home
RSS
Dean of St Paul's Cathedral quits over protests
The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, addresses 'Occupy London' activists in the City of London.
October 31st, 2011
02:11 PM ET

Dean of St Paul's Cathedral quits over protests

By Bryony Jones, CNN

London (CNN) - The Dean of London's St Paul's Cathedral has resigned amid criticism of his handling of a large "Occupy" protest taking place on the church's doorstep.

The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles announced his decision on Monday, saying his position was "becoming untenable" following weeks of debate over the demonstrations.

St Paul's has come under fire after it said it would take legal action to try to remove around 200 tents from the square outside its main entrance.

Read the full story on dean's resignation over protests

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Anglican • Britain • Protest

soundoff (168 Responses)
  1. John

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dz59JANSdg

    November 3, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • ......

      GARBAGE ALERT – click the report abuse link to get rid of this trash from this obnoxious TROLL!

      November 3, 2011 at 11:20 am |
  2. Sheik Yerbouti

    Why do atheists keep saying the earth is only 6,000 years old? The heavenly father created adam on the 6th day, or year 6,000. geaneaology from adam to Jesus is about 4000 years and from jesus to now is 2000 years.That makes everything from creation till now 12000 years. That means the atheists don't know what they're talking about and never have. Just another hole in your lousy theory atheists.

    November 2, 2011 at 12:15 am |
    • tallulah13

      Huh?

      November 2, 2011 at 12:16 am |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      The heavenly father didn't create adam until day 6 in the creation. That's year 6000.

      That means the universe was 6000 years old by the time adam was created.

      from adam's creation to the bith of Jesus Christ, that's another 4000 years. That is 10000 years.

      From Jesus till now is 2000 years. For a total of 12000 years. Not the 6000 years atheists try to use to say the bible is a lie.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:34 am |
    • John Richardson

      Why are you assuming that a day = a thousand years?

      November 2, 2011 at 6:35 am |
    • John Richardson

      The 6000 year thing is what arch-literalist creationists themselves say. Some claim that a day of Jehovah is longer. Genesis just says day, nit day of Jehovah. But even if you tack another 6000 years on, 12,000 years is too few and of course there are humans known to have lived more than 6000 years ago. So it all remains a crock.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:45 am |
    • hippypoet

      @Sheik Yerbouti, this is the evil twin without a brain to create there own handle rigtht? thought so...anyway – your a twit.

      November 2, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • fred

      John Richardson
      I am not aware the Bible gives a time as that is not important in the story of the Bible. Man tries to give a date which God did not. What is important is 6 days of creation and one day of rest. The importance of the number 6 in creation and 7 in the day of rest. Believers come up with their own ideas which is nice but God has more important things to convey through his word. I once came up with the same 12,000 year date by back tracking from Cain who had bronze tools. But, that date is a man made idea which is meaningless to the Bible.
      My current thought goes back to Genesis 1:1 where there already was a heaven and earth which gives us all the geology / fossels / DNA / appearence of evolution in a time period that goes back millions or billions of years. Scientists can dig to their hearts delight and Christians can speculate for 6 days and 6 nights none of which changes the purpose of creation.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • JohnR

      @Fred Oh, so you are adopting the old "God the deceiver" stuff where all the massive evidence for evolution and the fossil record is just a huge illusion that god put there to be a dip.

      It's times like these that I wish there really was a personal god who watches closely to judge people, as any one true god worth his or her salt would be furious at the idiocies christians ascribe to him/her.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • claybigsby

      "God has more important things to convey through his word."

      but it is not the word of god but the word of man you read. get that right.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • fred

      John Richardson
      adopting the old "God the deceiver" stuff
      That is the opposite from what I said. The Bible is clear in its dealing with the redemption of Gods chosen ones. 6k,12k or 3.5 billion years of a creation process is not important or God would have made it a central point. It is man that plays with these things for his own purpose not God. I am sure you have heard more excuses than I have regarding the time line. This makes Genesis even more brilliant. God has inspired a book called the Bible which the greatest atheist minds have been unable to discredit or unlock for thousands of years. God has inspired a book that reveals its truth only to believers. Christs death on the cross and the glory of God in the creation that surrounds man turns heads and hearts to this day. It remains a beacon to all that would seek the promise to their dying day.

      November 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "God has inspired a book called the Bible which the greatest atheist minds have been unable to discredit or unlock for thousands of years. "

      Ummm fred that's because you probably haven't read any of the books that actually do discredit the bible. They are out there but you have to be willing to read them with an open mind.

      November 2, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Erik

      "This makes Genesis even more brilliant. God has inspired a book called the Bible"

      Even the Smithsonian has stated "It is not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document. "

      November 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • Erik

      continued....

      "It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel)."

      November 2, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • fred

      Ummm
      All I can say is I once had a bible given to me and chucked it after finding nothing but pure nonsense. Church was for sick people and the bible for relics. I had no need and was having to much fun being somebody important. It was after I lost everything that old bible chucked long ago jumped out while packing up what remained. I read the part someone bent open, was instantly convicted of all my sin and cried out for help. Something very wonderful happened that I cannot help but share with other others. That Bible came alive as did God. I am not the same person today as everything Jesus mentioned in the Bible actually happened in my life. Today there is still great joy when I see that Eureka moment in others when they discover the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      November 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "All I can say is I once had a bible given to me and chucked it after finding nothing but pure nonsense. Church was for sick people and the bible for relics. I had no need and was having to much fun being somebody important. It was after I lost everything that old bible chucked long ago jumped out while packing up what remained. I read the part someone bent open, was instantly convicted of all my sin and cried out for help. Something very wonderful happened that I cannot help but share with other others. That Bible came alive as did God. I am not the same person today as everything Jesus mentioned in the Bible actually happened in my life. Today there is still great joy when I see that Eureka moment in others when they discover the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."

      Fred by your own admission you lost everything, probably were depressed and needed a way out, you choose to believe in a god, doesn't mean it real. It's all in your head fred. You had the internal power within your own brain to pull yourself out of the dumps but since you lacked internal self-confidence to do that when the rug was pulled from your feet, you grasped at a god, even though you didn't need it. It was all of your own doing, not a god. That is what’s so sad about religion, it takes the power away from the person. If people used their own internal power and applied it to themselves and the issues facing this planet this would become the loving, caring world we all dream about.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • fred

      Ummm
      I think it is the reverse. When people take the credit you end up looking very tall sooner or later. Keeping yourself importance below God and below others allows you to better appreciate others. It puts you in a position of serving rather than being served, appreaciate others rather than judging, lifting up rather than tearing down. That would be a beter world

      November 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • Ummmm

      “I think it is the reverse. When people take the credit you end up looking very tall sooner or later. Keeping yourself importance below God and below others allows you to better appreciate others. It puts you in a position of serving rather than being served, appreaciate others rather than judging, lifting up rather than tearing down. That would be a beter world”

      Fred you take the credit within yourself, no one needs to know. That would be boastful. You don’t need to keep yourself below anyone, we are all equal as human beings that is the POINT. You don’t server anyone, not even a god, you serve yourself, you start with yourself. If everyone took care of themselves many issues in our society would simply disappear. There is no tearing down when you tell someone they have the power within themselves to change their lives and when they do give them the credit for doing so, no god needed for that. You are trying twisting what I am saying and putting it into a negative light so YOU feel justified in your head the belief in a god. We all have the personal power inside ourselves to change our own life and even heal ourselves, emotionally and physically. Look at the power of laughter, the power of family, the power of love, no god needed for those things. We even have the power as a group to save this planet but we have to put our brains into it to make it happen, no god needed for that. Your negative view point on humanity is just pitiful, I blame your belief in a god for that.

      November 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-8.htm

      "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

      And hippy, you always think you know what you're talking about. I've never seen any of your posts generate this much conversation. All I ever see from you is "worship the sun," crappy poems and twisted world views from an uneducated child completely incapable of articulating a sentence.

      November 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Erik

      "And hippy, you always think you know what you're talking about. I've never seen any of your posts generate this much conversation. All I ever see from you is "worship the sun," crappy poems and twisted world views from an uneducated child completely incapable of articulating a sentence."

      You might want to look at that log in your eye.

      November 2, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • fred

      Sheik
      This passage in Peter refers to the Lords long suffering and can be best restated God being outside of our time limitations. Even if you were to apply it towards computing the beginning of time it does not work unless you make a bunch of other assumptions. If God wanted you to know the date he would have told us. If you want to be literal about the beginning of time you need also be literal about the 6 day creation time as in Exodus you will note it is 6 full days not more or less. This is why the 6,000 year figure is used not 12,000. Our God has the ability to created all we see in 6 days or 6 billion years as time is not an issue.

      November 2, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  3. Norton's Ghost

    You tell 'em Sue.

    November 1, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
  4. kimsland

    @overheard I see you made a lot of posts.
    We both agree that atheists are not idiots so that's a step in the right direction.

    Actually there is no debate between faith believers and atheists because atheists use science and logic and facts, you can see that this can never be debated over fairy tale. Since faith is totally without any logic at all.

    If people of faith want to continue their belief then they must prove to science how it is true, only then will science listen.
    So far over thousands of years and actually in the entirety of religion, faith just doesn't make any sense at all, especially since there are MANY different faiths, but only ONE science.

    Good luck with going to wasted church on Sunday (since you go to heII if you don't praise the lord for some reason)
    My family will be enjoying the entire Sunday in parks, gardens, beaches, at friends, riding bikes, you name it. Plus I know my children are safe and not pulled aside by the church and taken to some special place by the preacher man. You see your parents don't love you as much as they say jesus loves you (they'll admit this) But I love my children more than anyone, make believe spiritual ent!ties included. I feel very sorry for you.

    November 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      You have children? lol

      They have to be adopted. I can't imagine anyone ever doing, ya know... IT....

      with you.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Grow up, Sheik.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:46 am |
    • claybigsby

      sheik, do you have kids? if so they are prolly brainwashed dolts like their parents.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  5. Ed

    I must have the last word. It's mine. Mine. All Mine. MINE!

    November 1, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • Karon

      Guess not. Loser.

