home
RSS
Ex-pope breaks silence, denies cover up
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, left, greets Pope Francis during a March meeting at the Vatican gardens.
September 24th, 2013
02:05 PM ET

Ex-pope breaks silence, denies cover up

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor

(CNN) - Retired Pope Benedict XVI says he never tried to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests, breaking his post-retirement silence to address one of the greatest threats to his legacy as a church leader.

In a lengthy letter published in La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, the former pope answered theological and moral arguments from Piergiorgio Odifreddi, an Italian atheist and mathematician who had written about Benedict in 2011.

Earlier this month, La Repubblica also published a letter to its atheist editor from Pope Francis, Benedict's successor.

Since his retirement on February 28, Benedict has mostly stayed out of the public eye, living in a converted monastery behind St. Peter's Basilica and keeping his promise to steer clear - at least publicly - of church business.

Benedict's new letter, coming on the heels of Francis' blockbuster interview published last week, makes for a remarkable week for papal communication. Most modern popes have been fairly inaccessible - to the media, at least.

MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays

In Benedict's letter, published Tuesday, the former pope said: "As far as you mentioning the moral abuse of minors by priests, I can only, as you know, acknowledge it with profound consternation. But I never tried to cover up these things."

Benedict, who now has the title "pope emeritus," also said that even though sociologists have determined that the percentage of priests accused of abusing minors is not markedly higher than other professions, that's "not reassuring" for the church.

Critics answer that it's the not just the crimes but the coverups that made the church's response to sexual abuse so scandalous.

"Over a clerical career that lasted more than six decades, we can’t think of a single child-molesting bishop, priest, nun, brother or seminarian that Benedict ever exposed," said Barbara Dorris of the U.S.-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Before he was elected pope, Benedict, formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which assumed responsibility for handling priest abuse cases late in his career.

As pope, he issued revised guidelines in 2010 making it easier to remove abusive priests from the ministry, apologized for the "shame" the scandal brought on the church and met with victims, including in the United States in 2008.

Critics like SNAP dismissed those moves as too little, too late.

In the United States alone, nearly 17,000 people have come forward with abuse claims, and the church has paid $2.6 billion in settlements, therapy bills, lawyers' fees and expenses related to removing priests from the ministry, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

MORE ON CNN: Can Pope Francis make his vision a reality?

In Tuesday's letter, and on past occasions, Benedict has decried the "filth" of sexual abuse in the church. But, the emeritus pope said, it is not "specific to Catholicism." He also chided Odifreddi for neglecting the good the church has done.

"If you do not remain silent about evil in the Church, we must not, however, be silenced even by the great shining path of goodness and purity, which Christian faith has traced through the centuries," Benedict said.

Pope Francis said in April, in one of his first statements as pope, that the church must take "decisive action" regarding cases of child sexual abuse and protecting children.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Crime • Media • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis • Rape • Sex abuse • Vatican

soundoff (2,421 Responses)
  1. Dyslexic doG

    If your god is powerful enough to create the universe, don't you think he'd have a more foolproof way of getting his exact message across to future generations than this endlessly translated, edited, confused, modified, twisted, MASSIVELY contradictory, corrupted book of stories that is changed by religious power brokers to suit each generation?

    Wouldn't god's word be carved on the moon, unchangeable and for all to see? Wouldn't it be spoken unchanged by a species of animal? Wouldn't it be written microscopically on every stone or every tree? Wouldn't there be some space age material that had god's voice recorded, uncorrupted over the centuries and there for everyone to hear.

    Wouldn't there be parts of God's word that reflect computers or artificial intelligence or DNA or modern medicine or future medicine or electricity or space travel to other parts of this amazing universe he created? Wouldn't there be talk of gender and race equality? Wouldn't there be talk of Asia and Australia and the Americas and Europe and Africa?

