President Obama marks Ramadan
August 1st, 2011
12:14 PM ET

President Obama marks Ramadan

By Alexander Mooney, CNN

Washington (CNN)– President Obama Monday is marking the beginning of Ramadan, the month-long Muslim holiday of fasting and reflection.

In a statement issued by the White House, the president said, "Times like this remind us of the lesson of all great faiths, including Islam – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

He also said he will be hosting an iftar dinner at the White House, an event he hosted last year as well.

You can read Obama's full statement on CNN's White House blog The 1600 Report
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Barack Obama • Belief • Holidays • Islam • Politics • Ramadan

« Previous entry
soundoff (186 Responses)
  1. hosting free

    I do consider all the concepts you have offered for your post. They're really convincing and will definitely work. Nonetheless, the posts are very brief for novices. May you please extend them a bit from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

    July 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  2. Richard

    I think President Obama is a hypocrite. He loves to brag about his support for the pro-democracy movement, but he doesn't do anything to stop the violence in Syria.

    July 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  3. Chantelleh Hikarif

    You are my intake, I own few web logs and often run out from post :). "Never mistake motion for action." by Ernest Hemingway.

    July 27, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
  4. iphone 5 kaufen

    I'm no longer sure where you are getting your info, however great topic. I must spend a while finding out more or working out more. Thank you for excellent information I was on the lookout for this information for my mission.

    July 10, 2012 at 7:35 am |
  5. Allocer

    Everytime there is a article like this, some obnoxious p rick makes an idiot, insults over religion, race, and heritage. But meh, its the internet and everyone has the right to be an as shole.

    August 15, 2011 at 9:23 am |
  6. futurelawyer2005

    Will he be having Easter, Christmas, Hannukah and Rosh Hoshana dinners also? *joke joke* Sounds like he's playing favorites to me. *sniff sniff* I smell some Establishment Clause issues lol

    August 14, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  7. CheeseSteak

    Protect yourself from Christians. Don't talk to them, do business with them or communicate with them in any way. They are the direct cause of much of the misery in this world.

    August 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • futurelawyer2005

      Hey CheesySteak....follow your own advice....most people in the US and on here are Christians.....so be quiet and shut up...don't talk to anyone! shhhh!!!! Exercise your 5th amendment right to remain silent. lmbo

      August 14, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  8. lairdkeir

    "Islam has always been part of our American family"
I appreciate the President stressing America's inclusiveness. While I take exception with certain things the US has been responsible for over the past 40 years (being grateful for what it has accomplished, and thankful it has had the role and not China or Russia), the ability to have people from all over the world enter and assimilate has been, to me, its greatest strength. But as an history teacher, having him use his position to overstate and exaggerate to make a point diminishes it and does nothing to convince those that need convincing. To say that Islam has "always" been a part of America is so absurd, so at variance with simple facts, that I can only shake my head. Who among the so-called Founding Fathers followed Islam? Since 1776, how many Islamic generals led American troops? In the billboard top 100, in the New York Times bestseller list, in the top 100 American inventors and explorers, how many came from an Islamic background? What family is President Obama referring to? As someone of English background, I get dismayed when your president denigrates what Britain has contributed, but here he ignores the fact that America's laws, values, culture, political system, beliefs were forged far from the influence of Islam just as an handful of Muslims are singled out for individual acts of heroism whilst ignoring the very reason why this small number were called upon to make such sacrifices as seen by the White House continuing to stay quiet regarding massacres seen on a daily basis in Syria.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • CheeseSteak

      Shut up

      August 13, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • Nick

      Absolutly right, In fact one of our first wars was against muslims in Tripoli, who were attacking ships between the east coast and England

      August 30, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  9. lairdkeir

    background? What family is President Obama referring to? As someone of English background, I get dismayed when your president denigrates what Britain has contributed, but here he ignores the fact that America's laws, values, culture, political system, beliefs were forged far from the influence of Islam just as an handful of Muslims are singled out for individual acts of heroism whilst ignoring the very reason why this small number were called upon to make such sacrifices just as the White House continues to stand up to the massacres seen on a daily basis in Syria.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  10. Lost

    Thank you Mr. President. Much love to you and your family, and true supporters. If there was ever a time to stand firm on behalf of President Obama, now is that time.