      November 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • clay

      Now it's mine until someone else posts. The last word doesn't matter.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
  6. overheard

    You know what doctor vestibule, that is a lot of gods and a lot of religions, but if there is a god and i picked the wrong one and go to hell and burn it won't be because i didn't believe in a god but because i chose the wrong god and belief, but for sure you are going to be there because you didn't believe in any thing. i still have a better chance than you. if i remember right i think there was somebody in the bible that said my christian god is a good god and even if a person happens to chose the wrong religion just as long as he is doing his best to do right he will be saved. some where i read that the christians and the muslims and the jews all believe in the same god but they all believe different. so that takes care of a lot of the stuff you said. i've read the buddhas don't believe in any god so that makes them atheists. i don't know any thing about all of the gods that the hindus believe in. i never heard about a lot of the other stuff you wrote about.

    November 1, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Peter

      "f i remember right i think there was somebody in the bible that said my christian god is a good god and even if a person happens to chose the wrong religion just as long as he is doing his best to do right he will be saved. "

      No, that is incorrect. You need faith in the blood of Jesus to get into heaven. The lord Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins as our substitute. You must repent of your sins and believe in him–his death, his burial, and his resurrection from the dead in order to be saved and to get into heaven. Otherwise you burn in hell.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Ed

      consider that believe in God just to get to heaven is not true faith. Faith is there regardless of the award or not. Thats the real problem with Pascal's wager it argues you should say you believe whether you do or not. That way your covered. But if you don't really believe then your still not covered.

      Also you you said "as he is doing his best to do right he will be saved" I find it hard to believe that God would not save a Atheist you did behaved well and did right and good for the word, but would save a religious person that behaved poorly and did bad for the world just becasue the beleiver pick a God to believe in. I agree your behavor has a lot to do with salvation but if it does the Atheist may be saved as well.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @overheard Last time I checked, gods tended to get a lot more hot and bothered over someone worshipping a different god than by someone not worshipping anything. So I guess it'll be you doing the eternal sizzle, sizzle after all.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      I am a member of the LDS church and can tell you for a FACT that you are all wrong.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > You know what doctor vestibule, that is a lot of gods and a lot of religions, but if there is a god and i picked the wrong one and go to hell and burn it won't be because i didn't believe in a god but because i chose the wrong god and belief, but for sure you are going to be there because you didn't believe in any thing. i still have a better chance than you.

      What if God values rational thought over faith. Then Doc Vestibule is in a better postiion then you are.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:33 am |
  7. overheard

    Doctor vestIbule, it looks to me that pascals wager is better than nothing. if i go to hell for making the wrong choice, so will you. so i'm going to make that bet. it is a better chance than being an atheist, because being a atheist is a bad bet.

    November 1, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Colin

      Overheard, perhaps the following will help you understand why your logic is not convincing. You see I believe in Leprechauns.

      I believe that the Leprechaun King created the entire Universe about 6,000 years ago. I know there is a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that the Universe is significantly older than this, but I think a lot of that evidence comes from bad science, or from a worldwide conspiracy of scientists who want to deny Leprechauns. I know this because it is written in the Leprechaun Chronicles, a book cobbled together from various authors, most unknown, by our church during the Dark Ages.

      The Leprechaun King lives in Leprechaun Heaven, where he where he busies himself answering prayers, running the Universe and recording the lives of humans for their final judgment before him. He is surrounded by an entire society of magical beings – his son Merlin, the Holy Leprechaun Spirit, the good fairy Mary, thousands of Leprechaun saints, fairies, pixies and the souls of many millions of dead people.

      Each Leprechaun saint and pixie has a special task. For example, Saint Christopher is the patron-pixie of travelers and it is his job to intercede with the Leprechaun king on behalf of travelers to keep them safe. Most countries and professions similarly have a special Leprechaun who pays them special attention – even lawyers. There are strict rules governing the roles, responsibilities of the various Leprechauns, elves, pixies and other heavenly beings.

      I believe that the Leprechaun King loves me and hears my prayers. He intervenes in my life periodically by saving me from various ills. All I have to do is think to myself and he reads my mind and answers my prayers. He loves me and when I die, provided I have lived a good life, I will go to Leprechaun Heaven, where I will live happily ever after with all other humans who have ever led good lives.

      I know there is not a lot of evidence to support my beliefs, but that is just the point. The Leprechaun King wants us to have “faith,” so he never reveals himself. To make an unambiguous appearance and settle once and for all the question of his existence would deprive us of free will and, even though he is all-knowing, he would not know who his true believers were.

      In fact, I believe that the Leprechaun King is “beyond understanding”. He is “outside the Universe” and any time I am faced with something about my Leprechaun belief that makes no sense, I don’t dare question it, I just close my mind and tell myself that my mind is too small to understand the greatness of the Leprechaun King. These answers are satisfying to me.

      Some people are called “atheists,” and they are skeptical of my belief in the Leprechaun King. They point out many inherent contradictions and unsupported assumptions that underwrite my belief in Leprechauns. But, they can’t prove he doesn’t exist, so he must exist. And so what! Even if I am wrong, and go my whole life believing in Leprechauns and it turns out I am wrong, I have lost nothing. However, if they are wrong, the Leprechaun King will send them to hell to burn forever in the presence of the Evil Ground Troll.

      Am I convincing you to believe in Leprechauns yet? When you reflect on why my logic is not compelling to you, you will understand why your logic is not compelling to me.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Overhead
      So are you going to apply the same wager to other religions too?
      It can be hard to believe in, and pay proper homage to Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, and Zaramama all at the same time.

      You'll have to read a lot of other Holy Books, remembering that each and every one of them claims to be The Truth, just like The Bible.
      Are you ready to go to the library and check out the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, New Testament, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, and Revelation X?

      Or if you decide to be Lazy and chose just the One God, Jesus Christ – how are you going to chose between whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, As.syrian, Byzantine, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptism, Brethren, Methodist, Pietism, Apostolic, Pentocostal, Charismatic, African Initiated, United, Quakers, Couthcotti.tism, Millerism, British-Isrealism, Latter Day Saints, Mennonite, 7th day Adventism, Kelleyism, Co.oneyism, Shakers, Methernitha, Strigolniki, Yehowism, Christadelphians, Christian Science, doukhobors, Iglesia ni Cristo, Makuya, Molokans, Subbotniks, Ebionism, Martinism, Rosicrucians, Rastafarianism, Santo Daime, or Umbanda?

      Remember, if you pick wrong you'll burn in torment for all eternity.
      So quickly now – Which Book? Which God? Which religion?

      November 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      The book of mormon is the correct book. LDS is the correct religion. I've been a member for years and believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
    • John Richardson

      No, maybe the true god respects intellectual integrity and is okay with people not believing, given the extreme paucity of evidence. But maybe she also hates credulous idiots who insists on shoving their credulity down the throats of others. Nope, looks like you are the BIG loser here, overheard.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:49 am |
    • The Bobinator

      > Doctor vestIbule, it looks to me that pascals wager is better than nothing. if i go to hell for making the wrong choice, so will you. so i'm going to make that bet. it is a better chance than being an atheist, because being a atheist is a bad bet.

      Unless God made religion to see who could and could not see it as nonsense. What if he sends people who believe anything to hell and those who are rational to heaven.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:34 am |
    • Dr. Zeuss

      overheard, sounds like you are taking Pascal's Wager as a "just in case the Christian god is the right one", but that represents an insincere belief, for the following reason: You are claiming to believe just in case you'll be punished if you don't, not because you really believe the stories. How do you think the purported Christian god, whose brutal punishments are well established and include eternal tor-ture, would react since he would know that you weren't sincere? You could be better off with honest doubt than a pretend belief.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:47 am |
  8. overheard

    Doctor vestIbule, it looks to me that pascals wager is better than nothing. if i go to hell for making the wrong choice, so will you. so i'm going to make that bet. if i choose to make

    November 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Dr. Zeuss

      overheard, sounds like you are taking Pascal's Wager as a "just in case the Christian god is the right one", but that represents an insincere belief in that god, for the following reason: You are claiming to believe just in case you'll be punished if you don't, not because you really believe the stories. How do you think the purported Christian god, whose brutal punishments are well established and include eternal tor-ture, would react since he would know that you weren't sincere? You could be better off with honest doubt than a pretend belief.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:48 am |
  9. overheard

    So, I had to go to the dictionary, and I also looked up the word STUPID and when I finish i read all the comments and i think all atheists must be just like Mom and the Bible says, you are fools. If you have the chance to believe and have faith in god and go to heaven and have a good life, i dont mean something like just sitting on a cloud playing a harp but doing some really exciting things like going to other worlds and meeting people who have loved god all their lives and also having a really nice palace to live in and really good food to eat and having a lot of friends how cool is that? but if i live a good life and it turns out like atheists say that there is no god when i die i will never know the difference, so what? i think i'm making the right choice. besides i have a lot of good friends at church that i can trust.

    November 1, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Overheard
      What you just described is called "Pascal's Wager".
      The problem is that the bet of "if I believe, I lose nothing but if I doubt I lose everything" can be applied to any religion at all!
      Imagine if instead of "God" you put "Osiris" instead.
      If you don't believe in Osiris, when you die the Egyptian god will weigh your heart and find it heavier than a feather, sending you to Hades.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Per Doc's post, overheard's post contains a form of the badly flawed argument known as Pascal's Wager. Some discussion of it is here:

      http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/pascal_wager.htm

      November 1, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • Ed

      The other problem overhead is if you only beleive to hedge your bet then you really don't believe and may go the the other for being false or lying in your faith. For your faith to matter it must be genuine. As for having friends at church thats great but if they are true friends they would be your friend even if you left your church. I'm recommending you leave but the statemtn is still true. Fianlly consider respecting the other point of view I didn't say agreeing just respecting. We must all find our on path to God or not if we chose.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • Wes

      Ed, do try to keep your posts relevant.

