, and claims to "know" god exists, but cannot grasp why he cannot be certain.

          Hilarious. As far as dodging and swerving...I always hear "Tea for Two" when I read your posts...good tap dancing music.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • Reality

        Religion can make a positive difference in the world?? Give us a break !!!

        Save your plat-itudes and money and follow one simple rule: "Do No Harm" !!! Added details previously presented.

        July 14, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • Dalahäst

          There isn't anything that doesn't have a bad side to it. Even what you religiously copy and paste on this blog as if it were the final answer is way too simplistic to be sufficient for me.

          "Do no harm," you say. Can you demonstrate it? Not always. Easier said then done, in your case. I've seen evidence of you causing harm to others. It seems hypocritical for you to say just "do no harm", and then turn around and do harm.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • Reality

          I have done harm to readers of this blog? How by pointing out the truths about religion? And some added details to the "Do No Harm" rule of life as noted in my 21st century scrapbook of essential history of religion and theology (btw, Mark Twain was a big user of scrapbooks (cut and paste in his day. He even patented and sold a special blank scrapbook for those in his day with 20% of income coming from said sales::

          Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" are converging these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.

          Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples and synagogues.

          So let us start with the major flaw of Christianity:

          Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Flaw (or Infamous Con noted previously)

          From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

          Even now Catholic/Christian professors (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U, Georgetown) of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

          To wit;

          From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

          "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
          Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

          Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

          Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

          The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

          Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

          The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

          "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
          http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

          The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

          With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

          An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

          p.4

          "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

          p.168. by Ted Peters:

          Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

          So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
      • bostontola

        It's a cute parable, and it makes a valid point, religion can be used for good. But the analogy with soap is weak.

        Religion is more like Government, it is a group of widely varying complex social systems. In government there is Democracy, Communism, etc., there are obviously many different religions. When used, they can do good and harm.

        Dogmatic religions are like fascism, they teach not only that their way is right, but that other systems are wrong and must be opposed. This often leads to grave harm.

        July 14, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No kidding.

          Dogmatic religions are like fascism. I strive to avoid that.

          Even atheists, who completely reject religion, can become victim to that mindset. I would nominate "Reality" as a candidate for that role. I can't see the difference between him and his dogmatic atheism and the dogmatic fundamentalist religions of others who express their disgust with me.

          I don't want what either one of those 2 groups are trying to sell me.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • bostontola

          I agree that there are dogmatic atheists. I think that is accounted for by the fact that about half of atheists are of below average intelligence (just like most groups). I would say that most atheists that I know are not as vehement that no God is possible, as they are certain that millennia old religious stories are not true.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think a lot of dogmatic atheists were once dogmatic religious people. I see "dogmaticism" as more of a human problem some times, then something that is the product of religion. While some religions (and even some forms of atheism) promote "dogmaticism" – a lot of religions take a firm stand against such a mindset.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • bostontola

          I agree that dogmatism is human. I find mast religions and most of their sects are quite dogmatic. Some, like Unitarian Universalism seem more open. Even some sects of the modern Hinduism are quite open seeing Jesus as an avatar.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I had a nice conversation with a pastor this morning on how he deals with working in interfaith (Buddhists, Humanists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims) and even very secular (neighborhood groups, politicians, civil servants) communities. He was a good example of how to avoid making war or throwing stones over differences, but instead finding common ground. It works better that way. I need to follow his lead. It is hard to find people that can demonstrate that well.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • bostontola

          It is hard. After all, we're all human.
          : )

          July 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          In some ways it might actually prove to be easier. It makes things easier, I imagine, in the long run.

          Like, what I bring into my life when I "wage war" and "throw stones" at others is harder to deal with, then when I "offer peace" or "turn my other cheek". I guess the fine line is not becoming a door mat to others, because that is not good.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • colin31714

        Interesting sleight of hand. Replace "religion" with "morality" and it would be a worthwhile analogy. Religion and morality are two very different things. One can be totally irreligious and moral and/or totally amoral and deeply religious. Belief in the supernatural is not required for morality.

        Jesus still existing, gods, ghosts, spirits, life after death, heaven, hell, prayers being answered, devils, saints and all the other childish elements of religion neither cause, nor are they caused by morality. They are caused by a lack of education in the sciences.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          replace morality and religion:

          "What good is morality? Morality teaches all these highfalutin religions and all these lofty values and ethics, and yet look at this world!" Without giving the rabbi a chance to respond, the soap maker continued his rant, "The world is corrupt. It's filled with pain and evil and wickedness. So I ask you, Rabbi, what good is morality?"

          July 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You can replace "religion" with "Humanism" and it says the same thing. Most people would define Humanism as a non-theist religion, so that makes sense.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • colin31714

          Humanism rejects the supernatural.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not all Humanists are quite as dogmatic as you are about that matter. But, generally, yes most do.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Most people would define Humanism as a non-theist religion, so that makes sense."

          So now you are changing the meaning of the word religion ( each definition I look at requires a supernatural component) and speaking for most people. I have yet to find any definition of humanism that calls it a religion.