    August 10, 2011 at 2:13 am |
  11. Lost

    I am proud of our benevolent president. We've all seen him walk through hell fires of hatred, intentional political debacle, scorn and lack of support in an environment that has refused to acknowledge the good and sense of determination for others who can some day follow in his foot steps. Those who are filled with hate and self-righteousness can't imagine a life where those they've mistreated can lead the world out of the mindset of racism's ugliness. The presiden'ss presence alone, no matter how he got to where he is, is a sign and a beacon, calling all oppressed people to action. It's time for the outcast to think and do for themselves, without the influences of racial and cultural segregation. We are all long overdue for a massive change, and those who want to linger in the painful old ways of kings vs servants, will stop at nothing, and resort to all means of evil (high and low) to deter their loss of influence and control over the minds of those who hunger for justice, and thirst for truth. The messiah is near, and exists in a people. Those who are in power and use Christs names to promote false hope, are unable to see that their belief in Christ is a hoax. They refuse to see that the return of Christ is not the return of a man, but is actually the resurrection of the blind and oppressed, whose last chance at survival is to wean off the cross, and begin to build and teach, and plan for tomorrow is theirs.

    August 10, 2011 at 2:07 am |
  12. fred martinez AA. BA. MA. D. D.

    i belive. that human society.whant to go along with there one seeing.GOD theres only. ONE The FATHER THE SON AND.
    THE HOLLY ESpIrI T but world wanst to belive ther way if GOD WAnTED TO makE A WoRlD OF MoNkeiES there
    wont. be no humans. THIs HIS WorLD NO scients is goin to call him sellf god. not in this world or the next one.
    i think people got to live there live. and let GOD. TAKE CARE oF US. ThiS.IS HiS. wOrLD . IF SOmE oNE WAnT
    expirement. he . needs to . create his own world. enyoy live. n let live

    August 4, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • CheeseSteak

      You're insane

      August 13, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
  13. 0369A9630

    I do not understand why the american people would vote for a muslim/islamic president?

    August 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • pfeffernusse

      They didn't.

      August 4, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Nathan

      Look, people who voted him in are stupid. He has messed this country up enough, and he's going to continue doing it. He is a muslim. Muslims believe that when they take over the world, that there 12 amon will come. Well, they claim he's here. The 12 amon is the antichrist. He will be in charge of the one world government that our muslim president is pushing for. And I can't just pick on him - both Bushes were in on it, too. But, it's comin' whether you believe it or not. You need to keep yourself rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ our Lord and savior.

      August 8, 2011 at 8:52 am |
    • Adam

      Are you ignorant or what? obviously, you are. Obama is trying to be diplomatic with the Muslim World that controls most of the world oil. If he addresses their holy month it does not mean he is one of them. Unfortunate he is that he inherited this wrecked ship called USA from a moron called Bush.

      August 8, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • J.W

      0369a9630 and nathan are both idiots

      August 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • marn7271

      Thank you Nathan !

      August 10, 2011 at 3:07 am |
    • CheeseSteak

      I'm gonna ask Chris Christy to kick your a&&

      August 13, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
  14. pfeffernusse

    Can you hide your ignorant heritage? It runs in families, you know.

    August 4, 2011 at 10:34 am |
    • pfeffernusse

      Meant as a reply. Oops.

      August 4, 2011 at 10:34 am |
  15. GinM

    So if we did unto others as muslims do so we would chop eachothers heads off if u disagree for being a muslim!This religion is horrible,president O is obviously a muslim,wake up america!