    Instead the bible is limited to horses and carts and herbs and grain and swords and shields and misogyny and racism and slavery all set in the deserts of the middle east. The Bible is so obviously a product of bronze age man, you must be in denial to even argue that it is the word of god. There may or may not be a god or gods, but this book of bronze age voodoo and oppression has nothing to do with him, her or them.

    And stop it with this "not the word of god but words inspired by god" cop out. That just means it was written by greedy, evil men who got their way by claiming that god told them to do something. That's a self serving scam that should be scorned, especially by anyone claiming to love an omnipotent god. That scam is an abomination and an insult to your god ... as is the bible!

    September 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • Topher

      Dyslexic doG

      "If your god is powerful enough to create the universe, don't you think he'd have a more foolproof way of getting his exact message across to future generations than this endlessly translated,"

      Only from one source, not over and over and over from each preceding one. So this shouldn't be a problem.

      "edited,"

      What was edited?

      "confused,"

      Parts can be, yes, if by that you mean confusing.

      "modified,"

      NO.

      "twisted,"

      Can be, but that's man's fault, not God's.

      "MASSIVELY contradictory,"

      Nope.

      "corrupted book of stories that is changed by religious power brokers to suit each generation?"

      Again, corrupt man's fault. Don't listen to man, listen to God.

      "Wouldn't god's word be carved on the moon, unchangeable and for all to see?"

      Wouldn't really help. If you reject Him, you'll find any excuse. We'd probably then hear "Man's been to the moon! Clearly someone put that there, not God!"

      September 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
      • niknak

        Hey Gopher is back!

        Did you bring any of that proof of your imagery friend's existence with you this time?
        We of the non believer class are kinda sticklers for that you know.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
        • Topher

          niknak

          I don't need to prove Him to you. You already KNOW He exists.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
        • niknak

          Sorry Gopher, but I have never believed in god, even when I was forced to go to Sunday school.
          There is no proof for god, therefore I don't believe in it.
          When you can show us some kind of verifiable proof, then I will change my mind.
          And I need something more than your bible, or your word.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
        • Topher

          niknak

          You have the Creation and a conscience. You will have no excuse.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
        • niknak

          Oh the believer threat again rears it's ugly head.
          And you will be so giddy to watch me get cast down into the fiery pit.
          Bet you can't wait.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
        • Topher

          niknak

          "And you will be so giddy to watch me get cast down into the fiery pit. Bet you can't wait."

          You know, that's pretty insulting. The only reason I come on these boards is to help some of you understand what you are rejecting and to point you to the cross. Dude, I don't want you to go to Hell. I want you to turn to God who is the only one who can pay your fine. He demonstrated the ultimate act of kindness to take the punishment you deserve. He didn't have to do that. He could have remained on His throne in Heaven. But because He loved you, He died for you. Don't you see? You don't have to go to Hell! You can go on to eternal reward. But to do that you'll have to humble yourself. Are you interested at all?

          September 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
        • Austin

          Topher, is that me?

          September 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          Who pays God's fine for torturously killing every child, baby and fetus on the face of the earth?

          September 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          "Who pays God's fine for torturously killing every child, baby and fetus on the face of the earth?"

          No one. It wasn't a sin. As Creator and Just Judge of the Universe, He gets to say who lives and who dies. And when and how that will be.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
        • Topher

          Dyslexic doG

          "The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died."

          No. We have some within 25 years of the original.

          "There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike."

          Wrong.

          "The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century."

          And Christians are the gullible ones. haha.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
        • Austin

          Topher, is that me?

          September 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

      Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.

      Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.

      If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
      • niknak

        Sorry you did not get the notice Billy Bob Deacon Blues, but god does not exist.
        There are no holy scriptures, that is a man made concept.
        You are wasting your time.
        But it is yours to waste.
        All we the non believers ask is for you to stop trying to pass of your delusion as fact.
        It is not.

        I can't put it any other way, you are a fool.
        You might be a nice guy, but in the end, you believe in a fairy tale.
        Only young children, or fools do that.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          I'm just happy I live in a country that doesn't have taxation without representation.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          niknak versus the separation of church and state:

          "Oh, and btw, could you please get your various houses of myth to start paying their fair share of local taxes."

