home
RSS
Vatican: Cardinals could meet sooner to choose new pope
February 18th, 2013
10:01 AM ET

Vatican: Cardinals could meet sooner to choose new pope

By Livia Borghese and Laura Smith-Spark for CNN

Rome (CNN) - The cardinals who must pick a successor to Pope Benedict XVI after he steps down on February 28 could meet to make the decision sooner than thought, a Vatican spokesman said Saturday.

The conclave, the meeting which will bring together the 117 cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, could start before March 15 if all the cardinals are already in Rome, Father Federico Lombardi said.

Lombardi had previously said the conclave was likely to start between March 15 and 19.

But he gave new details Saturday, saying that because the pope had resigned rather than the conclave being triggered by his death, there was scope for the time frame to be brought forward.

The decision may not come until after Benedict's departure and lies in the hands of the cardinals, he added.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Pope Benedict XVI • Vatican

soundoff (1,003 Responses)
  1. The Trinity of Stupid

    God did it. I know. You loose.

    February 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Dippy

      Lose, not loose.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      I thought Chad, Topher and Live4Him were the Trinity of Stupid.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Answer

      What is known about Chad is that he will not debate with other theologians. If you were to put those three into one room then Chad would be the ultimate loser. That leaves either Topher or Lie4 as the head of the Trinity of Stupid.

      I think Chad would likely acknowledge this fact as being "a winner in that compet-i-t-ion."

      February 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Ah, but the ultimate loser is in fact the winner and pre-eminent stupid in the trinity, no?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Answer

      Well I would think that Chad would be the one whose better off. From my perspective anyways.

      That saying "it's in the eye of the beholder" would agree with me.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • End Religion

      If we offer enough money we could get them to do a PayPerView cage match. instead of punching they could just have a battle over who is more righteous, closer to god, or who is most right (while each pretends not to assume the mind of their god). We could have some weapons higher up, fastened to the cage, because it may not go the entire 2 hours before they start bashing each others' brains in.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • Dippy

      Who's, not whose.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
  2. Reality

    To be fair using a summary:

    (only for the new members of this blog)

    Putting the kibosh/”google” on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    "The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "

    February 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
  3. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Faith, someone insisted on "spiritual apprehension" as a means to get at the kind of knowledge you are talking about. It's fine if there is a means, but why isn't it readily available to everyone?

    February 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Faith.

      "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth." Luckily it only says "not many" and "not any". Maybe you are too wise?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • Spiritual Apprehension

      You are a blind mole searching for a God who will not allow Sight until you open your Heart to Him. Or until you send $100 cash to the following address:
      Jeebus Ministries, Inc.
      666 Damascus Road
      Lost Springs, Wyoming 32945

      February 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Burt Ernieslover

      Ah, but if he is too wise, then he is not responsible, for you cannot choose to be wise. You must be born with the brain and predilictions for it. And that would mean that if he is too wise and there is a God, God cannot condemn him because God is the responsible agency.

      And does it really make sense that the stupid people are the saved ones?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Faith.

      It is actually about humility. So called wise people can be humble, but it is harder for them. In my experience, anyway.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Faith.

      "Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful." His ways are not like our ways.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • OTOH

      @Faith.

      I'll bet that you think that it is wise to believe that.

      It's turtles all the way down...

      February 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Faith, what if not over-wise or guilty of hubris, just curious?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • Faithy

      Stupid is the new smart.

      It makes sense to us Christians . . .

      February 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Faith, I'm sure that little business came in quite handy when those who ruled wanted to stay in power.

      Not so effective now.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Faith, That's a great logic if you're not too bright and not too well educated and want to believe you have special inside knowledge that all those educated folk don't have. The hard truth is you'd be better off just getting an education.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Faith.

      God uses the foolish and the despised for His glory. It is difficult for us to understand. Especially Americans, where we are taught to be so self reliant. But it is not up to us. It never was.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What Saraswati said. You remain ignorant if you choose, Faith. Besides, do you think azzholes like Lie4him, Topher, and Chard are examples of "humble" servants?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Bride of Faithy

      We we meant to stay dumb.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Answer

      "God uses the foolish and the despised for His glory."

      ==Take a gander on that line. Who are the despised? When do you get to say "god loves you" then? LOL

      February 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Bride of Faithy

      for Him

      February 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Faith, The problem with your religious perspective is that it was created at a time when people couldn't do very much to change their lot in the world. Like most old religion it is one of acceptance in the face of unpleasantness. The uneducated and foolish and poor and miserable should except their lot because it is part of the glorious plan. It's the same system that kept the untouchables in their place in India and keeps people downtrodden everywhere.

      We live in a different time where you don’t have to be uneducated. We live in a time when we can fight for the suffering to have a better life. I don’t care if you have a religion, but please just consider not having one that has a history of glorifying ignorance, suffering and not bathing (yes, that too was pushed for hundreds of years in the glory of god).

      February 18, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Madtown

      It is difficult for us to understand
      ---
      You mean, it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to understand. Some things just aren't knowable. A lot of the questions that religions assert to answer are among those things. It's actually ok to not know, as much as you want to.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Faith.