    August 3, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
  16. Civiloutside

    An Extreme Layman’s Terms Primer on Evolution:
    It occurs to me, in reading the debates here about creationism vs evolution that I cannot blame creationists for thinking evolution sounds ridiculous. This is because, judging by their comments, what many of them think of as “evolution” is a laughable caricature of the theory that no actual evolutionist believes in either. Clearly, the educational system has failed these people in a way that borders on criminal. We’re not debating creationism vs evolution here, we’re debating creationism versus a ridiculous fairy tale masquerading as evolution. So I figured I’d throw this little thing together to try and give a very simple idea about what evolution does and does not claim.
    First, a few of the things evolution does not claim. If you think it says these things, then you are arguing against the fairy tale.
    -Evolution does not claim that chimpanzees transform into humans, or that any chimpanzee will ever give birth to a human.
    -Evolution does not claim that your grandmother was a monkey.
    -Evolution does not claim that complex living things appear spontaneously out of nothing.
    -Evolution does not claim to have a direction (meaning nothing is evolving toward some specific end form; life is simply evolving to suit local conditions – i.e. a monkey is not “more evolved” than a dog, or even a bacterium, it’s simply differently evolved for different conditions… and monkeys are not evolving toward becoming humans).
    Here’s the way it works.
    The structure of every living thing is controlled by their DNA. DNA is extremely complex, and living things replicate by copying DNA. Now and then, DNA gets changed (whether by copying errors, chemical damage, mutations caused by radiation striking it in just the right way, etc.). These changes to DNA, in turn, cause changes in the organism. If the change doesn’t interfere with survival and/or reproduction, it will be copied and passed down to the organism’s offspring.
    It’s important to understand that these changes occur in individual organisms. Not whole populations. The mutation typically arises in a single individual, and will only appear in that individual’s direct descendants. Most individual mutations are quite small. A change in the shape of a particular bone, the loss or gain of the ability to digest a particular protein, losing or gaining hair color, or eye colors, or skin pigments. They are, after all, only changes to single genes.
    Now, if a given mutation happens to give its possessors a survival advantage over those who lack it, then it’s likely its possessors will outcompete and replace those who don’t have it. If it’s basically neutral, then you’ll continue to see the mutants alongside the “normal” population, and if it’s detrimental then the mutant population will likely die out. Note that any feature that provides an advantage or is at worst neutral is likely to be retained, even if it’s not the best possible form.
    Now, say we have a certain species called X. X is spread over two neighboring valleys connected by a narrow pass. The group in the first valley, we call population A (PopA), the one in the second valley we’ll call population B (PopB). A mutation arises in a member of PopB that changes the shape of its claws slightly, making it a better tree climber. This helps it survive a little better, and in a few generations his descendants have been more successful than those who don’t have the mutation, effectively replacing them. We’ll call this mutated population PopB1. It’s still virtually identical to PopA, and both are members of Species X. But since it’s isolated from PopA by the valley wall, that mutation never gets spread to PopA. Similar things happen over the course of many generations on both sides of the pass, as PopB1 gives way to PopB2, which in turn is replaced by PopB3 on down to PopB1000 and, similarly, PopA has been replaced by PopA1000.
    So one day a member of PopA1000 crosses the pass and runs into a member of PopB1000. Even though these are both descendants of SpeciesX, they are separated by 2000 distinct mutations. They are too different to breed together, and probably vary quite significantly in appearance (though they likely still have a lot of commonalities as well, and one or the other or both may still strongly resemble the original SpeciesX depending on the nature of the mutations). They are now SpeciesY and SpeciesZ. This is how new species arise.
    And it doesn’t have to be a valley wall that separates populations. It could be anything – a river, deforestation, an ocean, a change in migration pattern, a breeding preference, a change in diet, anything at all that causes some members of a species to start breeding and competing separately from the other members.
    If you have read and understood this primer, then you can answer the following questions for yourself (or at least see why they don’t apply).
    “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
    “Do you think your grandmother was a monkey?”
    “How can the eye have evolved, if it’s so complex and lacking any one of its features would prevent it from doing what it does now?”
    “Even if you accept microevolution, how can macroevolution exist?”