          September 27, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
        • niknak

          Yeah Bill, it bothers me.
          Within a 4 block radius of my house, there are 22 various churches, some of which are sitting on very expensive real estate.
          Guess what?
          They pay almost nothing in local property taxes, yet they use the same services and facilities that I have to pay thousands of dollars a year for with my local taxes.
          It is complete bull.
          And the megachurches structure their finances so they too pay nothing, even though they pay themselves huge salaries and live like kings, the people running those things.

          You believers need to put your money where your mouths are and get your churches to pony up.
          But you won't, far better to let everyone pay for your share and your myth.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          OH, this is embarrassing. I didn't realize you haven't been taught that a fundamental principle of American governance is that you can't tax people who don't allow to have political power. So, you are either making a case to give churches access to the body politic or you are suggesting that believers be made into serfs who pony up their fair share with no representation in the legislature. One scenario we call theocracy, which you verbally oppose and the other, we call totalitarianism which you may, in fact endorse if you are honest.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
        • Madtown

          you can't tax people who don't allow to have political power
          ----
          LOL. C'mon Bill, really? Franklin Graham can't even believe you wrote this.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
      • niknak

        And I am happy that I don't live in a religious theocracy (at least not yet).
        Because if I did, I would have people like you hunting me down and stoning my to death for no conforming.
        I bet you would be giddy at the thought of being able to do that too.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          No because I believe that religious conviction is a matter of personal revelation and I wouldn't want my believes imposed on me any more than you do. That's why when you start talking that "tax the church" foolishness on the same page you call me a fool for having mine, I am compelled to highlight that incongruous stance for you.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
        • niknak

          How is either related, or incongruous?

          Believing in god is just that, belief, as you have zero facts to back up your claim.
          If you want to still cling to your security blanket to get thru your life, fine, cling away.
          I don't need one and don't want one forced on me, like your believers continually try to do.

          As to those taxes, that is a financial issue, and has nothing to be with belief.
          There is one church near here that sits on at least 2 mil worth of property. They pay nothing for it.
          Yet they get their garbage collected, their street cleaned, their infrastructure maintained along with police and fire protection.
          I have to pay more in local taxes to support that.
          Totally unfair.

          All of you believers, in your various religions are certainly free to howl at the moon as you see fit, but why do you all have to try to get us to go out and howl, and then to have to pay for it too?

          September 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          First, you're a moron. Taxation is always a political issue. Belief has nothing to do with it. Second you're a moron. You don't even seem to understand the concept which I will post here for you:
          Definition of 'Taxation Without Representation'
          A situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made. This situation was one of the triggering events that spurred the original thirteen American colonies to revolt against the British Empire.

          Third you're a moron. The SCOTUS has repeatedly declared that the first amendment clause of the Constiitution is inextricably linked to the tax free status of religious communities.

          Fourth, you're a moron.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
        • Observer

          Definition of 'Taxation Without Representation'
          "A situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made."

          Our government is composed of ELECTED representatives that represent all of the people in their area.

          Try again. Do better.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          The current tax free Church status in America are a perfect example of no taxation with tons of representation. They can get up on that podium and bad mouth the President, bad mouth the new affordable health care law and malign hard working tax payers just because they don't share that Churches beliefs, all while not paying a dime in taxes. I know the law says they shouldn't preach politics and it is supposed to lose their tax free status, but you and I know the kind of bs political rhetoric being spouted in all these fundiot Churches, that is one of their primary methods of spreading their lies about their opponents.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
        • Dippy

          Church's, not churches.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
  2. Live4Him

    @Colin : How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred? The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources: 1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

    Okay, lets demonstrate for all on the forums the problem with reading and posting as evidence that which you don't understand.