      A lot of people are still starving to death and struggling to survive. I don't think we've all reached the Penthouse, like you. God asks us to help those struggling, not declare victory over some past that we deem worst than today.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Worse" not "worst," you stupid troll.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Faith,

      "A lot of people are still starving to death and struggling to survive. I don't think we've all reached the Penthouse, like you. God asks us to help those struggling, not declare victory over some past that we deem worst than today."

      That's my point. Today individuals have a much better chance of making it, and where an individual can't, we have the power to modify society in such a way that the conditions are better for those who need extra help. Your version of Christianity is based on a defeatism that was necessary at the time but is now best left behind.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Faith.

      There are probably more people face some kind of oppression today, than ever. In America, the rich seem to be getting richer, the poor poorer and the middle class vanishing. The way God has worked in human's lives, he is probably going to be choosing some of the poor who are getting poorer. The question was "why isn't this available to everyone."

      February 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Faith, Most of the 'poor' in the United states have far longer life expectancies, more free time, more housing space and more food and material goods than they had 100 years ago. What we are looking at is potentially greater *visible* relative differences. These are by no means to be scoffed at. Relative wealth and wellbeing are actually what most of happiness is built on. But we have it in our power to shift that wealth. Many countries, from Taiwan to Norway, have more equal distributions of wealth and opportunities. If you actually want to do something learn about how this is achieved and work towards it. If you want religion, try focusing on one that praises those who work for this kind of equality – that way you have it all.

      February 18, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • Faith.

      God's people are the suffering.

      “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

      “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

      “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

      February 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
  4. S.Louie

    I think the Cardinals could go all the way this year.
    Carlos Beltran is the man.

    February 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • clarity

      Lol. uhhh but on a serious note – fat chance.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
  5. Hunt

    Christian tradition teaches that God reveals God’s self in two ways

    1. through the created order (natural revelation) or science

    2. through particular moments in which God speaks through humans to humans (special revelation, in particular Jesus Christ and the Bible)

    Sometimes we have contradiction.

    Resolving this contradiction would require one of two things

    – Asserting that scientists have misinterpreted nature.

    – Asserting that (some) Christians have misinterpreted their scripture.

    God bless.

    February 18, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Giggling Merlin

      Contradictory Christianity? Noooooooooooooooooooooo . . .

      February 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Hunt

      The truth is not incompatible, and indeed cannot be. For God is the author of both the book of nature and the Book, but they are written in different languages, and we read them with different eyes.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Giggling Merlin

      So it never crossed your mind to wonder if there was any evidence of what you believe? I guess mommy and daddy telling you was all the evidence you ever needed.

      No evidence for anything you say. No evidence.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Hunt

      I know God is very real. I know some people don't realize this.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Answer

      @Hunt

      No you don't. What you like to say is really "I believe really really that my god exists."

      But you can't say that honest bit and that's why you're an idiot.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Reality

      What god and his peoples have done to each other:

      The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:
      M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)

      The Muslim Conquest of India

      "The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "

      Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*

      1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")

      2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)

      3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)

      4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)

      5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)

      6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)

      7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)

      8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)

      9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C

      10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)

      11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)

      12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)

      13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C

      14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C

      15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C

      16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)

      17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)

      18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)

      19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)

      20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C

      February 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Madtown

      God is the author of both the book of nature and the Book
      ------–
      God did not write the bible, human beings did. God gave you cognitive gifts of intellect and reason. Quit dishonoring God, by not utilizing the gifts he gave you.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
  6. Ragu Lou

    1) Does Matter, Energy and Time have a beginning? Fallacious line of reasoning, as will be shown:"

    2) Does Naturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Fallacious point: the knowledge is in process.

    3) Does Supernaturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Fallacious point: their "explanation is absolutely devoid of evidence, so it has no credibility at all.

    4) Which Supernaturalist view has the best explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Fallacious attempt to claim that one totally unevidenced position has primacy over all other unevidenced positions.

    5) Is this Supernaturalist view consistent internally? Fallaciously irrelevant question: there is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural being or force anywhere. Noe. Never ever been found.

    6) Is this Supernaturalist view supported by external evidence? No. No evidence. Nothing supernatural has ever been found.

    7) Does this Supernaturalist view address all the relevant issues? Irrelevant, same as #5

    8) Will this Supernaturalist view change how I view this world? Why would an absolute lack of evidence make me beileve it?

    Why did you post this very lame gibberish again? All you do is prove your inability to apply logic.

    February 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
  7. Science

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djo3RzC50E0

    February 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Science

      By the way we all still evolving creationists.

      Peace

      Creat show

      February 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Science

      Oops Great show please visit youtube and give a thumb if you like !

      Thanks

      February 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
  8. Live4Him

    @Jimbo : Christians never provide anything more than lame attempts to address a scientific subject they do not understand. They never ever say how that is evidence for the existence of a deity.

    Select the best supported answer to the partial decision tree given below:

    1) Does Matter, Energy and Time have a beginning? Yes or No

    2) Does Naturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Yes or No

    3) Does Supernaturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Yes or No

    4) Which Supernaturalist view has the best explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Name?