    August 3, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • redroksaz

      What you are discribing is a mutation. A mutation will cause a species to die off not reproduce into something better. It is amazing how evolutionists have no problem defying the laws of physics or the laws of nature in order to propagate the most unscientific of theories.

      August 3, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • kiki

      You really don't know what you're talking about.

      August 3, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Nice primer -Civil ! If they don't get 'this' then, they probably never will...as they probably don't want to.



      August 3, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
    • Civiloutside

      Mutations, as I explained above, can be beneficial (improve chances of survival/reproduction), neutral (heve essentially no effect on those chances) or detrimental (decrease those chances). The assumption that all mutations are detrimental is scientifically and factually incorrect. And if you think about it, there is no reason to believe that all mutations (changes to a gene) must be detrimental, because that would rule out diversity altogether.

      August 3, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
    • kiki

      I fear you're talking to a wall.

      August 3, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
    • redroksaz

      When compiling the many physical and mathematical subtleties which make up our universe, scientists have discovered that a slight variation in any of them militates against the existence of life. Even at the atomic and sub-atomic level, the slightest variation in any of the primary constants of physics—some as sensitive as one part in over 1,000,000—cause life to be impossible. Even secular science refers to these appearances of apparent design as the “anthropic principle”, since they yield the impression that the universe was designed specifically for man. Mutations or not.

      August 3, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • kiki

      A little learning is an embarrassing thing.

      August 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • redroksaz

      Only for those who are foolish enough to believe there is no Creator.

      August 3, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Hey -redroksaz...

      You Said: " Even secular science refers to these appearances of apparent design as the “anthropic principle”, since they yield the impression that the universe was designed specifically for man. Mutations or not. "

      This and the rest of your posting is basically nothing but a version of the 'Teleological Argument.'

      Complexity and everything having to be 'just right' for Man to be, etc... does not *mean* that there is a God or Designer. I am open that it is certainly possible.

      Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong...?



      August 4, 2011 at 1:13 am |
    • LinCA


      You said "When compiling the many physical and mathematical subtleties which make up our universe, scientists have discovered that a slight variation in any of them militates against the existence of life. Even at the atomic and sub-atomic level, the slightest variation in any of the primary constants of physics—some as sensitive as one part in over 1,000,000—cause life to be impossible. Even secular science refers to these appearances of apparent design as the “anthropic principle”, since they yield the impression that the universe was designed specifically for man. Mutations or not."

      Unsurprisingly, you picked the one thing that fits your view, and present it as the only part of your "theory". While the anthropic principle doesn't dismiss the possibility of a creator, it isn't evidence of one. It is merely one of the possibilities, and not necessarily even a likely one. And even if there was a creator, that doesn't mean it had to be yours.

      The anthropic principle merely states that only a universe that supports life can be observable (there wouldn't be any life in it to observe it otherwise). Our universe has to be just right, otherwise we wouldn't even exist. Other universes with different physical constants and at different stages of development are possible. We won't ever be able to detect them as they aren't, and can't be, part of ours.

      Without evidence for the existence of your god, all you have is a hypothesis. Without that evidence, you have nothing to refute evolution.

      August 4, 2011 at 1:17 am |
    • Civiloutside

      Yes, there is an idea called the anthropic principle. But very few scientists think that it is evidence for a creator, let alone proof. Here are the problems with the hypothesis as you state it:

      – While it is true that slight variations in certain physical constants make life as we know it impossible, it is not at all known that any variation in those constants is even possible, or if it is, how likely or unlikely the particular values that occurred in this universe are. We have never observed any other universes, so we have no idea what the possible ranges of those values are. So the idea that our universe is unlikely to "accidentally" have those values is *completely made up.*

      – Just because changing the values makes our form of life impossible doesn't mean it makes all forms of life impossible. For all we know, there are vast ranges of possible values of physical constants that allow some form of life to arise. All thats really necessary is that it be possible for matter to organize in some replicatable way. We're just the form that happened to result from the conditions that prevail in our universe.