    If you take two disparate fossils, one must assume that they are related. Next one must assume they are in the same lineage. Then, one must assume they've lived at sufficiently different times to allow evolution to occur (after assuming that evolution is true). That's a lot of assumptions. And, it is also circular logic – i.e. you're trying to prove that evolution is a fact, but one of your premises includes evolution as an unestablished fact.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      L4H, how could someone respond to that? I read part of your post and it is so off, so dumb where would one start?

      September 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • Live4Him

        nice try. Next time, point out WHERE you think it is off.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
      • Live4Him

        Oh, and WHY you think it is off.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          All of it.

          Pointing out bit by bit where you went off the reservation would be an excersize in insanity and a complete waste of time; you're stubbornly attached to your mindset and I can't understand why someone would waste their time using the jaws of life on you.

          Spout all the silliness you want, just don't cry when someone points out that it's silly. And that you seem obsessed with bolding 'ass'.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      sweet smelling flowers roam the sidewalks
      while big bellied dandelions platoon;

      the spring rains are falling a funny tune at the expense
      of a funny man;

      stepping on and off the curb, looking a bit bored;
      eyes up and shoes flexed for the sprint

      suddenly bright sun elbows its way between two clouds;
      a funny man flaps his ready feat into a small puddle and smiles

      the sun was sweet;
      it tasted warm on his tongue and eye lids

      a funny man went for swim;
      flippers flipping and arms waving his funny man ballet

      September 27, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • Apple Bush

        Yes it's a bit off topic.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
        • Live4Him

          which is why I ignored it.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
        • Apple Bush

          You don't like my funny man ? I still have to do fall and winter!

          September 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          Commenting on it is not ignoring it...

          Live4, do you have someone nearby who can maybe offer you some assistance? A friend with reasonable mental capacity, a family member, maybe a case worker?

          September 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      you can refute a theory of evolution, like Darwin's theory, or Lamarck's theory, but you can't refute evolution because it's a fact. It is a directly observable fact. There may never be a theory that captures all the modes of evolution, but evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It really is a fact.

      Saying you refute evolution is like saying you refute gravity. The Newtonian theory was not completely right, the einstein theory is not completely right, but there is gravity.

      – bostontola

      September 27, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Dyslexic doG : you can't refute evolution because it's a fact.

        More hot air.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Luckily, believing that a god created all animals over a busy weekend, requires no assumptions whatsoever.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • Live4Him

        Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.

        Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
        __ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
        that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
        __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
        supporting evidence for this issue.
        Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary.

        Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
        __ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy
        and time.
        __ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
        __ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and
        time,
        Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues.

        Did the Judaism God Do It?
        __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
        __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
        Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.

        Did the Islamic God Do It?
        __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
        __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
        __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
        Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

        Did the Christian God Do It?
        __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
        __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
        Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is
        the better answer.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

          Live4Him ... your arguments would be hilarious if they weren't so tragic!

          September 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Dyslexic doG : The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate.

          Just because papyrus breaks down doesn't mean that we don't have the original text. All the copies were compared against each other and found to be 99.7% identical. And the changes identified were things like word order, tense and spelling.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
        • Colin

           Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
          __ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
          that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
          So? When did “I don’t know” equal god?

          __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
          supporting evidence for this issue.
          Untrue. Abiogenesis is an increasingly well understood process for the origins of simple prokaryotic life.

          Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary. What?? A resort too magic because you think the challenge of finding the answer is too hard? Pathetic.
          Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
          __ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy
          and time.
          What? Where did you get that self-serving nonsense.
          __ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
          __ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and
          time,
          Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues.
          The Bible includes a story of the entire thing happeneing in a week with a magic taking snake. Please…
          Did the Judaism God Do It?
          __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
          __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
          Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.
          No bioblical prophesies have been fulfilled.
          Did the Islamic God Do It?
          __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
          __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
          __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
          Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
          Self service garbage
          Did the Christian God Do It?
          __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
          __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
          Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is
          the better answer.
          You have assumed or fabricated all your answers.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
          __ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
          that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
          __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
          supporting evidence for this issue.
          Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary."