    5) Is this Supernaturalist view consistent internally? Yes or No

    6) Is this Supernaturalist view supported by external evidence? Yes or No

    7) Does this Supernaturalist view address all the relevant issues? Yes or No

    8) Will this Supernaturalist view change how I view this world? Yes or No

    February 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Is supernatural well defined? Are there examples?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Jimbo

      Argument fron Assertion fallacy. You did this one already, and got slaughtered.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • Madtown

      None of those questions can be answered with a simple yes or no. It's all far more complicated than that, is not at all black and white. Religion does not provide all the answers, sorry.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You idiot, if your "explanation" is that "goddidit," you are simply proving you're a fundie nut. There is NO evidence that time, matter and energy depended on some sky-fairy for creation. There's no evidence they were created at all.

      You simply believe they were. Don't keep lying about having facts that support your conclusion. You don't.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • ..

      If a person answers 'unknown' to question 1, which is the most honest answer as ME II, I believe, did, then it kida messes up the whole thing, right?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yup. The nut-jobs can't accept that we don't know. To them, that's "proof" that some giant invisible fairy must have done it.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • End Religion

      "Argument fron Assertion fallacy. You did this one already, and got slaughtered."

      It doesn't matter that he got slaughtered before. He knows we'll get bored slaughtering him over and over and then he will post uncontested, someone else will read it and take it as a sign that there is no argument. His only goal is continually posting fraud since it takes no time whatsoever and furthers his Wedge goals, whereas it takes time and effort for us to go find the facts to refute him. Facts, reality, none of it matters to him, only that he can continue to drive-by assault reason with his fraud for the glory of his sky buddy.

      For us, the only hope to combat is to continually educate the populace, and to take turns tag-teaming his silliness here so that he does not get away uncontested. The fact he does not get away unscathed is a tribute to our persistence in pursuit of reality. We were quiet in the past, practicing live and let live, and now the hydra of religion has grown many more heads.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • Jimbo

      Wow! You proved my point perfectly! Thanks, Livey!

      February 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Saraswati

      L4H also clearly expressed the belief that all questions can be answered Yes or No. It’s not hard to see why someone with the intellectual development of a 10 year old doesn’t understand the concept of cherry-picked evidence. The Ta Prohm ‘stegosaurus’ was definitely the highlight of the day.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Faith.

      Christian faith is built on our encounter with the living Christ. And that encounter is self-justifying. It doesn’t need anything else to make it valid, and no other “fact” in the world can invalidate it. It takes place in the realm of human being that isn’t available for scientific scrutiny.

      Faith as a way of knowing is in a completely different class of knowing than the application of human reason to the data provided by the human senses. It can articulate itself coherently and consistently and thus rationally. But it isn’t built on science and doesn’t depend on science.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • Answer

      @End Religion

      That is why these creationists are the maggots of society.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • ..

      If I remember correctly, #1 HAD to be answered "yes" to move on to #2.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Faithy

      Christian faith is built on our imaginary encounter with the living Christ. And that encounter is self-invented. It doesn’t need to be valid, and fact in the world will penetrate our ignorance. It takes place in the realm of imagination that isn’t available for scientific scrutiny.

      Faith as a way of pretending is in a completely different class of knowing than the application of human reason to the data provided by the human senses. It cannot articulate itself coherently and consistently and thus rationally, because it is imaginary. But it isn’t built on science and doesn’t depend on science, because it's bullshit that we delude ourselves with.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Faith, and that would be fine if Liver, Topher and Chad would acknowledge that they believe in something instead of insisting they can prove something.

      They demean faith by lying about it.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Liver, Topher and Chad. Sorta reminds me of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      I was thinking Moe, Larry and Shemp.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'd go along with that, but the stooges were prettier than these 3 schmucks.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      1) Does Matter, Energy and Time have a beginning? Yes or No

      Ans: According to science, Yes (see big bang theory. it started matter, energy and time. what came before it? it cant explain)

      2) Does Naturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Yes or No

      Ans: No (see above)

      3) Does Supernaturalism currently have 'reasonably certain' explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Yes or No

      Ans : Yes. God's creation is such that it cant be disproven. It weaves webs that catches 'scientific experiments' and explains matter, energy and time.

      4) Which Supernaturalist view has the best explanation for the beginning Matter, Energy and Time? Name?

      Dont know.

      5) Is this Supernaturalist view consistent internally? Yes or No

      Yes

      6) Is this Supernaturalist view supported by external evidence? Yes or No

      Yes. e.g. things like evolution which are worshipped have too many holes. see flagella, lack of fossils, etc.

      7) Does this Supernaturalist view address all the relevant issues? Yes or No

      Yes

      8) Will this Supernaturalist view change how I view this world? Yes or No

      Yes

      February 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Madtown try "this question cannot be answered yes or no" to a judge in a court when asked "is your name madtown". See how quickly you get contempt of court

      February 18, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Madtown

      See how quickly you get contempt of court
      --------–
      I'm sure you think you're funny, but "what is your name" was not one of the questions the initial poster asked. Raging simpleton......

      February 18, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • No so, Romeo

      I see SOC Puppet is answering his own alter ego question. Of course, a "no" to question one ends it, and . . .