      – According to evolutionary theory, it is the very nature of life to tune itself to it's environment. So the observation that life as we know it is of such a nature to be "in tune" with the physical constants that make up our environment is *completely expected.* We are the result of our environment, not the other way around. Arguing that the fact that the universe is the perfect environment for human life must mean that the universe was designed to support humans is exactly the same as arguing that the fact that the human body provides a perfect environment for tapeworms must mean that human life was designed to support tapeworms.

      August 4, 2011 at 7:33 am |
    • redroksaz

      "For the wrath of God is against all who suppress the truth...because the existence of God is evident to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made you can clearly see His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God; but they have become futile in their speculations, and their hearts have become darkened. Professing to be wise, they have become fools instead. (Romans 1: 18-22) You can trust in your mutations, I'll take my chances that you are wrong.

      August 4, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Civiloutside

      If you wish to withdraw from the debate with insults and threats by proxy through your selection of verses, that's fine. I just hope that you realize I could substitute the name of any god whatsoever into those verses and they will make exactly as much sense.

      August 4, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Peace2All


      I'm guessing from your resorting to spouting off biblical drivel that you have no cogent nor rational argument to back up your assertions to me, Civiloutside, and LinCA.

      Your last comment of "I'll take my chances" is just a Pascal's Wager hail mary.

      Good luck to you -redroksaz.



      August 4, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • redroksaz

      To answer your question civiloutside....The God that I Am quoting?....Hi name is Yehweh. Yehweh is the One who said "let every seed produce after its own kind." Do you have real-life observable examples of one species becoming another species? Yehweh, The Creator, says it can't happen. Corn seeds produce corn, human seeds produce humans. Quoting Yehweh is anything but drivel. Drivel is what comes out of the mouth of those who wish to say they know more than the Manufacturer does. Prove Yehweh doesn't exist.

      August 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • Civiloutside

      I see you didn't read and understand. That's fine, I can go through it in more specifics.

      You see, nowhere did I say that any creature gives birth to a different "kind" of creature. Let's go back to the example of species X. Remember how PopB1 was the result of a single beneficial mutation I'm PopB of species X? All the members of PopB1 are the same "kind" as PopB. They just have a single slight difference that might not even be noticeable and probably doesn't affect their ability to breed with PopB. Then PopB2 is the result of a single beneficial mutation in PopB2. Still almost identical to PopB1, even almost identical to PopB. But with each new beneficial mutation, the subsequent population is a tiny amount different from the previous population, and even further from the original PopB. By the time you get down to PopB1000, which is only one mutation different from PopB999. PopB1000 is almost identical to PopB999 – they are the same "kind" – but the total effect is that it is vastly different from PopB. At no point does any creature give birth to some thing that is a different "kind" from itself, just minuscule changes that add up over thousands of generations.

      By the way, I'm perfectly aware of which god your verses are attributed to. My point is that the verses don't describe anything that is obviously true of one god and not any other. There is nothing about the world that can be interpreted as proclaiming Yahweh's "invisible attributes" that could not be interpreted as proclaiming Zeus', or Oriris', or Ra's, absolutely nobody's "invisible attributes." it's not like there's a signature. The verses are literally nonsense that serve only to belittle people with different beliefs.

      August 5, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • redroksaz

      Yehweh knows the beginning from the end....there is no other book but the one Yehweh inspired that can do that. The Psalmist described with precise accuracy a crucifixion 800 years before the Romans "invented" it. The Prophet Isaiah mentioned King Cyrus by name, 150 years before he was king of Persia. The rebirth of the nation of Israel was foretold before they were dispersed as a nation in 70 AD. The point is if He knows the beginning from the end, then I trust He knows everything in between. What you are saying makes no sense. What do you have after a thousand gennerations of minuscule changes? A new species or just a "new and improved" same species? We should be able to observe this throughout all of nature. We should be able to observe a species that has only experienced 100 generations of changes all the way through with the same species to 1000 generations of changes. This should be very easy to observe...give me examples...lots of them to be exact. So where did all the thousands of species we have on this planet come from. If it began with one source then yes you are saying that a species can become another species and this has never been observed at any time. Maybe you could walk me through how we got a walrus and an ant as well as a Camphor tree and a rose bush.