          Wow. This is the same as saying "Well, the theory of gravity is incomplete, therefore this implies that it is the cosmic drag of supersonic invisible unicorns that keeps our feet on the ground."

          "Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
          "__ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy
          and time." Completely false assumption. Try doing even a smidgen of research into dozens of other religions or philosiphys that encompass matter energy and time.

          "__ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
          __ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and
          time,
          Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues."

          Again, you are wrong and a moron for even positing such nonsense.

          "Did the Judaism God Do It?
          __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
          __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
          Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender."

          Do I need to go on? You keep digging expecting to find China from your backyard and all we can do is giggle at you.

          "Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is
          the better answer."

          If you believe that then the supersonic invisible unicorns are also "viable contenders" for gravity.

          To quote Principal Oblaski "What you've just said;... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."

          September 27, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh my! That's either an outright lie or you have been reading nothing but Christian propaganda all your life. That is so far from the truth I don't even know where to begin. oh my!

          September 27, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          "And the changes identified were things like word order, tense and spelling."

          Uh huh. That could NEVER cause a problem in the meaning. ::facepalm::

          No wonder you use language so poorly.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
        • Snow

          It is simply a waste of time and effort talking to closed minded people like this.

          To them, "We don't have answers yet, but we are searching for it" can never stack up to "magic daddyO snapped his fingers and made it happen, but since there is nothing disproving it, it must be absolute truth"

          September 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          You have been asking that people directly address your point – so....

          "Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary."

          That is where you went off the tracks – this statement is not true. At one time (Ben Franklin's era) people had no natural explanation for lightning – yet the statement you made is patently false about lightning. Since everything else you said hinges on this premise, you entire argument can be dismissed as being flawed.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
      • EnjaySea

        Your conclusions all assume that there can be no other explanation for these unknowns than the supernatural. I don't make that assumption, so I'm free to consider other alternatives. You apparently aren't. Your imagination is in a box, mine isn't.

        Not a value judgement, just an observation. I'm sure it's perfectly okay for you to limit your choices that way. Just keep your ideas away from my children, and we're fine.

        September 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
        • EnjaySea

          Oh sorry, this was a reply to that religious guy... (the one who lives for "him", whoever "he" is).

          September 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      LVH, you are boring and a nuisance. Other posters have already answered you. You are among the stupidest people we have ever had on here. Flat out.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
      • Live4Him

        Don't feel pressure to respond to me or read my post.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
      • Apple Bush

        Ok, thank you.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
      • Apple Bush

        Is now a good time to admit I have never read one of your posts?

        September 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOLOL

          September 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          Best way to respond.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Colin

      Holy f.uck, now I know how a lion feels when it runs into a heard of zebras. Where to start?

      You siad "If you take two disparate fossils, one must assume that they are related."

      Yes and no. All life is ultiametly related, but the two fossils could be very, very far apart due to how long ago their last common ancestor lived. For example, a fossilized h.omo erectus and gorilla from the same strata are relatively similar i nthe grand scheme of theings becuase their last common ancestor lived about 6M years earlier, but a h.omo erectus and a mammoth from the same strata will be very different because their last common ancestor lived many, many millions of years earlier.

      you said, "Next one must assume they are in the same lineage"

      No, why would one assume that?

      You siad "Then, one must assume they've lived at sufficiently different times to allow evolution to occur (after assuming that evolution is true). That's a lot of assumptions. And, it is also circular logic – i.e. you're trying to prove that evolution is a fact, but one of your premises includes evolution as an unestablished fact."

      Totally lost you here. Their ages are discerned by objective dating criteria, not by any assumption. No scientific journal would publish an age based on an assumption, they must be dated using a scientifically recognized methodology.

      Circular logic goes something like these 3 examples:

      “I believe Obama is a great man because his biography says so, and the reason I believe his biography is that it is about Obama, who is a great man.”