      @SOC "1) Does Matter, Energy and Time have a beginning? Yes or No Ans: According to science, Yes (see big bang theory. it started matter, energy and time. what came before it? it cant explain)"

      Oooooooops! What existed just prior to the Big Bang was not singularity, as Stephen Hawking and others eventually determined. It got close, but as such, time, matter and energy did not begin at Big Bang.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
  9. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Live4Him– If I can just prove all other theories wrong, or doubtful, or at least hard to understand, then people will flock to God!

    Chad– If I can just win against all these atheists then they'll have no choice but to believe – if God will let them!

    February 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Don't forget Topher, the third part of the Trinity of Stupid.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Live4Him- If I can just prove all other theories wrong, or doubtful, or at least hard to understand, then people will flock to God!

      Why don't you like me addressing BOTH sides of the issues? I support my own position and undermine my opponents. Why don't you like the latter tactic?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      TTTOO, you nailed it. I find it very hard to imagine that people this ignorant of science exist in real life, but apparently they do.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • Answer

      Chad himself has said that he doesn't 'debate' other theologians because that's his weak platform. His other weakness is his inability to comprehend science. With that in mind we already know that Chad is working on complete ignorance.

      With Lie4.. she's basically the freak of her society wanting to rejoice in her delusion that she has "100% evidence for her bible". With that one sentence – she herself has stated – we know she's just is an outright liar.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm |

  10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U

    February 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
  11. Milton

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioLEFRZP-_A

    February 18, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
  12. Johnny Guitar

    I truly enjoy the arrogance and hubris of people like Live4Him, Chad, and Topher who claim that 99.9999% of the trained expert scientists in their fields are wrong, and that they, with absolutely no scientific background, training, or experience, are dead sure they are right.

    It's very funny stuff!

    February 18, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • sam stone

      You got to remember that folks like H4H, Chard and Gopher speak for god. So, it isn't hubris, it's that god had appointed them as his spokesmen

      February 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • yay

      Good 4 U.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I wonder how any of them earn a living. How do people that crazy get paid to do anything?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  13. Sara Howells

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcyW7rMYR7A
    ,

    February 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
  14. Impeach

    Looks like god is getting impeached along with all his creationst on this thread here today !

    February 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
  15. ME II

    @Live4Him,
    "There are plenty of THEORIES about the age of the earth, but how do we calibrate their measurments? We cannot. Therefore, to trust them means to lean upon apriori reasoning."

    First, scientific theories are well-substianted by evidence and independent verification, not the colloquial use of "theory".
    Second, not all evidence of the age of the earth/universe require calibration. Examples included visible region of universe, radionuclide distribution (not just radiometric dating), etc.

    "...totally lacking in the archeological record because the specific case precludes fossil evidence. Since you ASKED for it, you obviously thought otherwise."

    Not sure I'm following you, but I did not ask for archaeologically evidence, nor did I ask for evidence because I thought you could provide it, actually the opposite.

    "BTW – Why do you think that so many of the posts attack Christianity, but evolution is RARELY attacked / defended? This religion is presumed to be true."

    Now you are really reaching aren't you. Is the validity of a position supported the opposition to it? I'd say not.

    February 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : First, scientific theories are well-substianted by evidence and independent verification

      You cannot claim it is "independent" when it is validated from individuals on the same side.

      @ME II : not all evidence of the age of the earth/universe require calibration.

      How would you feel if you got a speeding ticket for doing 180 in a 55 MPH zone with an uncalibrated radar gun, even when you car can only do 120? When your beliefs must ignore some of the evidence (i.e. dino soft tissue, radiometric errors, etc.), then why would you trust an uncalibrated result?

      @ME II : Not sure I'm following you, but I did not ask for archaeologically evidence, nor did I ask for evidence because I thought you could provide it, actually the opposite.

      Perhaps I misunderstood you. You referenced another's points as a starting point, which included archeological evidence requests.

      @ME II : Is the validity of a position supported the opposition to it? I'd say not.

      And I would agree. I would say that the validition of a position is substantiated by the tests that it is put through and passes (something that Christianity does all the time on this site). My point is that atheists eschew discussing their beliefs.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • clarity

      " tests that it is put through and passes (something that Christianity does all the time on this site)."

      no it doesn't.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • the AnViL

      johnny guitar hit the nail on the head – "You would have to be insane to think that 99.9999% of scientists trained in their fields are wrong, and an untrained person with an agenda like Live4Him is right."

      the only thing i'd add to that is:

      cha cha cha

      and /thread.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • ME II

      Live4Him
      "You cannot claim it is 'independent' when it is validated from individuals on the same side."

      In science, independent verification means a scientist or team of scientists that are not associated with the original research. This is done to reduce the chance of use of incorrect data, methods, analysis, or fabrication thereof.

      "How would you feel if you got a speeding ticket for doing 180 in a 55 MPH zone with an uncalibrated radar gun, even when you car can only do 120?"

      About the same as I'd feel about claims of miracles and resurrection, i.e. show me the evidence.

      "When your beliefs must ignore some of the evidence (i.e. dino soft tissue, radiometric errors, etc.), then why would you trust an uncalibrated result?"