      August 6, 2011 at 1:01 am |
    • Civiloutside

      Well, now you're kind of getting into the question of what, exactly, is a species. And the answer, actually is kind of arbitrary. Basically, anytime we have a group of organisms that's different enough from another group in appearance, behavior, and/or genetics, we say they are different species (particularly if they can't interbreed) For example, a tree and a wolf are obviously vastly different. But wolves, dogs, coyotes, and jackals are very obviously related, and are genetically so close together that they can interbreed. But they are different enough in appearance and behavior that we call them different species.

      So, in my above example, is PopB1000 a different species than X? It's a matter of perspective. If someone entered the valley and docu-mented PopB of species X, and many generations later someone else follows up to observe PopB1000, they might call it a new species. If some immortal being lived in the valley alongside Species X through the entire process, though, they'd probably just end up thinking "Wow, X sure is different than it used to be!" but if he popped over to the neighboring valley and saw PopA1000, he'd probably think *that* was a different species.

      There's no reason, by the way, to think that it "should be easy" to observe all those transitions, for a whole host of reasons. Firstly, that process above isn't a mere 1000 generations. Beneficial mutations are relatively rare, and my pop up only once ever 10 or more generations. So the process from PopB to PopB1000 may have taken 10,000-50,000 generations or even longer. Also, populations with new beneficial mutations tend to replace their counterparts relatively quickly once they do arrive, so living examples of previous forms are also relatively rare. Fossilization is extremely rare, since it requires some very specific conditions, and anyway it only preserves skeletons and can't really tell us much about body chemistry and soft tissues. Even so, fossils are only a snapshot of what a kind or organism looked like at a particular point in time. We take that snapshot and call it a species. Nut even with all of that, there is plenty of fossil evidence of transitions between one form and another, and speciation has even been observed in the lab using organisms with extremely short generations. For that matter, the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the last couple decades is also evidence of evolution at work. I'm not going to get too deeply into those examples 'cause I don't really have the time, and also because the purpose of this isn't to necessarily convince anyone that evolution is true so much as dispel misconceptions about what the theory actually says.

      You ask how this process could account for all the diversity of life? The answer is a combination of time and geometric progression. Now I should state up front that I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so some of my assumptions here may be off. The point is mostly to demonstrate how the process I'm describing is *reasonable*, not that the numbers are exactly right. But to continue... Let's go back to SpeciesX. It took about a thousand mutations to produce SpeciesY and SpeciesZ. Let's say it takes 500 generations to get each mutation, so we're talking 500,000 generations for X to produce two new species, which are about 2000 genes apart. Now let's assume X is the very first living thing on earth, and that each generation is 1 year (really simple organisms reproduce much, much faster than this of course, but generational times keep getting longer as complexity increases, so we're just assuming a year for simplicity). Evidence suggest life may have started more than 2 billion years ago. If the process of one species becoming two new ones takes about 500,000 years, that gives us 4,000 repiti-tions of the process above. After the first cycle, we have 2 new Species separated by 2000 genes. Each of them produces 2 Species separated by 2000 genes, for a total of 4 new Species separated by up to 4000 genes. Next cycle is 8 species, then the next is 16, then 32, then 64, and so on and so on. After 4,000 cycles you have the potential for 1.3 x 10^1204 different species, with the most distantly related being separated by as many as 2.6 x 10 ^ 1207 genes (for the record, a trillion is 1.0 x 10^12). Obviously my numbers, as conservative as they look at the outset, vastly overestimate the true numbers. Evolution can be orders of magnitude less successful in producing new species than my numbers suggest, and *still* easily account for the vast diversity of life on the planet.