      “I believe David Koresh was a wise and great prophet because the Branch Davidians wrote a book saying he is. I believe that book because it was inspired by David Koresh, a wise and great prophet.”

      “I believe God exists because it says so in the Bible. I believe the Bible because it is the inspired word of God.”

      Next one must assume they are in the same lineage. Then, one must assume they've lived at sufficiently different times to allow evolution to occur (after assuming that evolution is true). That's a lot of assumptions. And, it is also circular logic – i.e. you're trying to prove that evolution is a fact, but one of your premises includes evolution as an unestablished fact.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Snow

      But you seem to have NO problem assuming whats written in the book is the absolute truth.. why? because the said book says so? you are ineligible to debate

      September 27, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  3. Live4Him

    I'm reposting this because the last time I posted it, the evolutionists could only resort to personal attacks. Perhaps this time they will focus upon my posit.

    @bostontola : my understanding or yours is not required for evidence to be valid.

    On the surface, this is true. However, if you don't understand it then you must assume whether it is valid or not valid. Thus, it isn't evidence except for those who DO understand it. And that it the HEART of the problem.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Live4Him.

      2 + 2 ≠ 5

      It never has, it doesn't now, and it never will. YOU come along and say that 2 + 2 = 5. I say it does not. You say it does, I say it equals 4. You say it doesn't – I say 2 + 2 ≠ 5. You say it does, I say it doesn't. The argument/war goes on for years.

      NOW you come along and say "Let's COMPROMISE!"

      Ya know what? 2 + 2 ≠ 5

      And ya know what else? Your "compromise" of 2 + 2 = 4½ doesn't work, either.

      2 + 2 ≠ 5 It doesn't, and I don't have to RESPECT your belief that it does. You're wrong, I'm SAYING you're wrong, I'm telling you to your FACE you're wrong, and if you teach it to your children, it should be considered child abuse. You're wrong, you should be shamed for believing it, and I'm willing to do it. I'm calling you an idiot and you are if you believe it.

      2 + 2 ≠ 5

      September 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Dyslexic doG : 2 + 2 ≠ 5

        I have no idea what you're arguing here. I've never advanced such a posit.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
        • niknak

          You are dense Lie4him, even for a believer.

          He is saying your creationism hypothesis is the same as saying 2 plus 2 equals 5.
          It is why we, and the rest of the developed world does not teach creationism in school, because it is complete bull, like 2 plus equaling 5.

          And we are tired of you believers trying to push it on us as fact, when it is not.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
      • niknak

        It is what I have been saying for along time doggiestyle.
        I am over trying to make nice with believers and their "facts."
        They have none.
        Yet we the non believers have to accept their beliefs as facts so as not to upset them by calling them out on it.
        If you or I started saying we believed in a pink unicorn, and it was responsible for everything and it spoke to us, we would be committed to an insane ward.
        Yet the believers do it all the time, and we are supposed to sit back and not offend them by disagreeing with them.

        Phuck that!

        I will say it loud and right to your faces believers, you have ZERO facts to back up your claims of god(s), and therefore they do not exist.

        Oh, and btw, could you please get your various houses of myth to start paying their fair share of local taxes. We non believers are tired of subsidizing your deadbeat places of fleecing, I mean worship.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          niknak, you're awesome! 🙂

          September 27, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
        • niknak

          Naw, just trying to do my part, like you are doing, to refute ignorance.
          Keep up the good work.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

      'Posit' makes you seem so educated. Aw, look at you!

      Nice try. You're apparently getting a negative response because your ability to reason is coming across as underwhelming.

      At least you can learn – you stopped using 'nexus'.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
      • Live4Him

        only because the less educated on these forums didn't understand the term. Thus, I dumbed it down for others.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          Pompous bullshit thinly disguised as an attempt to take pity on the lesser. You are a real cut up.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Cristeros for Satan

      Faithand and belief in the afterlife is based upon man's own perceptions. One man hears a god talk to him, another does not. One man claims god told him to write something. Another man claims a different god and different writings.