      I am not ignoring those examples. Your "soft tissuem" paper refers to DNA, not "soft tissue", and only looks a certain conditions. It is not, as you claim, evidence of a 10,000 year limit on any "soft tissue" survival. And while there are errors in radiometric testing, if done properly, the dates are very reliable, consistent, and often confirmed by alternative methods.

      "I would say that the validition of a position is substantiated by the tests that it is put through and passes (something that Christianity does all the time on this site)."

      I'm guess I'm not following here; what tests does Christianity pass on this site?

      "My point is that atheists eschew discussing their beliefs."

      If you mean that atheists eschew discussing their "atheist beliefs", then I would agree since atheism, by itself, does not entail a set of beliefs, but is a lack of belief (granted there are some "positive atheists" that do make claims, but most are not this type.)

      February 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • ..

      @ME II : First, scientific theories are well-substianted by evidence and independent verification

      You cannot claim it is “independent” when it is validated from individuals on the same side.

      Huh? Scientists who have validated something have sides? I may agree if they all worked together, but independently means just that, doesn't it? Independent OF each other? Or am I not understanding this for some reason?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • ..

      K, thx, ME II, that's what I thought.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : In science, independent verification means a scientist or team of scientists that are not associated with the original research. This is done to reduce the chance of use of incorrect data, methods, analysis, or fabrication thereof.

      In science, independent verification means a scientist or team of scientists from the opposing position reviews and attempts to falsify the conclusion. When a team of scientists only seeks to reaffirm a conclusion, then it is not considered validated.

      @ME II : About the same as I'd feel about claims of miracles and resurrection, i.e. show me the evidence.

      What evidence would it take for you to reject the "millions of years of evolution"?

      @ME II : Your "soft tissuem" paper refers to DNA, not "soft tissue", and only looks a certain conditions.

      Soft tissue is a larger component of DNA and the conditions were exactly where the specimens were found.

      @ME II : And while there are errors in radiometric testing, if done properly, the dates are very reliable, consistent, and often confirmed by alternative methods.

      So, how can a date that has been confirmed by several alternative methods still be in error like the KBS Tuff?

      @ME II : I'm guess I'm not following here; what tests does Christianity pass on this site?

      When put to the test, there is no empirical evidence against Christianity on this site, but there is plenty supplied by Christians.

      @ME II : atheism, by itself, does not entail a set of beliefs, but is a lack of belief

      Atheism is the positive position that no God exist. Evolution is usually added to this belief. Therefore, a set of beliefs does, in fact, exist.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I have never stated that no god exists, liver. I simply see no evidence of one. Your posts have failed to provide any, as have Topher's and Chard's.

      I don't have a "set of beliefs."

      February 18, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son : I have never stated that no god exists, liver. I simply see no evidence of one. Your posts have failed to provide any, as have Topher's and Chard's.

      And what evidence would suffice?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @.. : Scientists who have validated something have sides?

      One scientist supports creationism and another supports evolution. Do they have sides? Yes.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard's sock puppet says: "What evidence would suffice?"

      ANY. You and your sock puppets have produced NONE at all. There is no evidence that this universe was created. There is no evidence that a god exists. If there were, this blog wouldn't exist, either.

      You don't have evidence. That you keep yapping about assumptions you make being evidence is just sad. It simply shows that you don't even believe that faith is enough.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      What evidence would suffice? That which will allow you to construct an argument together with the same rules of logic and the same premises that are accepted in addressing assertions regarding natural laws. Reject the null hypothesis "God does not exist".

      February 18, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • OTOH

      Live4Him,
      "And what evidence would suffice?"

      An omniscient "God" would know *precisely* what proof is acceptable to each and every one of us individually.

      An omnipotent "God" would be able to provide it.

      An all-loving "God" would do so.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • ME II

      "When put to the test, there is no empirical evidence against Christianity on this site, but there is plenty supplied by Christians."

      This is incorrect.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "So, how can a date that has been confirmed by several alternative methods still be in error like the KBS Tuff?"
      This is not a problem. Once the sources of errors were identified and factored in the different dating methods came up with the same results.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Tom,

      God is such that no science can measure him. That is why there is no 'evidence'. If I were to blindfold you and tell you to SEE what color ball I am flashing in front of you using your ears and ears only, no other senses. not even logical thought. can you?

      Similarly you cant 'test' the existence of God.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "a scientist or team of scientists from the opposing position"

      Yet another gem of stupidity from Stupid4Him.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Madtown

      Similarly you cant 'test' the existence of God.
      -----
      Then, how would you say you "know" he exists?

      February 18, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      THANK YOU for proving my point, SOC. You are good for something, no matter what everyone says.

      Please alert Chard, Gopher, and Lie4ever, because all 3 of them continue to insist that they can prove there is a god, that they know this as fact.

      I'm glad you see that no such thing is true. All you have is belief.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
  16. Live4TheOneLifeYouHave

    Live4Him is a mathematical dunce. But even if evolution is completely wrong (so far, the evidence shows it to be correct), that does not mean that wingnut Christian creationism is right. In fact, evolution aside, the mere existence of the fossil record in strata shows Christian creationism stories to be utter nonsense.