          Wait, let me add that to the dala dictionary so we might understand you better.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • colin31714

          Indeed. Debates with Dalahast quickly devolve into meaningless shell games with definitions.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Our government, and even Humanists themselves, have described Humanism as a religion. I'm not just making this up.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • igaftr

          new entry for the dala dictionary:

          Most people=Our government, and even Humanists themselves.

          it is often compared to religion, but only by people who do not understand the difference between a religion and a philisophical or educational system.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

          – Wikipedia

          July 14, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A philosophical educational system sounds a lot like a religion.

          Why do some Humanists describe it as a religion? The original Humanist Manifesto's described it as a religion. Later some anti-theist Humanists started to back peddle and dance their way around that fact. When it comes to the benefits of a religion, most Humanists will accept those (like religious tax breaks). When the downsides of Humanism (which are a lot like the downsides of religion) are pointed out, some turn a blind eye and employ what seems to be some kind of cognitive dissonance to the similarities.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • igaftr

          It is a common thing for people to mis name things. By every definition I have found, religion requires a supernatural component.
          By every definition I have found, humanism does not include any supernatural elements.

          I cannot stop those who use words wrong, but I can correct it when I see it.

          It is a very common mistake, but an important one , especially when people falsely claim that atheism is a religion.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          Who gives a sh.it about definitions, what some or most humanists believe or whether it gets tax breaks or not. The bottom line is that Humanists reject supernatural beings like gods, a post mortem Jesus, saints, angels and other silly nonsense.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have never said atheism is a religion. It is not.

          Some people treat atheism like a religion. It seems ridiculous, but it happens. I've observed some atheists get just a nutty as the fundamentalist minded religious people they claim to be better than.

          Humanism, which is not atheism, is a lot like a religion. Not all religions believe in the supernatural. The dangers and poisons that await people who are misguided in religion can effect those in Humanism in the same ways. I think most people who take their Humanism seriously demonstrate humility, kindness and understanding. Unfortunately there are examples of Humanists who are not that way. Some Humanists fail to demonstrate the Humanist principles that most people would embrace.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Peter
      thanks for your wonderful assessment, i may be going out on a limb but you also are a deluded evolutionist cultist as well? and thus your angst when someone points out the inconsistencies and fallacies of your object of worship?

      July 14, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • LaBella

        Isaiah 14:21
        Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.

        July 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  11. realbuckyball

    Well well. As IF we didn't know:
    ot many people took notice last year when Hobby Lobby President Steve Green told a crowd at the exclusive Union League Club in New York of his plan to require students learn an intensive bible curriculum.

    Green said at the awards ceremony for the National Bible Association’s John M. Templeton Biblical Values Award:

    We’re working on 4 year public school bible curriculum. The first year will be a summary of all three of those sections. It’s history, it’s impact and it’s story. Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those — a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story — in some order… The nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught… If we don’t know it, our future is going to be very scary… We were looking — uh we — we were talking — discussed a college curriculum but it’s no — we really want to get — be into the high school level because we want to reach as many as possible. Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated. Here’s a book that’s impacted our world, unlike any other, and you’re not gonna teach it? There’s — there’s something wrong with that.

    “I am humbled to join the ranks of other leaders who are committed to the Bible to guide their spiritual and religious beliefs as well as their business,” Green stated in a press release at the time.

    July 14, 2014 at 12:41 am |
    • Doris

      Oh my. We really need a new term for this type. Maybe Business Bible Bumblers (BBB).

      July 14, 2014 at 12:46 am |
    • saggyroy

      Studying the bible IS the fastest way to become an atheist. It worked for me.

      July 14, 2014 at 5:25 am |
    • tallulah131

      It appears he wishes to create a new generation of people who are not educated enough to hold a job that pays more than minimum wage. Perhaps he wishes to secure a hiring pool for his stores.

      I guess he doesn't realize that this sort of thing doesn't fly in publicly funded schools, except of course in the poorest parts of the bible belt where there really isn't any oversight. Selfish jerk, attempting to destroy the education that could help people escape poverty.

      July 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
  12. observer

    awanderingscot

    "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. [Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.] "

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS

    July 14, 2014 at 12:27 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome .. brings terrible distress. The may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis.
      And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it." -Stephen J Gould, evolutionary biologist

      – "don't talk about it" Ooooooops !

      July 14, 2014 at 1:00 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ..we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Stephen J.Gould, evolutionary biologist.

      – "world does not really display it" ... Oooooops

      July 14, 2014 at 1:03 am |
      • observer

        awanderingscot

        "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."
        -– Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist

        " humans evolved from ape- like ancestors"
        -– Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist

        OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS

        July 14, 2014 at 1:14 am |
      • LaBella

        Isaiah 13:16
        16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
        their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

        July 14, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • G to the T

        Have you ever actually read any of Gould's stuff or do you just pull quotes from "answersingenisis.org"? Because you are whoefully misreprsenting what he says. I'm assuming it's ignorance because otherwise you are bearing false witness against him...

        July 14, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Quote-miners only gather fool's gold.

        July 14, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • observer

        awanderingscot,

        "Evolution is a FACT".

        - Steven J. Gould

        OOOOOOPS. lol.

        July 14, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
  13. Doris

    awanderingscot: "you belong to a cult of evolution."

    It's a pretty big cult, huh Snotty?

    Let's take a closer look using a post a while back from Colin:

    [ "To put the sheer idiocy of Topher's, Awanderingscots' etc. creationist claims in context, here are some very basic pieces of evidence that make the biblical creation story utter garbage.

    Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

    Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

    Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

    Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

    Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

    Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

    Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

    All this is probably why evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

    The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.

    Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.

    I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.

    Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

    Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.

    Number made in support of creation science: ZERO

    According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.

    There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:

    (i) there is a worldwide conspiracy of universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their hundreds of thousands of professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny creation science;

    (ii) the creationists like Topher have a startling new piece of evidence that was right before our eyes that will turn accepted biological science and about 10 other sciences on their heads if ONLY people would listen to them, no doubt earning them a Nobel Prize and a place in history beside the likes of Darwin, Newton and Einstein; or

    (iii) they are a complete blowhards who have never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because their mommy and daddy taught them some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.

    I know which alternative my money is on." ]

    July 13, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
    • tallulah131

      There is no point in arguing with scotty. He has chosen to believe a lie. He has chosen to support that lie with lies of his own. He behaves like a spoiled child and pretends he is virtuous.

      He fools only himself.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:02 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the
      inheritance of the ho-m.ologous structures from a common ancestor explained
      ho-m.ology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to
      ident-ity of genes. The attempt to find ho-m.ologous genes has been given
      up as hopeless." Sir Gavin Deb.eer, embryologist

      – no similarity within genes, ho-m.ologous genes HOPELESS. no evolution, not
      proven by DNA. get it?

      July 14, 2014 at 12:10 am |
      • observer

        awanderingscot

        So your response to Doris was a quote from ONE PERSON that probably none of us ever heard of?

        You just got CREAMED.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:15 am |
      • realbuckyball

        A flat out lie, Snotty. Lying for Jebus again ? There are countless examples :
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/1_0_0/eyes_10

        July 14, 2014 at 12:17 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Sheep are human, basically. 98 percent of our genes the the same." – Sue Galloway, evolutionary biologist

          – lol, evolutionists are a delusional cult.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • Doris

          Snotty – she said genes, not jeans...

          July 14, 2014 at 12:42 am |
      • tallulah131

        Hey scotty? Your "expert" died over 40 years ago. Not exactly up on all the latest research, is he?

        July 14, 2014 at 12:21 am |
      • realbuckyball

        Debeer wrote that in 1971. 40+ years ago. You know how far DNA was at that time, Snotty ?

        Just exposing lies. Apparently Jebus is SO pathetic he needs to get people to lie on the internet. No scientist in 2014 agrees with what he wrote in 1971.

        Oh, And let me save you the trouble : "Doris, you are UNREGENERATE", (er somethin like that).

        July 14, 2014 at 12:30 am |
      • igaftr

        scot
        First off, all of your references and quotes are very old. Try looking at the information we have from THIS century for once.
        Second, you post things from evolutionists as if the tiny bite you post is the context. All they are saying is that, while evolution is clearly ongoing, it may not be in the way others had thought, like Darwin. They refer to very specific parts of the theory of evolution, they are not denouncing evolution at all.

        Get some updated information, and stop misrepresenting the work of scientists.
        Evolution is ongoing, and there is nothing to back up the creation hypothesis. ( and there never will be)

        July 14, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • awanderingscot

          – evolution is not fact, it is a cult of God-deniers disguised as science

          July 14, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • igaftr

          "god deniers" LOL

          I cannot deny that which cannot be shown to exist.

          You believe in something that cannot be shown to exist outside of the imnaination. You can only claim someone denies your god AFTER you show this "god" to exist.
          It is not denying to not believe in things there is no evidence of.
          We are not god deniers

          July 14, 2014 at 10:12 am |
    • awanderingscot

      “We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” – Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary biologist concerning Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings.

      – evolution is a fraud and a cult.

      July 14, 2014 at 12:21 am |
      • Doris

        Snotty – It seems most of the text books from the segment of books that contain the drawings that Gould complained about that are modern are before 2000. Do you have any stats on text books still with these drawings or is it your intention to keep plopping outdated info here like some pigeon with diarrhea?

        July 14, 2014 at 12:32 am |
      • realbuckyball

        Gould believed in Evolution, Snotty.
        "Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

        July 14, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "the theory of punctuated equilibrium"

          – duh, i know this THEORY as well. evolutionists are a cult of theories.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:18 am |
        • Doris

          So Snotty – you seem to have a fear of theories. So when you let go of a ball and it drops to the ground, are you cursing the devil or are you praising some other god?

          July 14, 2014 at 1:30 am |
      • LaBella

        What Gould actually said.
        "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases–in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent–simply copied the same figure over and over again. At certain stages in early development, vertebrate embryos do look more alike, at least in gross anatomical features easily observed with the human eye, than do the adult tortoises, chickens, cows, and humans that will develop from them. But these early embryos also differ far more substantially, one from the other, than Haeckel's figures show. Moreover, Haeckel's drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start.
        At this point, a relatively straightforward factual story, blessed with a simple moral story as well, becomes considerably more complex, given the foils and practices of the oddest primate of all. Haeckel's drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology. . . .We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"

        July 14, 2014 at 12:34 am |
      • redzoa

        One might think with all of this terrific "support" for creationism, creationists might have won at least one of their many legal challenges to remove evolution or at least earn equal treatment. Of course, no one expects the worldwide conspiracy of mainstream "evolutionist" god-hating scientists to be swayed, but the creationists couldn't even convince federal district courts in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia (let alone the SCOTUS). At every opportunity to make their case, creationism has been invariably found a non-scientific, purely religious position based in arguments of incredulity and a false, contrived dualism.