      As an aside... The Romans didn't invent crucifixion, and the oldest known copy of Isaiah's prediction was written ~280 years *after* the events it was supposedly predicting had happened. To call it unconvincing would be quite an understatement.

      August 8, 2011 at 8:45 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Your patience astounds me.
      Just bear in mind that many of the folk who reject evolution believe the earth to be 6-10,000 years old and thus are incapable of conceptualizing the vast time scales required for speciation.

      August 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • redroksaz

      So you have gone from 1000 generations up to 50,000 generations. We now have up to 50,000 generations and still no observable proof of all this taking place? The earth should be covered with examples....you can actually say this is science?
      Why do you try so hard to believe something that is so hard to believe? The world should be full of missing links...it should not be difficult to connect the dots. The earth is so full of life, we should be loaded with examples of your mutating populations...but we're not. Don't you ever ask why?

      I agree it is possible the Romans did not actually invent crucifixion but they truly perfected it. However, very little is known about crucifixion until the Romans came along and as I correctly stated, when the Psalmist described a crucifixion, it did not exist... but through the historical evidence left by the Romans, we are able to see how accurate the Psalmist was in his description. In regards to Isaiah caliing Cyrus by name, the discovery of the Qumran Isaiah scroll dated in the second century B.C. totaly dispels the belief of someone else writing the prophecy after Cyrus had ruled... The Bible is full of predictive prophesy...the name of King Josiah was predicted by a prophet three centuries before his time(1 Kings 13:2) and Bethlehem was named as the birthplace of the Messiah seven centuries before the event (Mic.5:2). There is predictive prophesy just in chapters 1-39 of Isaiah alone (7:16; 8:4,7; 37:33-35; 38:8; for prophecies soon to be fulfilled, and 9:1-2; 13:17-20; for prophecies of the more distant future).

      Regarding the statement that people who reject evolution also believe the earth is only 6,000/10,000 years old....who says? The Genesis account is about the creation we know today. It never claims in Genesis the earth did not exist beforehand. In matter of fact, there are references in the Scriptures that another "world" existed and a being called Lucifer ruled it before he rebelled. The Scriptures say that right now we only see through a glass dimly. This is why you study the Scriptures so you know what they say and not what others tell you they say.

      August 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • Civiloutside

      As I said before, we're surrounded by examples. Just Google "examples of speciation," or read the following article (which is just a summary and a starting point, but it provides specific examples).


      August 9, 2011 at 8:42 am |
    • Civiloutside

      I don't see why you think I'm working hard to believe something that is both completely logical and in agreement with the world we see around us. In this discussion you haven't refuted any important detail: that beneficial mutations occur; that they cause changes in organisms; that different mutations are beneficial in different environments; that populations of the same species in different environments will therefore change in different ways; that enough difference in appearance, behavior, and genetics is what consti-tutes a different species. You simply refuse to acknowledge that the combination of those details *is* evolution.

      By the way, as impressive a find as a text dated to ~ 200 BC may be, it does not count as a prediction of an event that occurred ~535 BC (335 years before the text was written).

      August 9, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • redroksaz

      Regarding the Prophet Isaiah fortelling the rule of Cyrus....we have texts that were written on both sides of the event....you choose to believe none....you obviously prefer to live your life based on what you say to be truth. We all have that privilege until our hearts stop beating.

      August 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • CheeseSteak

      First off, you have way too much free time on your hands. Secondly, what you describe is not how evolution works. Try Natural Selection next time. The religious will try to frame any science as being the work of the hand of God. No God, no Science. Circular logic. They are taught by their handlers to us this tactic, and for the feeble minded, it usually works.

      If you think that some deity created all that is just for us and he sits somewhere on a thrown with gazilions of your family and friends watching you, you can't be helped. It's too late.