      Ed has lastworditis.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      You poor poor child. You do not require the church to find good people. You are the fool here for talking of things that you have not investigated properly and your Mom is a bigger fool for brainwashing you. I raised my daughter without a belief in god and she is an A + student who doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs. A belief in a god does not mean you get off easy in this world nor does it mean you are guaranteed automatic forgiveness for making mistakes. For those of us who have researched this stuff over and over again, most of us find that a belief in god is the lazy way out...you don't have to accept the reality of the world because you can plug a 'god intended it that way' scenario in to it; it takes away from having to deal with grief b/c you believe you'll see the person again when in reality heaven and hell have never been proven to exist; it takes away the need to solve your own issues b/c you think that praying will help. What your parents did to you by raising you to believe such nonsense is unfair to you. I sincerely hope that you have your eyes opened to a lot by reading and researching what we say on here. I suggest you take the time to read your bible from cover to cover and then take the time to look up a website called infidels.org...by looking at both of those in the whole, you'll soon realize that we Atheists are not so wrong. Understand that a good number of us were once christian or at least believers of some form. We do not believe in god b/c we see no evidence to back the god concept and a great man by the name of Carl Sagan said it best 'Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.' There is one other article I would suggest you read...it's called Letter To a Christian Nation by Sam Harris...a very good read and hopefully an eye opener. Don't fight with your parents over this, it is not worth you getting in further trouble but please keep an open mind and when you are old enough to move out, I hope you will come away from the indoctrination. Instead of coming on here and fighting with us, hear us out and stop going to Mommy...Mommy is of course going to disagree with us and we expect that...you are your own person and at some point have to think for yourself.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Ed

      the pst was relevant thanks fro proven my point to clay

      November 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Wes

      Ed has lastworditis. Ed, get psychiatric help.

      November 1, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      If I were the heavenly father and you came to me after passing, I would shun you. Do you think he would let someone into heaven who only half believed because it was only the better outward choice? You will spend eternity in a frying pan.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
  10. overheard

    Sorry everyone, Mom caught me, she thought I was texting friends. I was chewed out. When she learned what I was doing and what I had said she told me I needed to apoligise, I should not be calling people, even atheists, idiots, because it was disresectful. She said they may be foolish, but not idiots. So I'm sorry I called you idiots. The next time I will just say you are foolish because the Bible says that anyone who doesn't believe in God is a fool, so even though I don't know what the difference is. Mom said that the comparesome was good, but it is still like calling a person an idiot. I guess a skydiver jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is foolish, not an idiot.

    November 1, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • hippypoet

      foolish is jumping without one on purpose, being an idiot is just jumping without knowing!

      November 1, 2011 at 10:53 am |
    • The Bobinator

      > Sorry everyone, Mom caught me, she thought I was texting friends.

      Doesn't that say it all.

      > I was chewed out. When she learned what I was doing and what I had said she told me I needed to apoligise, I should not be calling people, even atheists, idiots, because it was disresectful.

      You should not call anyone an idiot if you do not understand their position. The reality is that atheism is the logical position to take. That is to say, you should never believe something unless you see evidence that it is real.

      > She said they may be foolish, but not idiots.

      No, we're not foolish. That's the label believers put on us because deep down they realize they have no good reason to believe the things they do. It's also why they get so offended when we say things like "The bible is contradictory" or "Some of Jesus actions were very selfish".

      > So I'm sorry I called you idiots. The next time I will just say you are foolish because the Bible says that anyone who doesn't believe in God is a fool, so even though I don't know what the difference is.

      So what if the bible says we're fools. A used car salesman will say you're a fool for not buying a car from him. It's a self serving statement. The Bible has no intellgent way of dealing with people who question, so it resorts to saying "They're just fools" as if that's a good enough excuse. A fool believes in things simply because he's told to do so.

      > Mom said that the comparesome was good, but it is still like calling a person an idiot. I guess a skydiver jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is foolish, not an idiot.

      Your comparison is flawed. You're firstly comparing not believing to jumping without a parachute. That's not valid. Not believing is a logical conclusion, not a choice. Second of all, the faithful are not in any better position, because they choose to believe in God, which is akin to picking a parachute out of a sea of backpacks (other religions) and without checking decide that it'll save them.

      I'm not the fool here.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Overheard
      Thomas Jefferson gave some very good advise when he said:
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

      Be skeptical of everything during your education!
      Don't take anyone's word for anything – including The Bible's.
      Look at everything from as many different angles as you can.
      After all, if your faith is true then the light of reason will only make it stronger, right?

      One last thing – (I hope you forgive this Good Doctor's ramblings) –
      Remember when you're speaking with people who don't share your faith that your adversary is never a villain in their own eyes. Keep that it mind and it may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not, you can dismiss them quickly and without hate.

      November 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      You mom huh?

      sound like a troll to me

      November 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
  11. overheard

    Hey doc if thts wht th pope sd he mght jst as well hng up tht stpd hat he's wrng and jp out'a th pln w/o a chte wth th rst of th idiot his atheists frnds cz he dnt got a god to tlk 2 an god dnt tlk 2 hm so whts wth th dbm hat is tht a dunce hat 2 fit his pointed head?

    November 1, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • hippypoet

      wow, you truly are an idiot... you have to be in some kind of grade school still – 2nd or 3rd. or perhaps the keys get stuck on your keyboard – no more beating it while typing...its a disease spreader – feel'n itchy yet? LEARNING IS YOUR FRIEND!

      November 1, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @overheard
      May I assume that I'm addressing an adolescent Baptist?
      Genesis is only one of many creation myths that humans have fabricated over the course of history.
      The earth is more than 6,000 years old and dinosaurs didn't walk the earth.
      We do not live in a Geocentric universe – we revolve around the sun, not the other way around.
      The Earth is a sphere, not a disc.
      Neither foliage nor snakes nor donkeys have ever talked.
      A boat of the dimensions laid out in Genesis could not possible have supported 2 of every creature.
      The entire human race was not populated twice through incest.
      A human cannot live inside teh digestive tract of a whale for three days.

      You probably read at least one of the above points and went "well, DUH! Nobody believes that" – but all those are things that are claimed in the Bible (mostly in the first chapter).
      The Bible is only one of countless spiritual guides in the world – but it most assuredly is NOT a fact book.

      November 1, 2011 at 9:45 am |
    • clay

      @overheard: Most people on this site are here for intelectual debate, and would be thankful if you refrained from shorthand writing styles. Also, some of them are from foreign countries, and aren't used to such short hands.
      @hippypoet: That being said, you'll never get anywhered using offense. [sarcasm] Can't we all keep a civil tounge while we bash eachother's beliefs?[/sarcasm]
      @Doc Vestibule
      I just want to point out that Geocentric theory and the Earth being flat have nothing to do with the Bible. They theorized by scientists and then the Catholics decided to support them. Then they gave Galileo trouble for contradicting THEM, not God.

      November 1, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Whups! That should say "dinosaurs didn't walk the earth alongside humans".
      @clay
      The Bible does indeed say that the earth is a disc.
      o He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
      NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22
      The Hebrew word used in the original text is "Chug", which means a flat circle, like a coin.
      The word for orb/ball is "Dur".
      The bible posits a flat Earth.
      It also referes to the four corners of the earth in several places like Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1 .
      It also appears that the concept of orbital rotation was unknown to those who wrote the Bible given that they state the earth is immovable and inert.
      "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
      – Psalm 104:5
      "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
      Psalm 93:1
      "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. Psalm 96:10
      "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." Ecclesiastes 1:5

      November 1, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • Ed

      @Clay "Most people on this site are here for intelectual debate"

      This would be a nice change but in my exprience on these blogs a great number of the people seem far more interested in petty insults and jabs and any serious debates. Their have been a few exceptions but far to many people on any side or the conversation seem to just want to have a school yard insult contest. I keep hoping it will change, just not seeing it happen.

      November 1, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • Wes

      Ed has lastworditis.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • Ed

      @clay case inpoint to the grad school tatics see Wes trolling me on this very post

      November 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • Wes

      @world, case in point. Ed has lastworditis.

      Ed, really, get some help for your problem from a qualified psychiatric doctor. Might cure you of your religious delusions too.

      November 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • fred

      Doc
      ummm

      The Bible does not say Adam and Eve were created 6,000 years ago and does not discuss specific life forms or geology prior to that. It would benefit the both of you if could take your bias off long enough to read what was actually written in Genesis. Genesis plainly states everything one needs to know about why we are here. The first 30 verses is a masterpiece in itself. In the first four words it sets the foundation; "In the beginning God" which atheists have called everything but God yet know in their soul and in their science that "something" always was and always will be.
      Some people have added up the genealogy through to Christ and say that time period is about 6,000 years. If it was important God would have given the exact date. Everything that is of importance God has clearly spelled out. What is important is that the clock was at zero with a countdown beginning at creation then 10,9,8,7,6,5,4BC,3BC,2BC, 1BC Jesus is born ! Reset your clock a new countdown begins with the birth of Christ and it is now 2011 AD and counting to the time of the new beginning. Guess you both missed that in all the excitement to prove the Bible wrong.
      You also missed the part where God "made" man. Adam the first man in God’s image. There is no mention as to which line of h.omonid this was that had the image . It is not important to the story of the Bible. Thus there is no date needed.
      The Bible does not say if God used and evolutionary process when He spoke life into being. There is no time frame for the heavens and the earth that were created or when a darkness / formless surface was over the deep waters. There is no time given when God brought order back to the chaos that once was earth be it millions or billions of years before the story of creation from Moses.
      Dig up all the bones you want it does not impact the Bible. If you do not use geology as an excuse to discredit what was never even stated in the Bible you will certainly use something else.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Ummmm

      “If it was important God would have given the exact date.”

      The reason there is not date is because man made the story up – they didn’t know.

      “but God yet know in their soul”

      What proof without using the bible to do you have that a person has a soul. None. Which is why your post is a lie, when your life is done here that’s it you return to the earth, not a heaven.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Ed

      @Ummm actually a doctor did try to prove it i the 1800's. He went to a hospital where people were dying to tuberculosous he weighed them as the died. In every case someone weigh less right after death. Is considered the weight difference in the body caused by the excreation of bodily fluids at death but the fluids were still on the table so would still have been accounted for. The weigh was slight inly a few ounces he considered it could just be the last breath leaving, but when weighing a living person no matter how much the exaled the body did not get any lighter. He repeated the expriement with dogs and they did not get lighter when the died they stay the same weight. He surmissed that small weight difference was the soul.

      To be fair he only de=id the expriment on 4 humans people thought it was weird anfd the nurses made him leave. But the weight difference is evidence granted very limited of a soul.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "To be fair he only de=id the expriment on 4 humans people thought it was weird anfd the nurses made him leave. But the weight difference is evidence granted very limited of a soul."