    February 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
  17. Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

    Has anything improved with Christianity since 200+ years ago?
    ===============================================

    Thomas Jefferson, POTUS #3 (from Notes on the State of Virginia):

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    James Madison, POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights (from A Memorial and Remonstrance delivered to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785):

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    John Adams, POTUS #2 (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 09/03/1816):

    I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.

    Ben Franklin (from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772):

    If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.

    Thomas Paine (from The Age of Reason):

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

    February 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
  18. Live4Him

    EVOLUTION IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

    Okay, we've discussed this before, but lets bring it up again.

    1) Species: According to evolution, a specie is a kind of life that can reproduce its own kind.
    2) Transitional specie: According to evolution, a specie that is between two other species (i.e. A evolved into B, which evolved into C – so B is a transitional specie). Since, evolution holds that all species are capable of evolving, this means that all species, except the initial specie, are transitional species. For this discussion, I'll presume specie and transitional specie as the same.
    3) Speciation event: According to evolution, this is the process whereby a single species becomes two distinct species. It usually occurs over a period of time, but may be a cataclysmic event also.
    4) Law of Averages: a statistical principle that shows a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences.
    5) Current number of identified species: approximately 1.9 million species. Some scientists predict this number may go as high as 50 million species eventually.

    Speciation events are presumed to be a random occurrence via the trial of producing offspring. When given sufficient time, two different species will have the same number of speciation events, albeit not necessarily at the same time. Applying this concept allows us to utilize mathematical concepts to determine the number of species that have lived on the earth over its history.

    The number 2 raised by a power will double the number X times. For example, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, and 2^4 = 16. So, if we know the number of speciation events that occurred over evolution's history, we could calculate the number of species that have lived on the earth. Unfortunately, no evolutionist has ever ventured a guess at the number of speciation events between a modern specie and the first specie. However, Richard Dawkins has ventured an estimate on the number of speciation events that occurred to develop the modern eye. He postulated a number between 1,000 and 100,000 speciation events to develop the modern eye.

    For the sake of this discussion, I'll presume that there were 1,003 speciation events to develop the modern eye. This would mean that there should be one centillion (i.e. 1E303) transitional species. Not all species can leave fossil evidence, but if we presume that only a millionth of them would we would still have 1E297 transitional specie fossils.

    Since the upper limit of identified species is estimated to be 50 million (i.e. 50E6), then it becomes obvious that evolution is mathematically impossible since evolution predicts almost 1 centillion species in the development of the eye alone!

    February 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      What a flop you are.

      99.9% of species have gone extinct, which takes your posited number of possible species right back present levels.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • Zingo

      It's so cute when Christians try to be all sciencey and stuff. THey are like three-year-olds putting on their parents clothes and pretending they are grown up.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Still beating dead horses?

      You are much more persuasive when speaking personally about your faith and what it means than when trying to make others believe what you believe by twisting science and other people's beliefs (that you don't understand) to suit your argument.

      In my opinion anyway.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Johnny Guitar : 99.9% of species have gone extinct, which takes your posited number of possible species right back present levels

      So, what percentage of these species would leave fossil remains?

      February 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • Live4TheOneLifeYouHave

      Live4Him is a mathematical dunce. But even if evolution is completely wrong (so far, the evidence shows it to be correct), that does not mean that wingnut Christian creationism is right. In fact, evolution aside, the mere existence of the fossil record in strata shows Christian creationism stories to be utter nonsense.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      You are nothing but a sophist, and a darn stupid one at that.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Still beating dead horses?

      Its only dead because it cannot be refuted.

      @myweightinwords : You are much more persuasive when speaking personally about your faith and what it means

      People on the forum are not interested in being objective / persuaded. When I talk about my faith, all it allows is to be bashed by the atheists – since they all they do is get on the forums to stroke their egos. (BTW – this doesn't apply to you). However, if you want to talk about my beliefs, then start a new thread.

      @myweightinwords : twisting science

      Specifically, how have I twisted science?

      February 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Live4TheOneLifeYouHave : Live4Him is a mathematical dunce

      And you prove this by ???? Of course, personal attacks. Not evidence, but personal attacks. NEXT!

      February 18, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • clarity

      Did you know that when many charged that the gospel stories were just copies of older pagan stories, all the early Christian apologists could come up with as an excuse was that it was diabolical mimicry? Sure enough. They said that Satan had committed plagiarism by anticipation – writing and disseminating the "fake" stories well in advance of the gospels. okee dokee – wink wink.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "Speciation events are presumed to be a random occurrence via the trial of producing offspring."
      Among other inaccuracies, this incorrect.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • Cheer On!

      Live4Him, Fantastic posts!

      February 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • End Religion

      "Still beating dead horses?"

      Sounds like a sickness to me...

      February 18, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live$Him,
      " Richard Dawkins has ventured an estimate on the number of speciation events that occurred to develop the modern eye. He postulated a number between 1,000 and 100,000 speciation events to develop the modern eye."

      Yet again, Dawkins did not say this. He talked about "changes" not speciation.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Among other inaccuracies, this incorrect.