        July 14, 2014 at 12:52 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "..innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not
          find them embedded in the countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
          ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
          intermediate links?" – Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

          – because THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS Charles. a cult is founded.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:27 am |
        • Doris

          Sure there are, Snotty. You've been shown examples of these many times before. Still have your head in the sand I see.....

          July 14, 2014 at 1:32 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the
          fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million
          fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. Ironically, we have
          even fewer examples fo evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
          – David M Raup, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:33 am |
        • redzoa

          "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
          – Stephen J. Gould

          Really, this quote mining is just sad . . .

          July 14, 2014 at 1:36 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "By this i mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution fo the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information."
          – David M Raup, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History

          July 14, 2014 at 1:38 am |
        • awanderingscot

          @Redzoa
          – no what's sad is the inconsistencies and fallacies of evolution that cultists like yourself keep parroting.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:41 am |
        • Doris

          From what I can see, you're the only one parroting outdated information, Snotty. As I said before, you sound like someone complaining that medicine is untrustworthy because bleeding people didn't cure people of all kinds of ailments as it was once thought.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          redzoa's quote from the man you frequently use as a reference to support your position said – –

          "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."

          So is it through DESIGN or STUPIDITY?

          July 14, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." – D.S. Woodroff, evolutionary biologist

          – evolution is not fact, it is a cult of God-deniers disguised as science.

          July 14, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • redzoa

          By fallacies and inconsistencies, I suspect you mean things like the progressive fossil record; tiktaalik & archeopteryx bearing traits which bridge the alleged specially created "kinds"; phylogenetic analyses of extant and extinct forms which corroborate the fossil record; molecular vestiges like your defunct gene for egg-yolk protein in your placental mammalian genome; anatomical vestiges like your recurrent laryngeal nerve; observations of speciation; observations of novel genetic "information" produced by purely natural mutation and selection; no observations of fossils in the wrong place (no humans alongside dinosaurs, no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian; no observations of true chimeras; no observations of creation ex nihilo; a completely one-sided record whenever creationists attempt to remove evolution or include creationism in public schools; etc, etc.

          You mean those fallacies and inconsistencies that I keep referring to? Right . . .

          Further engaging you is little more than Pigeon chess . . .

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

          [if it wasn't precisely clear, you're the pigeon . . .]

          July 14, 2014 at 2:06 am |
        • redzoa

          "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition"

          See previous Gould quote. We do not expect to see significant transitions between species. Speciation is the smallest degree of divergence within the taxonomic hierarchy and we now understand that it is frequently discernible only through genetic analyses demonstrating the absence of gene flow. You clearly don't understand the relevant subject matter and you quote mine out of a pathetic combination of ignorance and desperation . . .

          July 14, 2014 at 2:21 am |
        • tallulah131

          It is pointless to argue with scotty because scotty is not interested in the truth. Scotty heard a story that he likes and so he chooses to believe that story even though it is not supported by evidence. Scotty would say up is down and down is up if someone told him he would be rewarded for believing that.

          July 14, 2014 at 2:27 am |
        • awanderingscot

          By fallacies and inconsistencies, I suspect you mean things like the progressive fossil record; tiktaalik & archeopteryx bearing traits which bridge the alleged specially created "kinds";
          – "punctuated equalibrium", no progressive fossil record according to new theory. a certain crow with teeth that "predates" archeopteryx which supposedly was a transitional species from reptile to bird. this crow supposedly lived millions of years prior to archeopteryx. another debunked evolutionary finding. Oooops

          phylogenetic analyses of extant and extinct forms which corroborate the fossil record; molecular vestiges like your defunct gene for egg-yolk protein in your placental mammalian genome; anatomical vestiges like your recurrent laryngeal nerve;
          – phylogenetic analysis has shown that supposedly same genes come from different segments of the chromosome and the on-off characteristics are entirely different. Ooooops

          observations of speciation; observations of novel genetic "information" produced by purely natural mutation and selection; no observations of fossils in the wrong place (no humans alongside dinosaurs, no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian;
          – true. they've never found human or rabbit, nor have there ever been observations of speciation in the fossil record, this because IT DID NOT HAPPEN and evolutionist cultists are delusional.

          no observations of true chimeras; no observations of creation ex nihilo; a completely one-sided record whenever creationists attempt to remove evolution or include creationism in public schools; etc, etc.
          – the fossil record confirms creation and wish they may, evolutionist cultists are delusional.

          – "punctuated equilibrium" is "fast evolution" so fast as to be totally implausible. even gradual evolutionists are not lining up behind this absurd theory. bottom line, evolution is a cult for foolish delusional God-deniers. evolution is dying on the vine.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:25 am |
        • midwest rail

          "...evolution is dying on the vine."
          Nope.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          It is religion that is dying on the vine as you say because people are realizing that religions are based on lies, they make no sense, and they are completely useless. It is you who follows a cult scot...a baseless cult that believes in supernatural magic things that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary.