      The heart of the problem? Not one God in all our time on this Earth has been able to master writing. Coincidence?????
      .
      You show me a God who can actually write with his,her, its hand, I will show you a believer.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Cristeros for Satan : The heart of the problem? Not one God in all our time on this Earth has been able to master writing. Coincidence?????

        Nice try, but I won't be side tracked here. My point is that evolution has too many holes in it to be believable.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him

          Speaking of having holes in it, please read the entire Bible with even a partly logical mind.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
        • niknak

          That's right Lie4him, creationism is ironclad and has no holes (rolls eyes).

          Face it bro, you have bought into a great big lie, and you are going to have to come up with even more fallacious stories to cover up the gapping holes in your creationist hypothesis.

          I am so glad people like you are dying off.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : please read the entire Bible with even a partly logical mind.

          I do – once a year. I've been doing it for several years now. I've even studied parts of it in Greek and Hebrew.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him,

          Good. So do you agree with the Bible when it comes to supporting slavery? Discrimination against women and the handicapped? Beating children with rods for discipline?

          September 27, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Colin

      Live4Him, you said "On the surface, this is true. However, if you don't understand it then you must assume whether it is valid or not valid. Thus, it isn't evidence except for those who DO understand it. And that it the HEART of the problem."

      In that case, if you don't understand it, simply say "I do not understand it." Don't resort to some ridiculous Bronze Age mythology to fill the void in your knowledge. I have no problem with somebody who says "I cannot appropriately evaluate your point because I do not have the knowledge base to do so." What I object to is the person who goes a step further and simply rehjects soemthing they do not understand, especially when they fill the void with nonsense.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Colin : In that case, if you don't understand it, simply say "I do not understand it."

        Again, let me simplify it for you. YOU do not understand the empirical evidence behind what you're posting. Thus, you post that which sounds good to you and blindly believe in evolution.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          The irony here is overwhelming. Is it just me?

          September 27, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • G to the T

      If you don't understand the concepts, then I think you have to options – Educate yourself to the point you can or you need to look to the source and how the information was origianlly derived. For me, the scientific process prodives realiable results and has been proven again and again. So when an expert in a particular scientific field presents data (relevant to his field), I tend to believe it's probably accurate. Probably. Notice I don't say I KNOW it's correct. Certaintly is the death of wisdom. Once you are certain of something you've closed off all avenues to new learning.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @G to the T : If you don't understand the concepts, then I think you have to options

        Again, let me simplify it for you. YOU do not understand the empirical evidence behind what has been posted. Thus, you accept it because it sounds good to you and blindly believe in evolution.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
        • G to the T

          I'm not sure what you"re basing your assumption that I have no idea about the empirical evidence on, but that's simply not the case. While I'm no scientist, I have taken advanced biology courses (as well as comparative religion, by the way) and try to keep up on the current data. What you've presented is a strawman version of how fossils are examined, dated and placed within their familial lines. Is there a possibility in error in their data? Of course there is. But science is by it's nature a self-correcting system. Even if it's two steps foward, on step back, it still gets closer and closer to (as close as subjective beings can get) an accurate model of reality.

          Aside from that – your insistance that the thousands of manuscripts we have only vary to no significant degree is also in error. True – many of the variances are the result of transcription error (transpositions, typo's, etc.) but some of the represent very real LATER additions to the works. And yes – the KJV is probably the most inaccurate translation out there. It's based in part on a flawed greek manuscript were the publishers had missing pages. To fill in the blanks, they translated the latin version of the texts back into greek and inserted it where needed. And this is just a tiny bit of a huge set editorial changes that have occured.

          I don't say these things to be mean. I don't say them because I feel spite or hatred. I say them because I believe truth is important and I think you should be aware.

          September 28, 2013 at 7:46 am |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      Here is where you went off the tracks – if you don't understand something, then NO you don't make an assumption, you strive to understand the issue, then form a hypothesis (not an assumption). It is like my mother said – to assume is to make an ass out of "u" and me.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  4. Thanks for the distraction!