      That is not evidence of it's existence, even you know that.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Ed

      sure it is granted very small ampunt of evidence certainly not enough for a true conclusion but it is evidence. We just need a lot more and some other people to do the expriment to check the results. After its been done a lot more and by different people if the results hold up it would be a much better source of evidence if they don't well then the guiy was wrong.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • fred

      Ummm
      OMG are you saying you have no soul?

      November 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "sure it is granted very small ampunt of evidence certainly not enough for a true conclusion but it is evidence. We just need a lot more and some other people to do the expriment to check the results. After its been done a lot more and by different people if the results hold up it would be a much better source of evidence if they don't well then the guiy was wrong."

      Yeah, so a guy has found that our emotions impact water it actually changes its physical make up depending on our mood so I would say what you are calling a soul is really just our own impact on the water in our body through our emotions. Based on your logic since this is only one person and others still need to test it – that is evidence of we don't have a soul.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "OMG are you saying you have no soul?"

      Depends on how you are defining a soul. If you look at the actual definition it can simply means being a human being, a person. I am betting you are going to put a spiritual twist to it. 😉

      November 1, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • Ed

      Umme not seeing the correlation the doctor found a chnage to the body immediately folowing death. He surmised it was the departing soul. He may be wrong. Your guy found your mood can change water. Even if its true how does that prove anything about a soul.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "its true how does that prove anything about a soul."

      Depends on how you are using the definition of soul. . 😉

      November 1, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • Ed

      @Ummm I was using the basic religous definition soul or spirit if you prefer. How does emmotions changing water invovle the soul?

      November 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "@Ummm I was using the basic religous definition soul or spirit if you prefer. How does emmotions changing water invovle the soul?"

      The emotions people feel and can't explain are often attributed to a form of validation to them that they have a soul. My point is since we are emotional beings it impacts the water within us so we feel it throughout our body. There is no soul. I do not think loosing a few ounces when we die proves there is one either, give it time they'll explain it. Just like the guy who finally showed emotions affect water. It's funny but its one reason why when swimming in a lake you might want to think happy thoughts. LOL!

      November 1, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
    • Ed

      @ummm true the doctor's expriment does not give proof but it does give a very small amount of evidence and maybe the will find some way to do the study again in the future. either way happy thoughts while seem seem like a good plan.

      November 1, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @fred The idea that some things just kinda "come along for the evolutionary ride" and appear w/o conferring a benefit is actually a time honored evolutionary thesis. Some mutations that generate beneficial change A and are therefore selected for may also produce neutral or even slightly deleterious changes B and C, which were "selected for" only in the sense that they come in the bargain when A was directly selected for. Later on, alterations to B' and C' may be directly selected for and quite advantageous. Won't happen every time, but sometimes will. So no, such a scenario does not refute evolution, but can be explained only by evolution, once we understand that the relation ship of genes to traits is not one to one, but many to many.

      That said, the notion that the development of language conferred no survival advantage is the most ludicrously stupid idea I've ever heard. Indeed, language may be THE most important ingredient in why and how we changed from just another band of hominids on the African grasslands to a truly global species that has dominated the environment, for good and ill, like no other species in history.

      A much more plausible case of something we cherish just being an artifact of other evolutionary changes is our musical abilities and appreciations. Almost everyone partakes somewhat in this, but our abilities vary greatly from Mozart to, eg, my almost a-musical father, who card little about it and could produce almost nothing that was recognizably music. In comparison, almost all of us have a grasp of that very complex thing called language on a scale that qualifies as Mozartesque genius. So it's much more plausible to think that musicality per se was never selected for, but came in the bargain as other cognitive skills were selected for and therefore was distributed a lot less evenly amongst humanity than linguistic ability is. But again, this does not make evolution seem less plausible, just richer and more complex.

      November 1, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Whoops! This was supposed to appear in the subthread immediately below!

      November 1, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      If time were not important then why is geneolagy in the bible in the first place? Why was the time it took to create the heavens and the earth stated? It obviously is important. It took the heavenly father 6000 years to create the heavens and the earth. a thousand years of rest and then the time of genolagy listed in the bible. so if you add all that up the universe and earth are over 6000 yuears old. It proves that science is wrong.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Sheik Stop being childish.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:38 am |
  12. overheard

    hey kimsland try to go 2 a public school and say u r a christian in a biology class and you get the same treatment. perhaps religion shouldn't be taught n my school, but neither should evolution b taught as a fact, hey, like that's dumb 2. i herd tht a atheist is like a skydiver who jumps out of a plane without a para chute, nice trip down but lik thats al ppl 🙁 hey a xian tks a cute and gets 2 do it agn only this this time it is up 🙂

    November 1, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Overheard
      While you may believe whatever you desire when it come to afterlife, there is plenty of evidence for the workings of life on this plane – of which evolution is an important part.
      Pope John Paul II had this to say about it:
      " New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

      Use your faith as a guide in spiritual matters, but not as a means to explain the tangible, observeable, testable, wonderful physical world in which you find yourself now.

      November 1, 2011 at 8:34 am |
    • Ed

      @Doc well put

      November 1, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why is it evolution shouldn't be taught in science, dear?

      Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

      November 1, 2011 at 9:58 am |
    • The Bobinator

      > hey kimsland try to go 2 a public school and say u r a christian in a biology class and you get the same treatment.

      If you're saying that you're Christian so you're not accepting scientific fact, then why the heck are you in a science class. You're clearly not interested in learning anything.

      > perhaps religion shouldn't be taught n my school, but neither should evolution b taught as a fact, hey, like that's dumb 2.

      Evolution is a fact and a theory in science. Again, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize this.

      > i herd tht a atheist is like a skydiver who jumps out of a plane without a para chute, nice trip down but lik thats al ppl

      We're all going to die. The difference between the atheist is that he/she accepts the sad reality while the religious perform incantations and rituals to somehow justify to themselves that they are going to live forever.

      > hey a xian tks a cute and gets 2 do it agn only this this time it is up

      This sentence pretty much sums up the rest of your argument. Incoherant, off topic and makes you look silly.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • clay

      Doc, evolution is a theory. While some people are pushing to make it more realistic, I still can't overlook the gapping holes in it. You speak loudly of the ways science supports it, but have you looked at the problems in it? You should take the advice you gave overheard :
      "Thomas Jefferson gave some very good advise when he said:
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

      Be skeptical of everything during your education!
      Don't take anyone's word for anything – including The Bible's.
      Look at everything from as many different angles as you can.
      After all, if your faith is true then the light of reason will only make it stronger, right?"
      Read both sides of the theory. Look up the evolution of reproduction. Would you agree that in order for a species to survive after it 'evolves,' it would have to reproduce? For organisms that aren't as-xual, that would be nearly impossible. For it to happen, at least two of the same animal would have to evolve in the roughly the same place at roughly the same time and be mentally wired to be attracted to each other. That's just what it would take for one evolution to occur. For the world we exist in, this astronomically improbable miracle would have to happen hundreds, if not thousands, of times over. You can believe that if you want, but those odds are highly stacked against it.

      November 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Clay
      Animals of the same species can and do mate.
      Evolution is not a drastic process wherein huge, noticeable changes occur quickly – it is a slow and gradual process that takes enormous amounts of time (far more than the creationist posited 6,000 year old Earth).
      For example – a bull mastiff and a miniature daschund could mate even though they appear to be very different (though I wouldn't envy the poor wiener dog). If the female was in heat, the male would be attracted.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
    • Colin

      Clay, you said, "For it to happen, at least two of the same animal would have to evolve in the roughly the same place at roughly the same time and be mentally wired to be attracted to each other."

      Once again, you are assuming evolution happens in gaint strides. It does not. It happens in baby steps. There are a lot of intermediate steps between $exual and a$exual reproduction. It did not happen in one leap, but by a gradual evolution toward $exual production from a$exual production over millions of generations. There are good articles on this at the Cornell University web site.

      To take Doc's example, 10,000 years ago, there were only wolves, there were no domestic dogs. Now there are thousands of breeds of dog – but this DID NOT require a wolf to suddenly give birth to a male and female Po.odle (for example). They slowly developed as breeders selectively bread for desired traits. Once again baby steps – not gaint leaps!

      November 1, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • fred

      I have been told that there is no solid chain of evidence that we evolved from any primate that exists today. There are still gaps in the evidence such that we cannot say for fact we evolved from any primate that exists today but it must be taken on faith.
      Is this true?

      November 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Colin

      Clay, the common objection to evolution, that “it all just happened by chance” is misplaced. The confusion (or, at times, deliberate obfuscation) comes from two vital roles played by chance in evolution.

      The first is the likelihood of survival. An organism that is more suited to its environment is more likely to survive and pass on its genes. A slightly faster lion, taller giraffe or better sighted hawk is more likely than its slower, shorter or more myopic brethren to live long enough to breed and pass on its genes. No rocket science here.

      The second role chance plays is that the very characteristic possessed by the parent that gave it the edge is more likely to be inherited by the child. Once again, no surprise here. One look around you will confirm that children tend to favor their parents.

      In neither case, however, is anything certain. It is not certain that the faster lion will outbreed its less endowed siblings. It might, for example, be killed as a cub by marauding hyenas or die of disease or drought. Nor is it certain that its speed will be passed on to its offspring. Some tall parents have short children, some fast lions, slow cubs. However, the chances of an offspring inheriting the advantageous trait of its parents and passing it on to its children are slightly better than for those that do not have the advantage. A fitter, more prepared athlete is not guaranteed, but certainly more likely to win a given athletic event than his more portly competi.tors.

      So far, easy. But here is the key. The way in which any child will differ from its parents will generally be small (such as eye color, height etc.) but, given enough time and enough generations, and provided some external element is selectively favoring specific traits, the differences will add up. Over thousands of generations, so much cu.mulative change builds up that the great-great-great etc. grandson will be so different from its great-great-great etc. grandfather as to amount to a new species.

      If, for example, a dog breeder only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs will differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed. No one set of offspring will differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

      In point of fact, this has happened. They are called Greyhounds and they differ considerably from the original Sighthounds from which they were bred. Likewise, when the trait chosen was ability to smell and track, one result, after many generations, was the Bloodhound, while selective breeding for the ability to herd sheep has resulted in the Collie and German Shepherd (note the name).