      For everyone else, protect yourself from Christians. Don't talk to them, do business with them are communicate with them in any way. They are the cause of much of the misery in this world.

      August 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • futurelawyer2005

      @CheesySteak...."sitting on a thrown"??? I can see that "natural selection" is certainly not working in your case. lmbo And btw, follow your own advice....most people in the US and on here are Christians.....so be quiet and shut up...don't talk to anyone! shhhh!!!! Exercise your 5th amendment right to remain silent. lmbo

      August 14, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  17. Ted Daywalt

    He is again hosting an iftar dinner, he attended the Muslim prayer day in DC, but will not attend the Christian prayer day? His actions speak MUCH louder than his words as to where his sypmpathies lie. Why isn't the mainstream press covering this story?

    August 3, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Do you go out of your way to make a mental note of every single Christian or even Jewish event Obama has ever attended?

      Hey...you do realize that Bush attended Ramadan dinners right?

      August 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • mike

      Bush isn't going around the world telling other countries we aren't a Christian nation like this bum.

      August 4, 2011 at 3:16 am |
    • pfeffernusse

      Actually, the “bums” that declared that this wasn’t a Christian nation were the Founding Fathers.

      August 4, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • futurelawyer2005

      9-11 and Islamophobia happened on GWB's shift and now B.O. is trying to counter that with creating a cozy, brethren atmosphere for Muslims and demonstrating "he's a good dog" behavior to the rest of the US. But, I agree with you....I am starting to smell an Establishment Clause issue somewhere lol

      August 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  18. raaay

    what happened to separation of church and state?? if obama has a christian rite there would be all kinds of liberals having hissy fits/////1 but it is ok for the muslums? how low can a president go??

    August 3, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • awojoone

      obummmerbumble has never stopped kissing isslummic assz, oblahblah is showing his true colors>>>>>yellow to the core!! didnt vote for him and am proud of that

      August 11, 2011 at 4:15 am |
  19. KINGS

    God is the maker of heaven & earth, everything is so perfectly designed, eventhough the science may try to hide the truth.
    fortunatly it is too big and obvious to hide.

    August 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  20. John Stefanyszyn

    Half Truths and Hypocrasy....what is really being said today when the Leader of the free world says...

    "...that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us..." ( Question ...Where is the first part?)

    today this means...
    ...that we embrace the belief in freedom of religionfor others as we would have them embrace it for us...

    this means...
    ...that we give others the acknowledgement that their gods/religions are equal in validity as we would have them acknowledge that our god/religion is equal in validity...

    Hypocrasy! the leader of the free world is taking the words that came from Christ, the Son and Word of the Creator God, and using them to justify man's way of life and belief in universal values....while simultaneously denying the Pre-Eminence and Oneness of the One and Only Creator God and of Our Saviour, Christ, His Anointed Son and our King.

    Christ taught a 2 part way of life...

    1) that we are to love and serve only the One and Only Creator Father with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength...this means that there is no other way of life, belief, and God.

    2) that we are to love and do good to our neighbor and enemies, in the goodness, righteousness, and worship of the True God, as we, as followers of Christ and God's Way, would want to be done to us, according to God's Truth.

    Many, if not all, "religious" christians and man have placed another belief before and above Christ and the True God.
    Their priority core belief is to live by their belief in the freedom to establish for oneself what is right for their own self-interest. This is what Adam and Eve also did. God said that the "tree" was not good....they said that it was good for them.

    They prefer to speak of the The True God as a religion amongst other religions....but the True God and Christ are not a religion.

    Christ is returning to rule the earth...this is inevitable...then there will be the Only One True and Good Way of life.

    John Stefanyszyn

    August 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • CheeseSteak

      There is no God, no Jesus, no anything. All that is was caused by random events and time. Lots of time.

      Protect yourself from Christians. Don't talk to them, do business with them or communicate with them in any way. They are the direct cause of much of the misery in this world.

      August 13, 2011 at 10:17 pm |
1 2 3 4
« Previous entry
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.