      What are your premises for such a conclusion?

      February 18, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Thank you, Live4Him. I was looking for a reason to go home early today, and maybe change careers. My specialty is the mathematics of information encoded in genomes, which is a large part of the mathematics of evolution. If it's all (mathematically) impossible, then I'm free to, I don't know, perhaps discourage people from believing in God's Truth. Surely there's a profession in there somewhere.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Its only dead because it cannot be refuted.

      It has been refuted every single time you post it. By the same people. Telling you the same things. You simply refuse to even begin to consider anything that disagrees with what you believe.

      People on the forum are not interested in being objective / persuaded.

      Let me ask you, why are you here? Why do you post here? If you know that no one here wants to be persuaded to believe differently than they do now, why do you post in a way that is meant to persuade them?

      When I talk about my faith, all it allows is to be bashed by the atheists – since they all they do is get on the forums to stroke their egos. (BTW – this doesn't apply to you).

      Do you know the best response to people who bash others, who speak in anger (regardless of whether they be Atheist or Christian)? Love. And not the facetious, in your face "I'll pray for you" crap either. If you can't manage that? Ignoring them is the next best thing.

      Specifically, how have I twisted science?

      Pretty much any time you try to refute accepted scientific knowledge based on your theories and logic.

      I have to be honest with you. When you post this (and any of the other multiply copy/paste jobs you keep repeating), you come across as very arrogant and closed minded. This is especially true when your subject matter has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. I don't necessarily think that you are arrogant , but the fact that you keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again leaves the impression that you refuse to actually engage the material and those you are throwing it at.

      Just my opinion of course. You will, undoubtedly carry on as you will. Peace.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • End Religion

      http://youtu.be/fw2RPeujDV0

      February 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Yet again, Dawkins did not say this. He talked about "changes" not speciation

      He was discussion inter-specie change, rather than intra-specie change. If your offspring is blond and you're brunette, does this lead to a new species? No. So, variations within the species is not passed on to a new species. To pass on benefitial changes, they must be passed on to a new species, else the mutation will not be a building block to a new "advantage trait".

      Second, regardless of the number of speciation events, the mathematics proves that evolution cannot happen. At just 26 speciation events, the number of species exceeds the highest proposed number of species given by any evolutionist. By 30 speciation events, more than a billion species would have existed on earth. And no evolutionist will EVER claim that just 30 speciation events have occurred between first life and modern man.

      so, don't get hung up on small issues, but look at the big picture. There is no real difference betwen 30 and 1000 speciation events – neither could have happened.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      You would have to be insane to think that 99.9999% of scientists trained in their fields are wrong, and an untrained person with an agenda like Live4Him is right.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Yeah right!

      Weight, It is very hard not to notice that atheists are very open minded 😉

      February 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Eric G

      I am unclear on your goal. Are you trying to disprove evolution theory? To what end? The theory of evolution makes claims that have their own burden of proof.

      Is your goal to prove that your god did it? Your claims that your god exist carry their own burden of proof. Please address your own burden of proof before you attempt to discredit claims made by others.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Larry of Nazareth

      @Yeah Right – We did a survey a while back asking if people somehow found out that their position was wrong and the opposite was correct, would they accept it and adjust their understanding. 100% of the atheists said they would, but the degree varied. 100% of the Christians said they would not believe it.

      Now, what were you saying about open minds?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : It has been refuted every single time you post it. By the same people. Telling you the same things.

      Okay, people have refuted it by calling me an idiot, claiming that most people accept it, and similar tactics. But logic fallacies don't equate to "refutation" in my books.

      @myweightinwords : Let me ask you, why are you here? Why do you post here?

      There are three groups of people on this forum: Christians (and a few other religions) who post, Anti-Christians who post (regardless of their religion) and non-posters. My posts will strengthen fellow Christians and may give some material to consider to the non-posters.

      Why do you post here?

      @myweightinwords : Ignoring them is the next best thing.

      Exactly what I do to many. But they still dilute the forum.

      @myweightinwords : Pretty much any time you try to refute accepted scientific knowledge based on your theories and logic.

      I asked for specifics, not generalities. All scientists will be willing to challenge "accepted knowledge".

      @myweightinwords : the fact that you keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again leaves the impression that you refuse to actually engage the material and those you are throwing it at.

      The day that they refute my post with empirical evidence is the day that I'll stop using that material. If they can only refute it by employing a logic fallacy, I'll keep using it.

      But in the meantime, I'll also be bringing up new topics – supporting Christianity and undermining evolution. I do this once a week on the Friday Speed Read page.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Jimbo

      Christians never provide anything more than lame attempts to address a scientific subject they do not understand. They never ever say how that is evidence for the existence of a deity.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : I am unclear on your goal.

      In any dispute / debate, there are two goals: 1) Support your own position and 2) undermine your opponent's position.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Jimbo : Christians never provide anything more than lame attempts to address a scientific subject they do not understand.

      And anti-Christians never support their conclusions. NEXT!

      February 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Please do keep it up, Livey. Denial of science and evolution is one of the strongest things a religious person can do to recruit . . . seculars.

      You are doing splendidly, for the other side. Well done!