      All breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely (but not certain) that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in either the Middle East or Manchuria some 10,000 years ago. In any event, every last one of them, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the cu.mulative result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

      While there has not yet been enough time for different dog breeds to amount to separate species as opposed to breeds, that is just a matter of degree. Given enough time, and many thousands of years are generally required, the added up effects are so great that breeding and producing viable offspring with the original breed is no longer possible, and thus the new species emerges. The first signs of this can already be seen in dogs. The propensity of a Chihuahua to mate with a wild wolf, absent artificial insemination, is probably approaching the theoretical at this point, regardless of which breed is the female.

      Evolution is, in fact, a work in process, as dog breeders all over the world, along with horse breeders, wheat farmers, rose growers and all other professions that depend on the traits of plants or animals to make their living, selectively breed for desired traits. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the competi.tion if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs.

      But no biologist – repeat no biologist – believes that big jumps, such as a horse to a donkey would happen in one generation. If that were the case, I would reject evolution as statistically too unlikely.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Colin

      Fred, nothing in science is taken on faith. If that were the case, I would reject it. Yes, we did not evolve from any existing primate. We likely evolved from an extinct h.omonid.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • Ed

      @Fred, I not an expert in evolution but As understand yes there are still gaps in the chain of evolution. The missing links if you will. This is why it still should be considered a theory not a fact. Science has not yet proven that it happened or how. It has shown a great deal of evidence that makes it a logical conclusion. eventually it will probably be proven fact. I personally think its what happened, but it is still a theory.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • Sue

      Fred, nothing need be taken on "faith", ever. Faith is a cop-out. It is wimping out. A better choice, the one that is central to science, is simply to say, "We aren't sure about this specific aspect. We think this is the best explanation. We'll continue to investigate."

      Thinking that a god is responsible when the evidence does not confirm that case is pure cowardice. It takes courage to say "I don't know" rather than "big mysterious god in the sky did it and so we'll stop thinking about it".

      November 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Ed: You're confusing "theory" with "fact."

      Things fall when you drop them is a fact. Gravity as the description of why it happens is the theory.
      Creatures and species evolve. That is a fact. The theory of evolution has been developed to describe how it happens.

      Scientific theories doesn't question if something is occurring. Scientific theories are attempts to explain observable events.

      We might throw out the theory of gravity some day. It doesn't mean that things will stop falling when you drop them.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
    • Ed

      @Sean, I think we have had this conversation before. Gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity exist becasue we don't know how it works. We want to we are trying to but as of yet we don't. Evolution is still a theory because while the is enough evidence that t is right it has not yet been proven. As I understand it there seem to be unexplained leaps that have caused what has been refered to as missing links. Science has widely accepted the theory but science has accepted theorys that were wrong before. In this case further reasearch is necessary and is being done. Eventually the missing links will likely be found.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Colin

      Ed, at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelming that every sane individual without a pre-existing desire not be believe, accepts it. That is the case here. Evolution is a fact. to the extent that is inconsistent with pre-concieved religious notions, the latter must give way, because the former aint changing.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • fred

      Is it also true that there continues to be a "gap" from any extinct h.omonid man ? As a matter of fact does this same "gap" also exist with all mammals over all known time periods? Even in labs today we have not developed a new rat species (without intentional altering of DNA) so we cannot reproduce the "gap" theory by experiment.
      This being the case the science of evolution cannot be used to discredit Genesis as far as humans are concerned ( exact time of Adam and Eve are not given).

      November 1, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • Colin

      So, Fred, let's see what CAN be used to discredit Adam and Eve (not that it ia theory that should be believed unless and until discredited).

      First, the most obvious, the fossil record. The fossil record is MUCH more than just dinosaurs. It includes the Stromatolites from the Precambrian (colonies of prokaryotic bacteria), the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale (circa – 450 million years) the giant insects of the Devonian period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the Saber Tooth Tiger, the Mammoths, the fossils of early man in Africa, the Neanderthals of Europe. It shows a consistent and worldwide record of the 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 fossil 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. Simply google “history of life on Earth” or open up a tenth grade biology or geology textbook.

      (ii) Oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Haliburton, Schlumberger, Gasprom, Saudi Aramco, Baker and Hughes, Petrobras, China’s national oil company or any of the thousands of mining or oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels, will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests or marine creatures. 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 the age of the rocks. I encourage anybody who would like to know more to google “finding oil” or “finding natural gas.” You will find a host of articles that describe in detail the process by which the great forests of the Cretaceous Period (circa 145-65 million years ago) slowly develop into coal and how sea life slowly developed into oil and natural gas. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor why most of it was “given to the Muslims”.)

      (iii) Most of astronomy and cosmology (the latter being concerned with the study of the overall structure and origins of the Universe). In short, as Einstein famously 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, 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 are galaxies whose light left 13.7 billion years ago. This is obviously a totally independent reason to the fossil record as to why the Earth cannot be a few thousand years old and it is fatal to the “talking-snake” nonsense.

      (iv) Not just carbon dating, but also, all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. This includes 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 the age of 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 would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than creationists claim. Google “atomic dating”.

      (v) DNA and genetics. The new science 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 chimp and human DNA is identical, slightly less, about 97% of gorilla and human DNA is identical, and slightly less again of monkey DNA and human DNA is identical. This divergence continues as we get further away from humans and it is EXACTLY consistent with the fossil record and is EXACTLY what we would expect to see if life gradually evolved on Earth over billions of years. 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. It acts as yet another, completely independent and fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory. Google “genetic drift” or “DNA mapping” or “speciation”.

      (vi)The entire field of historical linguistics. 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 Babble (the creationists explanation for different languages). Indeed, their paranoid fascination with the fossil record (which includes, almost, surreally, a “creation museum” in Cleveland, Ohio where one can see biblical children playing with dinosaurs) Hell, 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!!! Google “protolanguages” or “the history of languages”.

      (vii) Lactose intolerance. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. They no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk, after infancy and become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. Who? Well those EXCEPT 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, including the Ice Ages, cavemen, Neanderthal man, much of micro-biology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs). Evolution is a fact, creation is discredited religious dogma.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • Ummm

      "gap"

      hmmmm....

      Archaeopteryx- half reptile, half bird

      Archaeopteryx was half reptile, half bird.

      The first dramatic missing link came to light in 1861, only a couple of years after Darwin’s Origin of Species had been published. The first specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany, and it was studied avidly by scientists throughout Europe. Early writers, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, immediately noticed that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form.

      Model of Archaeopteryx lithographica in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Photo: Michael Reeve

      It had bird characters, feathers and wings.

      It also had reptilian characters, the skeleton of a small theropod (flesh-eating) dinosaur, with a long bony tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

      The role of Archaeopteryx has been debated ever since 1861. Is it really a missing link between reptiles and birds, or is it just a bird and not a missing link at all?

      Fossils show how some reptiles became more bird-like.

      A further seven skeletons have come to light, and all of them confirm that Huxley was correct.

      In addition, fantastic new specimens of birds have been found in Spain and China, which are some 30 or 40 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, and they are more bird-like, exactly as an evolutionist predicts.

      The new Spanish and Chinese birds have short bony tails, and their hand claws are reduced – they are becoming more bird-like.

      The Chinese localities have not only produced amazing new birds, but also new dinosaur specimens with feathers!

      It is now known that birds evolved from reptiles.

      These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

      Jaws to ears: An example of tracking missing links

      Mammals can be traced back to reptilian origins.

      The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian. Through dozens of intermediate steps they evolved into mammals by the Late Triassic, some 225 million years ago. All the steps are evident in fossils:

      Jaws tell the story of reptile to mammal transition.

      Step-by-step, palaeontologists can see the switch from peg-like reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals (incisors, canines, molars).

      Step-by-step the complex reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

      In reptiles, both today and in the past, the jaw joint lies between the articular bone at the back of the lower jaw, and the quadrate bone in the skull.

      In mammals, on the other hand, the jaw joint is between the dentary and the squamosal element of the skull.

      Most amazing of all is the evolutionary transition to the mammalian middle ear.

      In reptiles, as in amphibians and fishes, there is a single hearing bone, the stapes, which is simply a straight rod that links the eardrum to the hearing structures of the inner ear and the brain.

      Mammals, including humans, have three ear ossicles (small bones), the malleus, incus and stapes (or hammer, anvil, and stirrup).

      The evolutionary steps were worked out first in Victorian times by the study of mammal embryos and then the fossils confirmed it:

      You hear yourself chewing because parts of your hearing structure evolved from reptilian jawbones.

      The mammalian stapes is the same as that of their ancestors. But the malleus and incus have moved into the middle ear from their former function as the reptilian jaw joint.

      Life is stranger than fiction: the reptilian lower jaw has been subsumed into the mammalian middle ear to enhance the hearing function.

      And the fossils show how some Triassic mammal-like reptiles had effectively two jaw joints: the reptilian joint was reduced, and the new dentary-squamosal joint came into play.

      At a certain point, in the Late Triassic, the reptilian jaw joint had shifted function.

      We can still detect the legacy of this astonishing transition: when you chew a hamburger, you can hear your jaw movements deep inside your ears.

      Evolutionary transitions are highly predictable.

      Every day, new fossil finds are reported — the first insect, the oldest hominid, the first sauropod dinosaur, an Eocene whale with legs — and so it goes on. The new fossil finds that hit the headlines are all concrete evidence of evolutionary transitions. The fossils are rarely bizarre or unexpected; they fit into the predictions of evolutionary trees. Dinosaurs with feathers and whales with legs are pretty startling discoveries, but biologists were convinced they existed from the predictions of their evolutionary trees. But is this the sole evidence of evolutionary transitions?

      The great tree of life

      The single great tree of life is profound evidence for evolutionary transitions. Darwin, as he toured South America and the Galapagos Islands in the 1830s, became increasingly puzzled about the distributions of plants and animals, both geographically and geologically. He went out on the expedition as a traditional creationist. Instead, this is what he discovered:

      Darwin’s observations of species relationships provided major clues to speciation.

      He saw that the strange and wonderful plants and animals of South America were related to each other. Why should that be if they had simply been created?

      He also saw some of the relatively recent fossils of South American mammals — the giant ground sloths and glyptodonts. Why were these fossils so obviously relatives of the modern sloths and anteaters that are unique to South America?