          We are not god deniers, you are believers in myth...there are no gods to deny that anyone can show.

          July 14, 2014 at 8:47 am |
        • redzoa

          Pigeon Chess cont'd . . .

          “- "punctuated equalibrium", no progressive fossil record according to new theory. a certain crow with teeth that "predates" archeopteryx which supposedly was a transitional species from reptile to bird. this crow supposedly lived millions of years prior to archeopteryx. another debunked evolutionary finding. Oooops”

          Oooops indeed. The progressive order is NOT contested, e.g. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. In fact, this is why creationists offered the various flawed hypotheses (e.g. “hydrodynamic sorting,” etc) to explain this uncontested observation. PE explains observations of speciation, again the smallest degree of divergence between forms. As Gould noted in the quote above, this level of taxonomy is not the level we expect to look to for observations of transitional forms, primarily because the divergences are relatively small and the new populations are expected to be so small as to be beneath the probability threshold for capture in the fossil record. Feel free to cite the study referencing your “crow,” but the issue remains; archaeopteryx bears traits which bridge reptiles and birds, i.e. it directly crosses the alleged specially-created “kinds” barrier.

          "- phylogenetic analysis has shown that supposedly same genes come from different segments of the chromosome and the on-off characteristics are entirely different. Ooooops"

          It’s difficult to understand this word salad, but it’s clear you have zero understanding of the relevant science. Phylogenetic analysis allows the comparison of genomic structure from the presence/absence of gene complexes down to the individual mutations (i.e. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, “SNPs”). These comparisons show that the degree of divergence map to the lineages observable in the fossil record. Phylogenetic analysis includes both coding and non-coding regions, i.e. the regulatory sequences you referenced without any understanding. I note you didn’t even attempt to take a stab at explaining why placental humans possess a defunct gene for egg-yolk protein, a molecular vestige in your very own genome.

          “- true. they've never found human or rabbit, nor have there ever been observations of speciation in the fossil record, this because IT DID NOT HAPPEN and evolutionist cultists are delusional.”

          In one breath you erroneously rely on PE to disclaim a progressive order in the fossil record; in the next you ignore the primary role of PE in evolutionary theory. Again, your ignorance is betrayed because PE is based upon the observation of speciation in the fossil record.

          “- the fossil record confirms creation and wish they may, evolutionist cultists are delusional.”

          The fossil record confirms a progressive order and again, this is why creationists must propose absurd hypotheses to account for this order in a single mythical flood.

          – "punctuated equilibrium" is "fast evolution" so fast as to be totally implausible. even gradual evolutionists are not lining up behind this absurd theory. bottom line, evolution is a cult for foolish delusional God-deniers. evolution is dying on the vine."

          Yeah, creationists have been predicting the downfall of evolution for more than century now; how's that worked out? PE’s “fast evolution” spans the course of tens of thousands of years. It is fast in the geological context, but it is not fast with respect to speciation. Gradualism is also represented in the fossil record, recognized by Gould himself (e.g. the Foraminifera). Here's an example of how gradualism works within the nodes of PE:

          “The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50cm/10,000 gen), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.”

          The truly ironic and laughable aspect of your argument is that you forget how quickly the alleged founding “kinds” pairs evolved to yield present day observable biodiversity, i.e. in the incredibly short span of ~4000 yrs. Evolution is apparently impossible, until creationists require “hyper-evolution” to make their mythology "workable." It’s also worth noting that creationists require this “hyper-evolution” arise from founding pairs which would have invariably experienced rapid losses of genetic diversity due to genetic drift and allele fixation. Of course, given how you’ve already demonstrated a profound ignorance of the relevant subject matter, I don’t expect you understand what I’m writing about here.

          It’s truly amazing, the synergism of ignorance and self-righteous arrogance that produces such demonstrably flawed creationist arguments.

          July 14, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • igaftr

        scot
        Your quote does not go against evolution at all. Gould was addressing some drawings that he did not like.

        you post things from him as if he is refuting evolution, so basically you are trying to get evolutionists to lie for you by misrepresenting what they said.

        Do you need to be so dishonest scot? You don't have any valid counter argument, so you need to basically lie? and then you have the ignorance to claim it bolsters your postion?

        Stop being so ignorant scot. Read up oin information from THIS century, and stop misrepresenting people who disagree with you...they aren't sayoing what you think they are, and ultimately will destroy your ridiculous argument.

        Evolution is a fact scot, and no amount of your ignorant blathering will change that.

        July 14, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.

          Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:16 am |
        • midwest rail

          Scot – pure pigeon chess.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • awanderingscot

          The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

          Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

          Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?

          In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

          The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

          Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

          Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

          The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

          Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.

          Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.

          Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

          The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

          However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

          Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

          Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes – not because of mutations.

          Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

          Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • midwest rail

          copy and paste w/o attribution from the poster who regularly complains about others copying and pasting – how amusing.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics."

          Completely false. one small change, then another, then another...over time does create new species. We can see it, trace it back through DNA.

          Your denial is ridiculous. Most of the info you post is so outdated it is laughable, and you misrepresent the entire current evolution theory. Yes, Darwin was wrong in some ways, disputed with alternate theories in others, but overall correct, as was the theories he based his theories on.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species"

          That entire paragraph is completely wrong scot.