      February 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • ME II

      Live4Him
      "What are your premises for such a conclusion?"

      Speciation is not random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. As I've said many times before.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Larry of Nazareth : We did a survey a while back asking if people somehow found out that their position was wrong and the opposite was correct, would they accept it and adjust their understanding. 100% of the atheists said they would, but the degree varied.

      Yeah, I saw that – but the Atheists always hedged their position to the point of farcical.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Speciation is not random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. As I've said many times before.

      So, what is the fixed cycle of speciation events?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love how LiverDoneFailed uses this idiotic claim that those who don't believe what she does "never provide evidence." What an idiot! The evidence is overwhelming. The ONLY place you're going to see ANY evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted in the ancient world is on some bible thumper website.

      Beyond silly, truly. How do you keep yourself from laughing at yourself, Liver?

      February 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • Larry of Nazareth

      The results are clear: atheists had open minds and christians did not. You can spin and smear and pretend the atheists "hedged to the point of farcical", but the fact is htey showed indisputably that they have open minds towards new information that contradicts them, whereas the Christians did not.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • End Religion

      "1) Species: According to evolution, a specie is a kind of life that can reproduce its own kind."

      Creationist equivocation; inserting "kind" to tie it to the bible's Ark myth of "kinds". "Kind" is pseudo science misunderstanding of species. Ring Species are living proof "kinds" are a false representation of species.

      http://youtu.be/Pb6Z6NVmLt8

      February 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • End Religion

      Lie4It said: "In any dispute / debate, there are two goals: 1) Support your own position and 2) undermine your opponent's position."

      Too bad "finding the truth" isn't a goal of yours. But we knew that.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • clarity

      Meanwhile, back in the mid-second century people like Justin Martyr were faced with more and more people questioning that the gospel stories which appeared to be fakes – copies of earlier pagan stories. Uhhhh – Sssatin did it! the early apologists proclaimed. He set up the whole thing in advance, so the earlier stories are the fake ones and the later ones are the originals. hmm – couldn't they come with a better excuse? A better way to show evidence of the reality of the gospels? Ohhhhhhh – they couldn't. wink wink.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      clarity, what kind of "work" do you suppose Liver does? Has she ever said? I can't imagine an employer putting up with someone that nutty.

      February 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • clarity

      I can't even imagine, Tom. Maybe it works from home.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "He was discussion inter-specie change, rather than intra-specie change."
      Really? What's you basis for thinking this?

      "If your offspring is blond and you're brunette, does this lead to a new species? No. So, variations within the species is not passed on to a new species. To pass on benefitial changes, they must be passed on to a new species, else the mutation will not be a building block to a new 'advantage trait'."
      This is simply wrong at a basic level. Changes must be passed on to descendents if they are ever to be indicative of a new species. All children are of the same species as their parents. Consequently, all "speciation events" take mutiple generations to occur. Beneficial changes do not require a new species, for example: lactose tolerance, reduced melenin, lack of wisdom teeth. (more at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40)

      "Second, regardless of the number of speciation events, the mathematics proves that evolution cannot happen. At just 26 speciation events,..."
      As I have said repeatedly, this is incorrect because speciation is not exponential. A speication event does not happen across all existing and non-existing spcies at the same time.
      How does an extinct species have a speiciation event?

      "so, don't get hung up on small issues, but look at the big picture. There is no real difference betwen 30 and 1000 speciation events – neither could have happened."
      Neither of your types of events did happen. You are not describing speciation, but exponential growth, generally only found in bacteria in ideal, i.e. laboratory, conditions.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @clarity: yeah, maybe it's one of those jobs that consists of stuffing envelopes.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • ME II

      Live4Him
      "So, what is the fixed cycle of speciation events?"

      There is no fixed cycle. Speciation is selection event based on a set of random mutations and multiple environmental factors; I don't know if there is a "pattern" for speciation. But if I had to guess, I would guess it falls under complexity theory and might be considered chaotic.

      February 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
  19. Ungodly Discipline

    Oh why such great punishment? SO great?
    If I could at least remember then perhaps I would slap my own back and slash myself.
    All I can see now is shadow.
    All I want is sleep.
    The Hell, Earth. Why this place?
    Such loveliness allowed while we bask in the suffering.
    Where does such cruelty manifest?
    Who would seek worship on this shipwreck?

    February 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • AvdBerg

      For a better understanding of the history of the Papacy we invite you to read the article 'Papal Infallibility, Contradictions and Spiritual Blindness' listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

      We also invite you to read the second item (Scarlet and Purple Colour) on the Recent Revelations Page. It simply and clearly explains the deceptions that for centuries have been hidden and have now been revealed, confirming what is written in Matthew 10:26 that there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

      All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.

      February 18, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • clarity

      John of Patmos was clearly a substance abuser. What a mess, that "Revelation".

      February 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • TROLL ALERT

      AvdBerg is a TROLL on this site, they are proven liars and are only here to sell their book and website for their cult.

      Click the report abuse link to get rid of this troll...

      February 18, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
  20. The Bottom Line

    I'll go with that. It's obviously some kind of power game.

    February 18, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
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.