      Famously, he saw that the singular animals of the Galapagos Islands were all close relatives of animals from the mainland of Ecuador, and they varied from island to island. Why?

      Darwin’s answer to similarities in species: evolution.

      The solution then hit Darwin like a hammer blow. The similarities in time and space were easy to explain: life had evolved. It had not been created, species by species. The Galapagos finches, tortoises, and iguanas had diverged from single ancestors that arrived by chance on the islands a few thousand or million years ago. South America had been isolated from the rest of the world, and its own unique birds and mammals had evolved through long spans of time from single ancestors. Tracking back to the very origin of life, he suggested, daringly, that all of life came from a single ancestor.

      Molecular confirmation

      Since 1859, that great tree has been built up painstakingly by close study of fossils and modern organisms. And then, Darwin’s speculation, and all that careful work, was confirmed from an unpredicted source — the molecules.

      DNA differences among species is relative to the time they diverged on the tree of life.

      Proteins in the bodies of all organisms, and indeed DNA and RNA, the fundamental molecules of life, carry records of evolutionary transitions.

      Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart. So, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. The amount of difference is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree.

      Molecular biology confirms evolutionary transitions.

      Since 1960, molecular biologists have been drawing up their own evolutionary trees, and these match those based on fossils and museum specimens of living plants and animals. The final, and most startling, confirmation of Darwin’s insight also comes from the molecular biology. All living things, from viruses to humans, from bacteria to grasses, share complex molecular machinery — the whole DNA/ RNA code of life and protein synthesis machinery and the ATP system of energy transfer.

      Conclusion

      Conclusion: Shared ancestry of all living things has been proven by molecular biology.

      Evolutionary transitions are demonstrated by so-called ‘missing links’, fossils like Archaeopteryx, and the whole array of intermediates between dinosaurs and modern birds that lie on either side of it. There are thousands of other fossils that plug the gaps between modern groups that are quite separate, and new finds every year plug yet more gaps. But, the evidence for evolutionary transitions can be seen also in geographic distributions: close relatives are often found close to each other at the base of the evolutionary branch. The shapes of evolutionary trees have now been confirmed from independent evidence of molecular structures. Indeed, the fact that all microbes, plants, and animals today possess certain complex molecular mechanisms proves conclusively that all of life arose ultimately from a single ancestor billions of years ago.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Ed

      @colin and that is a matter on opinon. Once again I think your right and have said numerous times I believe evolution is correct. But there are inconsistences for instance some species seemed to have stop evolving. for instance fossil evidence shows the alligator as been around since the time of the dinosaurs and has canged very little. It seems to have reach it current level of evoltuiion several million years ago and stopped, why?

      Other species like humasn have evolved much faster. We all come fromt he same ooze but we evolved further and faster and didn't stop, why? Both fair questions if you are going to call evolution an undisputable, hard core, set in stone absolute fact. But then again thats a matter of opinon too.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis."
      In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology

      There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
      1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.
      2) Common descent
      This is the understanding that every group of living enti.ties that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
      3) Multiplication of species
      This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
      4) Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
      5) Natural selection
      This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.
      We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
      These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
      Religion binds communities together by giving a common frame of reference. Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
      This is why the great majority of evolutionary biologists find no conflict between religion and science – as long as religion is recognized solely as a social adaptation.

      November 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • fred

      Colin, you have read the Bible I know because of your previous detail. Please go back to the first verse in Genesis and note Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the earth” then without further explanation verse 2 “the earth was formless and darkness was over the surface of the deep”. This is very important to the theme of the Bible and I will get to that later. As for now take note that almost everything you mention to attack the Bible based on your timeline is from evidence that man is digging up from this first creation. The time scale can be billions of years we are not told because it does not matter to the story of the Bible. The Bible is not intended to be a complete scientific journal from the beginning.

      Professionals have taken fossils and measurements from the earth and are trying to piece together what this first heaven and earth looked like. There was a big battle in the principalities when Lucifer was cast out of heaven. Most people think this had something to do with what comes next but we are not told. Now, the spirit of God is hovering over what remains. Then God begins with light to bring order to the earth followed by God forming man. This also is important because man was formed from what was, not created as in the first event. At this point we have a timeline. It has been about 6,000 years since these first 6 days where darkness and lifelessness was reconstructed by God into light and life. When God brought order to the chaos left after the battle of the principalities.

      Dinosaurs and all that stuff we dug up was covered over when God separated the light and separated the waters. The proof that this was the work of God is that He used your patented 10 point formula. Ten times in the creation process God said “let there be” and there was a Divine Decalogue.

      Either way the old geology can be explained away in Genesis 1:1-3. The 6,000 years since “Adam” takes faith and God “making” man is a key factor for me simply because God chose not to “create” man at that point. Some say it could have been God making the chosen ones which is what the Bible story is all about. In that case 6,000 years works as to the beginning of that tribe. All this stuff is faith based yet, I do not think science can disprove the geology of the earth as the Bible does not reference it.

      November 1, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Sue

      Fred, so do you think that Genesis actually accurately describes how the earth came to be? I think you know where this is going to go.

      Again, copping out with "god did it" rather than looking for answers when you don't know is you showing cowardice, yet again. Grow some courage. Your religion is dying out as it should and the world is moving on.

      November 1, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Ummm

      "The 6,000 years since “Adam” takes faith and God “making” man is a key factor for me simply because God chose not to “create” man at that point. Some say it could have been God making the chosen ones which is what the Bible story is all about. In that case 6,000 years works as to the beginning of that tribe. "

      You have one big problem the evidence of man over 200,000 years ago. LOL!

      November 1, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @fred
      Your double-think is making my logic circuits fry.
      You assert that geological strata were put there by God after creation?
      Then why do we see a series of gradations wherein digging deeper down reveals different fossil specimens?
      Do you believe that Adam lived to be nearly 1,000 years old?
      That the Earth was first populated through incest via Adam, Eve and their offspring (including unnamed females) and that sometime later, a 500 year old man and his immeidate family re-populated the earth after having crammed tens of thousands of mating pairs of animals on a boat that couldn't possibly support even a tiny fraction of that number?

      November 1, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • fred

      Sue
      I don’t think I said that Genesis accurately describes how the earth came to be. In short I see enough wiggle room where all the kings horses and all the kings men will never put creation back together again.
      There is debate within those circles that really know the Bible as to what is going on in the first two verses of Genesis. I am aware that as a believer here I am hung up on the first two verses. One of the theories hints to what could have brought about billions of years worth of geology and all kinds of life on earth never recorded in the Bible specifically.
      As to who did it; I have personally witnessed God do some great things. I have no basis to limit God to that which man can imagine or prove. If there is a God we only get a glimpse of that greatness through : the universe we can see, life in all its splendor, the process of evolution, the miracle that we even exist (though on a thread) on this planet, love and other emotions, a gaze in another’s eye, touch etc the list goes on. Put that all into the basket of awe. The apostle Paul use this creation to point the Greeks of 38 AD towards a God that is bigger than their very own Zeus.
      You mention faith dying out. You are correct, the Bible says the end of days will come when not a single new soul has the possibility of coming to Christ. The history of the chosen ones throughout the Bible is one of a remnant making it through the mass of unbelief to start up again. We could go through another such cycle or this could be the last one.
      What is interesting is that you seem to be denying a large part of wonder in you as a human. Did you have that wonder as a child and if so it is time to move past the Easter Bunny. Another dimension of our being has been addressed by countless authors as far back as we know. Even cave man attempted to express this longing for God. Why close that off or run from it.

      November 1, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Fred
      Cavemen (who didn't exist as per The Bible) expressed a longing to UNDERSTANDING – not God.
      They made up stories that seemed to make sense to them – hence most Gods are anthropomorphic and/or antrhopocentric.
      The quest for understanding is now know as Science.
      Using our oversized brains, the hairless ape has devised a method that can be understood and reproduced by everyone to test and prove our ideas and explanations – it is called the scientific method.
      Postulate, test, repeat repeat repeat – then have others do the same.
      If an idea is sound, it can be demonstrated to anyone who takes the time and effort to look.
      Shamans don't allow peer review – scientists require it.
      Gods call on you to employ faith – the willing suspension of disbelief and rational inquiry.
      Science calls on you to be as skeptical as you possibly can and never stop inquiring, even if you think you have the answer.

      Science is not nearly as emotionally gratifying as myth because it requires hard work – and the mystery you seek to unravel may not be revealed until many generations of scientists in different fields have scruitinized, picked apart, and rebuilt a theory.
      Science is an ever evolving process.
      Religion is rote replies.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Ummmm

      “What is interesting is that you seem to be denying a large part of wonder in you as a human. Did you have that wonder as a child and if so it is time to move past the Easter Bunny. Another dimension of our being has been addressed by countless authors as far back as we know. Even cave man attempted to express this longing for God. Why close that off or run from it.”

      There is no denying the wonder of being a human – you are the one denying that part by using the crutch of a god in your life. You have the personal brain power to do whatever you want, you have the power to motivate yourself to become who you want, not a god. You are the one denying who you truly are and the personal power of your brain to become a better human being. The problem becomes when some can’t face the harshness of reality of living on this planet they become depressed, they wish to believe in something greater because they don’t know how to discipline their brain to motivate themselves to move forward. It is far easier to say – oops must not have been gods will – the reality is they gave up to soon or gave in too soon. The problem is when your life sucks instead of taking personal responsibility for the choices you are making you can give in and say – it’s not god’s will, but he loves me, instead of motivating yourself to do better The biggest down fall of humanity is our willingness to give into being lazy. Most of the world issues would be solved in a decade if we all decided to do something about it instead of sitting behind a computer complaining or sitting on the couch with your remote. Guess what...you don't need a god for that either.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • Know What

      For many, religion is more than a crutch... it is a full-body cast, or an iron lung, in which they are encased.

      Fantasy and daydreaming are pleasurable, and can even be useful in brainstorming for explanations and solutions, but they are not, in themselves, the explanation nor the solution.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • fred

      DOC
      ummm
      knowwhat

      Actually what is clear is that many Christians see both the spiritual and physical realities of life. A well balanced person has a better grasp on truth than a person who can only see one side of life.
      Again, I would be worried about anyone that cannot grasp the fact that there is much we do not know.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Sue

      Ummm, that's a great response you made to fred. Thanks for saving me the trouble. fred, please ponder what ummm said, and than actually try to answer my question.