          Most genetic mutations are detrimental..that is true, so the individual with the mutation will normally not mate, as often the mutation is either fatal or shorten the life span, or be found to be repulsive to potential mates. But positive mutation, while more rare, would benefit the individual, making it easier for it to survive, and be more attractive to a mate, so a positive mutation would, in general, be passed along, where negative ones aren't.

          Whoever wrote that came to an invalid conclusion, so I would think twice before stealing more of his work.

          July 14, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Won't Babu be angry with you for stealing his work and not crediting him?

          July 14, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Most genetic mutations are detrimental..that is true"
          – there is no denying this, mutations are detrimental; in addition you can multiply the detrimental mutations a hundredfold over time and no possible positive mutation leading to speciation can occur. your just a deluded god-denying unregenerate.

          July 14, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "..innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not
          find them embedded in the countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
          ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
          intermediate links?" – Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

          – IGAFTR stated that Darwin was "wrong in some ways". no and by his own admission he was totally wrong. you're a delusional cultist.

          July 14, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • igaftr

          scot

          All of the name calling...did you learn that from Jesus?

          As far as mutations...MOST are detrimental, but some are not. Try reading what was said.

          I do not deny god, since I do not believe there are any...that is not the same as denying, so you like to lie....isn't there something in your book about bearing false witness?

          Each time you lie, each name you call others, each time you steal other peoples work, you prove what kind of person you really are.

          July 14, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • redzoa

          Pigeon Chess cont'd . . .

          “The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred.”

          Evolution has never predicted true chimeras, i.e. no “crocoducks.” If we saw a true chimera, this would be evidence for special creation, not evolution. That we don’t see true chimeras is negative evidence in support of evolution.

          “Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.”

          Of course they’re fully formed. But what we do see are forms with traits that bridge the alleged specially created kinds, e.g. tiktaalik, archaeopteryx. We also see plenty of forms (ourselves included) which bear molecular and anatomical vestiges of a shared ancestry, e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, male ni-pples, and that pesky defunct gene for egg-yolk protein in very own placental mammal genome.

          "Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?"

          Short answer is neutral or functional intermediates, exaptation, etc.

          “In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. . .”

          As noted in the other thread above, you clearly have zero grasp of PE, what it relates to and why it is perfectly concordant with evolutionary theory.

          “The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.”

          You have no understanding of what speciation is or how it works, this line of “reasoning” is akin to the classic creationist paradox “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

          “Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.”

          We can look to phylogenetic analyses and then compare them to the fossil record to gauge which “interpretation” is supported by physical evidence and known natural mechanism, and which “interpretation” is based solely on a magical, untestable catchall “god did it that way” mechanism. Furthermore, we can look to convergent evolution and phylogenetic analyses to show that forms that bear incredible resemblances and ecology are nonetheless the product of discrete genetic lineages, e.g. New World v. Old World Vultures.

          "Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. . .”

          Mutation produces variation and there is no known limit to the ability of a population to acquire and acc-umulate variation. From this variation, selection filters for functionality and together, these two components are demonstrably capable of “creating” novel functionality, e.g. RNA aptamers, Lenski’s E. coli, etc.

          “The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills . . .”

          Thanks for the 5th grade biology lesson. It should be embarrassing that creationists are still pointing to Haeckel for their arguments; nonetheless, embryonic development is the product of the very same genes which corroborate, via phylogenetic analyses, the relationships displayed in the fossil record.

          “Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. . .”

          Please cite the study that has demonstrated any such limit with respect to the ability of a form to acc-umulate changes . . .

          “Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.”

          Nature does perform genetic engineering. It yields variation via mutation, and selects from among this variation for those forms best suited for a given environment at a given time.

          “Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. . .”

          Thanks again for the 5th grade biology lesson.

          “The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.”

          It’s not a belief, it’s been demonstrated, e.g. Lenski’s E. coli.

          “However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.”

          Mutations produce variation and they arise as the result of a broad array of mechanisms e.g. duplication, insertion/deletion, etc.

          “Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.”

          False. Most mutations are neutral. Some are harmful and some are advantageous. Children possess, on average, ~60 mutations which are not present in their parents (i.e. you are a functioning mutant, well, mostly functioning at least). Furthermore, declarations of harmful/helpful are post-hoc determinations and they are dependent on a particular environment at a particular time. Antibiotic resistance mutations frequently cause the mutants to grow more slowly than the wildtype under normal conditions (“harmful”); however, in the presence of the antibiotic, the mutant survives whereas the wildtype simply dies (“helpful”).

          “Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes – not because of mutations . . .”

          Again, a clear betrayal of any familiarity with the subject matter. Absent some mutation, how do you think these new combinations arise? Mutations, either in the regulatory regions, in protein-coding regions, or both, allow this exaptation. That is, they might duplicate a gene and reinsert somewhere else in the genome (a mutation). They might change the structure of a functional or transcription regulatory protein allowing novel binding to new targets (a mutation). They might alter the binding sequence of a regulatory region (i.e. promotors, enhancers, insulators, etc) thereby allowing novel binding of transcriptional machinery (you guessed, a mutation). Lenski’s E. coli provided a real time observation for these events. An initial mutation increased the overall mutation rate. A gene was duplicated and resinserted in the genome in the proximity of a different regulatory region (i.e. an aerobically-activated promotor). Further mutations refined and enhanced the efficiency of this brand new biochemical pathway allowing the E. coli to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen. This novel gain in functionality and “genetic information” was the product of a series of mutations. Additionally, because the absence of aerobic citrate metabolism is a phenotypic marker used to distinguish E. coli from other microbes, the acquisition of this trait (relative to the incredible diversity of microbes) was akin to a change in bacterial “kind.” Although we call Lenski’s model organisms “E. coli,” if they’d been recovered from the wild, they would not have been classified as such.

          Your understanding of biology is as poor as your understanding of all the other science you erroneously expound upon.

          July 14, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
  14. Anthony Crispino

    I was afraid this might happen. My wife's groin doctor said if Germany won, the old Pope would have to take his old job back. But he didn't say how soon. ???

    July 13, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      What, do tell, is a "groin doctor" ? An OBGYN ?

      July 13, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
  15. monica7c

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU9MbXueRFg&w=640&h=360]

    July 13, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • igaftr

      Perhaps you could put something of value up to gain hits instead of creating garbage and then stealing advertising.
      Get some talent.

      July 13, 2014 at 11:00 am |
      • MidwestKen

        +1

        July 13, 2014 at 11:14 am |
      • otoh2

        Heheh, at least her video failed to post this time. Notice in the URL, after the = there's DU...Mb!

        July 13, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
  16. lordssword

    And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' Matthew 19:4

    God "made them male and female". Adam was created before Eve, and was created male. He was created with a view to intimate union with Eve, who was created later on from his body, but as a female.

    July 13, 2014 at 10:46 am |
    • midwest rail

      Relevance to the story ?

      July 13, 2014 at 10:48 am |
    • igaftr

      "God "made them male and female". "

      According to a man made book, you mean. Still no evidence of this "god" of yours, and I agree with midwest.
      What does this have to do with the article?

      July 13, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Actually that's a lie.
      1. The Bible is completely false. Evolution is not questioned in any major academic center in the entire world.
      2. AFTER you god created Adam, they *discovered* he was lonely, (dumb god didn't get that until it happened), and THEN made Eve, but ONLY after *searching* for the mate. The Bible says the god paraded all the birds of the air and beasts of the field before him "but none PROVED to be a suitable mate for the man". (Cough cough ... I wonder what THAT means). You need to study your Babble a bit more. Anyway, until SCIENCE discovered it in the 19th Century, humans had no notion of se'xual orientation. SO of course the text says that. But what about all the hermaphrodites Jebus had made over the millennia ? Oops. Such mistakes your dumb god makes.

      July 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs.. – Richard Lewontin, prominent evolutionary biologist.

        July 13, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          you belong to a cult of evolution.

          July 13, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Posting the opinion of ONE biologist who may happen to agree with your nonsense does not help your childish cause. NOT ONE major academic center in the world denies Evolution.
          Yeah Evolution is one of my cults. Just like Gravity and Spherical Earth are others of mine.
          (pssst Pro tip : DNA proves Evolution)

          July 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • Doris

          Just for some background on this – here is more if not all of that quote:

          "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

          ( Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997 )

          This was at this page: http://www.icr.org/article/455/
          (Insti.tute for Creation Research)

          In the article by Henry Morris – "Evolution Is Religion–Not Science", Morris follows up the quote with:

          "Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. "

          July 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "..the Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time." – Steven J. Gould, evolutionary biologist

          – a leader in the cult of evolution

          July 13, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "since the so-called Cambrian Explosion..NO NEW PHYLA of animals have entered the fossil record" – Steven J.Gould

          – Oooooops !

          July 13, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • observer

          "I want to argue that the “sudden” appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. […] Evolutionary “sequences” are not rungs on a ladder, but our retrospective reconstruction of a circuitous path running like a labyrinth, branch to branch, from the base of the bush to a lineage now surviving at its top."

          - Steven Gould, "Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution", p. 61

          July 13, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher
          taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precabrian to Ordovician times,
          when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved.
          Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or
          classes appearing then." – James W.Valentine, evolutionary biologist

          – no branching or connecting. get it?

          "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the
          tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
          not the evidence of the fossils" – Stephen J Gould, evolutionary biologist.

          – you belong to a cult of evolution.

          July 13, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          It's good to see you with such unquestioning support for some scientists. I expect you'll be as confident in other experts in scientific fields.

          Does Steven Gould also believe in the science fiction of the Noah's ark story?

          July 13, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • Doris

          It looks like Snotty might simply reading this page: http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/patton/dp-fosil.htm

          ti.tled: "THE FOSSIL RECORD

          Does Not Support Evolution But Is Positive Evidence For Creation!"
          (Web pages and graphics are Copyright ©1996-1998 Northside Church of Christ)

          July 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • redzoa

          Creationists and their disingenuous quote mines . . .

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

          July 13, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty would rather believe a lie and spread that lie himself than actually accept that he isn't the special creation of some supreme being. Sad, really.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • LaBella

          Quote miners are dishonest in their debate, whether Christian or atheist.
          Unregenerate, indeed.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • igaftr

          ""since the so-called Cambrian Explosion..NO NEW PHYLA of animals have entered the fossil record" – Steven J.Gould

          – Oooooops !"