      I'm not short of wonder. I revel in it and I'm a practising scientist. I learn all the time. As for you, your progress in life seems to have effectively hit a standstill because you lack the courage to wonder and to dig for the truth. In short, you are a horrid coward.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Sue

      Of course, my 2nd paragraph is directed at fred.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "Actually what is clear is that many Christians see both the spiritual and physical realities of life. A well balanced person has a better grasp on truth than a person who can only see one side of life.
      Again, I would be worried about anyone that cannot grasp the fact that there is much we do not know."

      There is much we don't know but to believe that what you can't explain is a god makes you unbalanced! Not to mention gives you a great excuse and coop out for life. Oh, I don't have to worry about it now, I am going to heaven, that makes you lazy and weak. So based on your logic then a person who see's fairies and believes the voices in their head made them do it should be allowed to get out of the loony bins because according to you they are balanced people.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Ed

      @ Doc "1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change."

      This law has an incorrect assumption "nor cycling" The earth does appear to be cycling. The earth cycles from ice age to warmer time and to ice age again. we have periods of greater volcanic and sesmic activity, that like wise seem to follow so type of cycle. Wheather is obvious it seems to run on a 20 year short term cycle and have longer term cycles as well. The sun also cycles through periods and greater flares an 11 year cycle. Therefore the earth and out solar system are cycling. I suspect the rest of the universe is as well. But if this is wrong more to the laws and therfore the theorty can be wrong. I'm just suggesting keeping an open mind while the reasearch continues.

      November 1, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • fred

      Sue
      You have assumed that to fear God and being a scientist are mutually exclusive events. They are not. The significance of Christ even to this day 2,000 years later should jump out at you. Last I heard a significant number of scientists are not atheist, if we throw in agnostics that number exceeds 40%. Since most must pretend to be objective before their peers I suspect that number is much greater.
      Even if you do not believe the Bible is inspired by God certainly you acknowledge the Bible contains great spiritual truths as well as common sense foundations for relationships between people. Even if the Bible is bunk you must admit it is the foundation of our Western culture, foundation of our laws civil and tort, foundation of morals, foundation of Good and evil.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • J.W

      How do you refer to someone you do not know and have never even met as a horrid coward?

      November 1, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Ummmm

      "You have assumed that to fear God and being a scientist are mutually exclusive events. They are not. The significance of Christ even to this day 2,000 years later should jump out at you. Last I heard a significant number of scientists are not atheist, if we throw in agnostics that number exceeds 40%. Since most must pretend to be objective before their peers I suspect that number is much greater.
      Even if you do not believe the Bible is inspired by God certainly you acknowledge the Bible contains great spiritual truths as well as common sense foundations for relationships between people. Even if the Bible is bunk you must admit it is the foundation of our Western culture, foundation of our laws civil and tort, foundation of morals, foundation of Good and evil"

      The point you are not getting fred is that even if we didn't have the bible we still would have gotten where we are today. It didn't take a bible to do that. The proof is in the many horrible things christians have done in the name of their god. Your lack of faith in humanity is pitiful; we are stronger and better than you think without the need for a god.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Ed

      @Sue and Ummm, You both have stated that believers don't have wonder and don't continue to seek other answers. Thats simply wrong. we do continue to find other answers. we do take responsibilty and try to figure out why our life is the way it is. we don't just say its God's will and stop there. Ok some do but most don't. Its not cooping out its accepting that there is more to life then we understand. we agree science has solved some of it but still leaves questions. Science is based on logic but humans are also emmotional beings. We also rely on our emmotions to guide us. They have lead us to a belief in God.

      Sue you insist on calling us cowards. I was disappointed when I read that because we were have a good debate and you chose to start throwing insults. We can disagree and still respect the other ideas. Fred has dione so you have not. Instead of discuss the topic you started name calling. You really think thats the most logic way to discuss this?

      November 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @fred We ARE primates. We are anatomically very, very close to other existing primates and even closer to some extinct ones (especially earlier hominids, obviously). We are genetically extremely similar to the great apes, especially chimps and bonobos. Chimps and bonobos are by most measures closer to us than they are to gorillas, who everyone acknowledges are relatives to chimps and bonobos. Yes, something quite amazing happened in the case of the evolution of humans, but that doesn't mean that we didn't in fact evolved from the same animals other modern primates evolved from.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Ed

      @Ummm "The point you are not getting fred is that even if we didn't have the bible we still would have gotten where we are today. It didn't take a bible to do that. The proof is in the many horrible things christians have done in the name of their god. Your lack of faith in humanity is pitiful; we are stronger and better than you think without the need for a god."

      That may be true but we will never know what would have been had man not found a belief in God. As for all the bad Christians have done. That is unfortunatley true. But they have done good too. One does not erase the other but if you judge only on one thats at best unscientific of you and at worst unfair. Also believers in other faiths and Atheist have done some horrible things as well which would indicated your assumption we would have gotten here without religion may be incorrect.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Ed Evolution's factuality is as widely acknowledged in biology as gravity's is in physics. A lot of gravity's known effects would meet the same sort of hoot and holler rejection from the undereducated if you asked people on the street. Ask them if gravity can stop time, Ask them if gravity can be so strong that it even traps light. Even ask them about fairly simple and prosaic things about gravitational acceleration, the apparent lack of gravity in free fall (when of course you wouldn't be falling if there were really no gravity) and you will see that most people will understand little and many will outright dispute a lot that we now know about gravity.

      As for your discussion of natures cycles, some things in nature are obviously cyclic, others arguably cyclic, but life's history on earth doesn't exhibit any obvious cyclicity. If there is ANY there at all, it is extremely subtle.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Ummmm

      “That may be true but we will never know what would have been had man not found a belief in God. As for all the bad Christians have done. That is unfortunatley true. But they have done good too. One does not erase the other but if you judge only on one thats at best unscientific of you and at worst unfair. Also believers in other faiths and Atheist have done some horrible things as well which would indicated your assumption we would have gotten here without religion may be incorrect.”

      Humans are the ones that have done evil and good, no god involved. THAT’S the point. Gods have come and gone but our humanity has continued, do we have it right yet, NO. The point is like other animals we can become one humanitarian culture if we choose to work together, if we choose to save ourselves, no god is going to do that for us. The starving people in the world, especially children, are ALL of our faults, no religion needed. We have the power within ourselves to make our lives better, to make the lives of others better – it all comes down to making choices – no god involved in that either.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Colin Thanks for bringing historical linguistics into this! First, a note on Russian: It is indeed distantly related to Spanish and Italian. It is one of the Slavic languages, which form one of the main branches of the Indo-European language family. A more interesting case is Basque, which is spoken in the Pyrenees between Spain and France. But it is not only not closely related to either of them, but not related to any known language in the world. It's a so-called isolate. But "unrelated" means "not proven to be related" and there are some who think that all languages ultimately are related, but at a truly vast time depth, surely on the order of multiple tens of thousands of years. Over time, languages change so much that the evidence of their relatedness gets more and more tenuous till it finally reaches the vanishing point.

      More to the biblical point, Hebrew is just one of many, many Semitic languages and the entire vast family of Semitic languages are part of a much bigger family of Afro-Asiatic languages and there is some not entirely off the wall speculation that this vast family may be distantly related to Indo_European and other languages. So the language of the old testament is actually a fairly modern reflex of some vastly older proto-language.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Ed

      @John One again I believe evolution is correct but it still has flaws and further research is need. Why is it so wrong to say so? I know it is widel;y accepted as fact. The scientific community once accepted the earth was flat we learned better. The comment on earth cycling was a direct response to Doc's post listing the "5 Laws of Evolution" The for law stated the earth is not cycling yet ift is at least in some ways therfore a flaw. Not proof evolution os wrong but a flaw in the scientific law. As for life not cyling it does. the dinosaurs came and went. Human civilazations come and go we cycle up and down. All the while evoluving but life does cycle.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • J.W

      I agree with you Umm that it does not matter what belief you hold that we are all responsible for what happens in the world. I think that one point Ed was trying to make is that the stereotype that Christians just say a prayer and then just say 'well there I have done what I can, its in God's hands now' usually is not accurate. If it was, no Christian would ever do anything. No Christian would would donate to charity, volunteer, vote, or anything to try to make any difference on their own.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • fred

      John Richardson
      Agreed, I am not arguing against evolution simply saying it does not change or impact the Bible story of creation. If there is a God He would be big enough to accomplish His purpose anyway He sees fit. I found it interesting in the Genesis account God created the heavens and the earth, then all that was life and beauty was covered over in darkness, then God brought order out of the chaos separating the waters etc etc. but, then He "made" man from what was previously "created."
      This is Moses trying to jot down a lifetime of tribal knowledge before the word speciation was known. Not sure what the Hebrew word is for deoxyribonucleic acid but, that would be hard to pass down from generation to generation in a picture language. Perhaps the word he was looking for was evil lotion .......simply apply it to the hairy back of a Neanderthal

      November 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • Ummmm

      'No Christian would would donate to charity, volunteer, vote, or anything to try to make any difference on their own."

      The point is you don't need a god or be a christian to do those things, we as a species know we need to take care of our own, we know we are the superior animals, we know that we have to do this, no god needed for that. The power is within ourselves, no god needed, that’s the point. We all have our vices for making excuses in our lives for not doing the right thing, the Christians is their god, mine is simply me. I could be dong more, just like everyone else regardless of your stature in life. What is wrong is when a Christian is successful they don’t realize it simply themselves doing it, no god. If we realized that as a race we have the power to make a difference together, we could solve so many of our issues, unfortunately, gods are getting in the way.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @ED It has long been known that natural selection can be an agent of stasis as well as of change. Natural selection simply picks the "most fit" for any given environment and most fit is not always, or even typically, the new kid on the block. Sometimes tried and true is as true as it is gonna get for a long time. But no, crocodilians have not "stopped evolving". The suite of species alive today are not the same as many millions of years ago. But the BASIC body plan has been successful and as long as it continues to be successful, evolutionary theory not only does not predict it will go away, it predicts it will stay.

      November 1, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • J.W

      I know what you mean. What I meant was that one stereotype against Christians is that they do not do anything and say 'well we will just pray and God will do everything for us.' We may pray but that does not affect what we do in our everyday life, we just feel like God is with us when we do it. We do not need God to donate to charity, but I am not going to say to myself 'well instead of donating I will just pray and that will make everything ok.' I may donate money and pray that the money really does a lot of good. More scientists are atheist perhaps but I am sure there are Christians who have made scientific discoveries as well.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Ed What was objectionable in your earlier statement is that you were implying that while gravity is a known fact that is still less than 100% understood (hence the term "theory of gravity"), evolution is somehow controversial within biology and is called a theory for some very different reason. That's simply incorrect. Evolution is as established as anything can possibly be in modern biology. Like ALL active science, there are always new puzzles and questions, but to suggest that the slow pace of change in crocodilians is some sort of threat to the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is simply ludicrous. Indeed, the serious technical and conceptual problems in squaring gravity with quantum theory are MUCH more fundamental than any known problem in evolutionary theory. So if anything, it is gravity that we are more likely to be totally misconceiving, not evolution or its agent of natural and se-xual selection.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Ed

      @Ummm, you're right we don't nned God to do things to help each other and we do help each other sometime the church helps organize it. Sometimes its through other organizers. But being Christian or some other religion does not stop us from helpng others either. And when we get lazy it does sometimes spur us to action either by pressure from the group or just a reminder from a friend. Do we need god to do this no,but that doesn't mean God doesn't do it ot exist.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @fred The lack of a hebrew word for deoxyribonucleic acid is actually very significant. It wasn't just that the word was missing from the lexicon, but the very concept wasn't there. Without modern scientific concepts, a view of "creation" anywhere near as accurate as ours was simply literally inconceivable. Give scientists credit for bringing understand where before there was nothing but stories, some more intriguing than others, but all just stories. I don't have any axe to grind if you wish to square your favorite religious text with modern science by assuming this or that non-literalist interpretation. I find that vastly more respectable than hidebound literalism. But just acknowledge that you can do the same with other religious texts as well and if you REALLY want to get to the meat of modern scientific understanding, go straight to the scientific sources.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
    • Ed

      Ok John sorry not trying to discredited evolution but it does seem if evolution is continuing at a sllow but constant pace for all species. crocidilians would have evolved more then humans since the were her long before us. according to a study I saw on Natural Geographic the and the shark are alomost indentical to were they were when the Dinosaurs were around. Since man came on the scene we have gotten taller, and smarter, also our immune systems have changed, Their physical and mental forms have stayed the same. Shouldn't they have gotten smarter too? It actually a question by the may not a smart remark.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @ED The notion of non-cyclicity in the history of life that Doc was invoking is not threatened by the fact that dinosaurs came and went. It WOULD be threatened if they came and went and came again. It would be dead wrong if they came and went and came and went multiple times.

      I don't consider the non-cyclic nature of the history of life to be a central tenet of any theory. I consider it an empirically confirmed consequence of the vast unlikelihood of genetically "the same" (ie at least almost identical) creatures arising multiple times.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @ED The only thing that is assumed to be at least more or less constant in evolutionary theory is the mutation rate of individual genes, and even that, since mutations are known, eg, to increase under higher radiation, is only true "on average, over the long run". Evolution doesn't predict that anatomies or behaviors or cognitive capacities will keep changing at a constant rate for all species. After all, there IS still blue green algae in the world. As long as there is a living to be made as a shark or horseshoe crab or crocodilian more or less as they have long since been, they will hang around pretty much the same. What drives change in anatomy and behavior are CHANGES in the environment and changes in the life you interact with, ie those you prey on, those who prey on you and those who you compete with. Crocodilians and sharks are top predators that are pretty general in who they eat. So those considerations won't change them much. And as long as they are truly the topmost top predators, they won't be driven into any "evolve more rapidly or go extinct" crisis, as they would be if things were outcompeting them to the point where they were starving. THAT would change the selection pressures significantly, Of course, I'm talking nature here. Throw in humans, and sharks and crocodilians ARE both threatened. Humans not only kill them (though only sometimes to eat them), but have grossly altered their environments to the point where it is a lot harder for sharks and crocodilians to succeed as they once did. And we may be altering things far too fast for them to evolve in time to survive.

      November 1, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • fred

      John Richardson
      You seem to have some expertise in language. One of the arguments that we did not evolve from hominids is our language. The argument says language was not of benefit in the present time of an evolving hominid thus it served no purpose then only future purpose after develepoment of arts etc. thousands of years later.
      Does that make any sense to you as a valid agrument against evolution?

      November 1, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • Sue

      fred, you said "Even if you do not believe the Bible is inspired by God certainly you acknowledge the Bible contains great spiritual truths"

      No, I do not believe that the bible contains spiritual truth. In fact, I think it is a sickening and backward book by too many authors, a book that has been the source of much unnecessary cruelty, pain and misery. Humanity would have been far better off without that brutally evil book known as the bible.

      Take your bible th-umping and shove it. I'm sick of your Christian book of horrors. Sick and tired of all the cr@p in it that you keep trying to push on us.

      November 1, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      Science cannot prove humans evolved from anything else. More proof that the heavenly father put us here.

      November 2, 2011 at 12:02 am |
    • fred

      Sue
      The Bible is the truth about us, that is why it has terrible cruel events in it. It is what people do and until they can look at themselves for what they are will never change. A history book on war contains much cruelty yet you do not hate history books so best find out what is really eating at you.

      November 2, 2011 at 2:22 am |
    • John Richardson

      @fred Stop being so willfully blind. Any TRUE god out there watching won't be impressed, at least not in a positive way. Yes, a true history of humans would have a lot of cruel stuff. But what makes the bible sickening are many of the things god is claimed to have done, or to have mandated or to be planning to do on judgment day. If the bible is true, then Jehovah is the greatest – of murderers and sadists and dictators and egocentric crybabies.

      November 2, 2011 at 6:42 am |
  13. The Bobinator

    Here's something I agree with. He should have had them removed. They're not there to pray, they're not there to worship and they're sure as hell not there to contribute their time to community service.

    The church should have had them removed.

    November 1, 2011 at 7:45 am |
  14. kimsland

    Religion should not be in school. Its a contradiction of intelligence.
    Excuse me Sir why... Uh uh ur, you never ask god why you just have blind (stupid) faith.

    If you're a school kid in a religious school, be aware they will push these believes onto you ALL the time, without you even knowing, bless you, (oh sorry thought you sneezed)
    Try this option, go to school and say you are an atheist (even as a test) if you are able to squeeze in some obvious statements like jesus was just a man, and even people back then didn't believe in him. You watch how the faculty turns on you. If you keep it up for a week, I'd say you'll be expelled. Oh, such love.

    November 1, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Alien Orifice

      So true. But you know Kim, Parents can do what they want, short of physical abuse and many get away with that too. Mental abuse goes unpunished.

      November 1, 2011 at 1:35 am |
    • Ed

      Did you attend a religious school or is this purely assumption? I ask becasue I know people who did atttend religious schools and claimed to be Ateist or beleive in a different faith and were not expelled or even ridiculed by faculty and staff. When I asked why they attend the the school if the didn't beleive they said its academics were better the the public school alternative. I can't speak form persoanls exprience but Inot sure your assumption is correct.

      November 1, 2011 at 9:46 am |
  15. theoldadam

    The 'idiots in the park' movement is in full swing.

    These morons ought 'occupy the schools they went to' for giving tham such a lousy education and turning them into little utopian leftists.

    .

    October 31, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Funny, THEY don't have "No Child Left Behind".

      November 1, 2011 at 11:59 am |
  16. Father O'blivion

    If it gets the pedophiles to resign then success!

    October 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  17. Reality

    And the march to oblivion continues:

    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.

    October 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  18. AGuest9

    Of course, there is a lunatic with a mohawk in face-paint in the picture. THAT's what's wrong with the protests. If you want to act like children, then you will continue to be treated like children.

    October 31, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      Unfortunately they are treating these l.o.o.n.s like s.a.n.e people. They do need a s.p.a.n.k.i.n.g and they never got one. (Dr. Spock et al)

      October 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      Sixty years ago their grand parents engaged Hitler's army on Normandy (at a much younger age.. 16 – 17 – 18 years old) and paid a great price so these morons could be free. So many of them were glad to have one clergy in their midst (and so many knew this was their last day alive). So many adult males who failed to become men .. over mothered and babied .. unable to take on manhood. Crippled.

      October 31, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  19. hippypoet

    ok cnn, you can stop redoing the same articles under different t!tles... sooo many mormon ones and now this – dude, get better reporters cuz this whole redo sh!t is getting old!

    October 31, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      After a while you come to the conclusion that the belief blog editors really only want to see atheist and people of Faith spend their time at each others throats. That is why you have all of these repeat articles. It is as if sometimes I feel the editors think of all of us as participants on a Jerry Springer episode. They place articles that they know will get folks to fight and like good little soldiers we grab our swords and perform for our editor overloads.

      The sad thing is that really believe that in the Faith or non Faith argument the editors do not care. As long as we keep the conflict going.

      October 31, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • Tonio

      It's all about the ad revenue. Here or Faux News, same old same old.

      October 31, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      I would agree but the ads are normally for shows airing on CNN. Peres Morgan and Dr Drews shows. Sometimes there maybe one or two ads for products but it is rare.

      I really feel that we are in some kind of experiment where they are evaluating responses to highly flamable topics from members of both camps.

      October 31, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      I'd like to see you write an article hippy

      November 1, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @Sheik Yerbouti – pick your topic and i'll submit it to cnn – lets see what happens... pick something good, and i get the right to ok or deny the choice on the grounds that i suck at certain things. lol but i always try. 🙂

      November 1, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      Certain things? More like everything.

      November 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @Sheik Yerbouti, this is the evil twin without a brain to create there own handle rigtht? thought so...anyway – your a twit!

      November 2, 2011 at 9:29 am |
    • Sheik Yerbouti

      My possessive is is a twit? I do not understand these words. Now I see why other people train dogs for you. You couldn't hack it on your own.

      November 2, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  20. RightTurnClyde

    Dumb protest. .. they are too lazy to work so the capitalist ought to be less greedy?? Yeah sure. Manna from heaven .. candy from St. Nick.. England has been on the dole for almost a century. Greece. Spain.. France .. all going down the tubes over socialism and doling out OPM (other peoples money)

    October 31, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
1 2
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.