          Oops? By all means scot, explain to everyone why you think that is an oops.

          July 15, 2014 at 8:14 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Actually that's a lie.
      1. The Bible is completely false. Evolution is not questioned in any major academic center in the entire world.
      2. AFTER your god created Adam, they *discovered* he was lonely, (dumb god didn't get that until it happened), and THEN made Eve, but ONLY after *searching* for the mate. The Bible says the god paraded all the birds of the air and beasts of the field before him "but none PROVED to be a suitable mate for the man". (Cough cough ... I wonder what THAT means). You need to study your Babble a bit more. Anyway, until SCIENCE discovered it, in the 19th Century, humans had no notion of se'xual orientation. SO of course the text says that. But what about all the her.map.hro.dites Jebus had made over the millennia ? Oops. Such mistakes your dumb god makes.

      July 13, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SffkZRcPQtw&w=640&h=360]

        July 13, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SffkZRcPQtw&w=640&h=360]

          July 13, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), also called Dawson’s dawn man, proposed species of extinct hominin (member of the human lineage) whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils were sufficiently convincing to generate a scholarly controversy lasting more than 40 years, was one of the most successful hoaxes in the history of science.

        – you belong to a cult of evolution

        July 13, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • Doris

          Science is filled with hoaxes and unexpected results over history. But it doesn't help to dwell on what we have learned that is wrong when there has been plenty to learn from that has been right since. That's what's good about the process – that it allows for learning, review, weeding out and the growth and improvement of the process. Any more, you sound like someone complaining that medicine is untrustworthy because bleeding people didn't cure people of all kinds of ailments as it was once thought.

          July 13, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • LaBella

          There are hoaxes in every aspect of life; religion included. Are we to discard religion because hoaxes have been commited, awanderingscot?
          Hardly.

          July 13, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "the sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification lof the multicellular animals.
          The later history of life proceeded by elimination, not expansion." Stephen Gould, evolutionary biologist.

          – ELIMINATION NOT EXPANSION, get it?

          July 13, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • Doris

          Oh, by all means do expand on "elimination not expansion", Snotty. Tell us what you think that means...

          July 13, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          And unlike religion which perpetuates it's hoaxes and lies, science is self -correcting. Evolution in NO WAY today rests on Piltdown man.

          July 14, 2014 at 12:20 am |
      • awanderingscot

        "and we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. it is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history." – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, concerning the earliest fossil record of complex organisms.

        – you belong to a cult of evolution.

        July 13, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • LaBella

          "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

          While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

          The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

          "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

          ~The Quote Mine Project

          July 14, 2014 at 12:53 am |
      • awanderingscot

        ..trilobites may have been superior to current living animals; they had, in principle, perfect vision and they possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever.. – Science News

        – trilobites were found in the Cambrian fossil record. you belong to a cult of evolution and are delusional.

        July 13, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot

          "you belong to a cult of evolution and are delusional.'

          Great comment from someone supporting a book that claims the sun and moon SUDDENLY stopped in their orbit.

          July 13, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
    • observer

      lordssword,

      The Bible doesn't say Eve was created to be a mother and a wife for Adam.

      She was created to be his HELPER.

      July 13, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
  17. fkahodor

    there are some confident answers on these threads. where does that come from? how can one know they are correct in their beliefs if they cannot be verified? and what exactly, then, is faith? why have it?

    July 11, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
    • fkahodor

      oh, and i'm not convinced either pope has more significant things to do than cheer for their respective country's national team. should be an interesting match

      July 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
  18. Salero21

    JAJAJA... oops... pardon me please... I meant to say again... HAHAHA and more HAHAHA. Extremely hypocritical and Compulsive lying atheists are sending me Spam mail from CNN or WordPress.

    July 11, 2014 at 11:02 am |
    • realbuckyball

      In your dreams.

      July 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
      • kudlak

        In his delusions you mean, of which, he appears to have many.

        July 12, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • Salero21

        So then... Do you admit finally that atheist are indeed extreme hypocrites and Compulsive, pathological Liars?

        July 12, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
      • Salero21

        So then... You do you admit finally that atheist are indeed extreme hypocrites and Compulsive, pathological Liars?

        July 12, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Salero21,

      I normally just ignore your comments, but I'm curious what the "JAJAJAJA" thing is all about. Is it supposed to be humorous? I guess I don't get it.

      July 13, 2014 at 11:19 am |
  19. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Six o'clock, TV hour, don't get caught in foreign tower
    Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself churn
    Lock him in uniform, book burning, bloodletting
    Every motive escalate, automotive incinerate
    Light a candle, light a motive, step down, step down
    Watch your heel crush, crush, uh-oh
    This means no fear, cavalier, renegade and steering clear
    A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies
    Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline

    July 11, 2014 at 9:53 am |
    • jhg45

      not bad, batter than the rest of this drivel so far. but bad subject matter so don't get too big headed.

      July 11, 2014 at 10:04 am |
    • LaBella

      A little REM. Nice.

      July 11, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
  20. thesamyaza

    happy birthday Nikola Tesla.

    July 10, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Is THAT was those little things are sticking up from the white beanies ? Radio antennae ?

      July 10, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        yes,.. but never the less Nikola Tesla birthday. is more important news then this pile of trash.

        July 10, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.