    Still no evidence for evolution?

    September 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Nope, but lots of insults! 😉

      September 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
      • Thanks for the distraction!

        That's the distraction.

        Makes them sound all the more barmy!

        September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
        • .

          It's so cute when one of you religious nutters makes up numerous screen names to make it look like you have anyone that agrees with you...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        This is from the prior comment page.
        People around here have short attention sp.... OOO! That looks shiny!!

        The 5 laws of the Theory of Evolution have proven their validity thousands of times by millions of people.
        The principles are practically applied on a daily basis in fields like medicine, geology, mathematics, molecular biology, robotics, chemistry, astrophysics, agriculture, epidemiology, aerospace engineering, architecture, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering etc.

        Tangible proof can be found by studying vestigial features, ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses.
        We have seen of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl.
        We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish and other specimens.
        All of these things add to the modern evolutionary synthesis.

        Some of the methods used to determine the age of the planet include:
        Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.

        Evidence for the Genesis Creation account comes from The Bible and... nothing else, I'm afraid.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • Colin

      Oh, for the love of god, did you not read bostonola's post. Copying for you.

      bostontola

      Evidence for evolution is constantly called for by the reality deniers. Are they lazy or what. Thousands of text books, many journals exclusively filled with new evidence, easily found by pointing and clicking.
      Cut and paste example:

      How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

      The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

      1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
      2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
      3. the geographic distribution of related species
      4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

      The Fossil Record

      Geological strata containing an
      evolutionary sequence of fossils
      Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

      The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both.
      Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.

      The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. In addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.

      Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

      Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single-celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

      All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.

      All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.

      These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.

      All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are mostly made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.

      In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

      Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

      All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.

      Geographic Distribution of Related Species

      Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.

      Genetic Changes Over Generations

      The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation–evolution of the population will have occurred.

      This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below–the bacteria population has evolved.

      Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria

      This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.

      Antibiotic resistance–how mutation and fast reproductive rates of
      microorganisms can outpace modern medical breakthroughs. This
      link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click
      the "back" button on your browser program.

      Dog variety resulting
      from selective breeding
      over many generations
      People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits.

      Insect with a high
      reproductive potential

      Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.

      If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species and still share 99.8% of their genes. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
      • O'Really

        [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYSRRBp2Wfg&w=640&h=360]

        September 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        For the love of who? I thought you didn't believe in God, so why do you invoke His name merely to swear?

        September 27, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Colin meant to write "for the love of dog" but he's a little dyslexic too ...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
        • Colin

          It is a common idiomatic expression of exasperation and I didn't swear.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
        • Colin

          DD- that was really quite ynnuf

          September 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          🙂

          September 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
        • niknak

          Oh hey, look, Larry of Aruba is back to tell us more fairy tales about his make believe friend!

          Tell us the babbly story of that guy who got swallowed by that fish and then lived in it's belly.
          An oldie but a goodie!

          September 27, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo&w=640&h=360]

        September 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      troll

      September 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • niknak

      No, we have plenty of evidence for evolution, which is why the rest of the world teaches it in schools.

      What I think you meant to write is still no evidence for creationism.
      You are going on over 2000 years with zero proof of that, except for what's in your book of magic spells.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • G to the T

      OK, I'm game – care to provide an better model for what we see in nature?

      I'm open to new theories but just bashing another without providing a more robust alternative is just being contrary in my opinion.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
  5. realbuckyball

    Wow. The dude who makes white beanies and white dresses really hit the jackpot.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      nice and loose fitting so altar boys can hide under them

      September 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
  6. Reality # 2

    Now for the real story:

    Only for the new visitors to this blog:

    "Ratzinger's 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus clarified the confidentiality of internal church investigations, as defined in the 1962 docu-ment Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including s-exual a-buse. This became a target of controversy during the se-x abuse scandal.[43] As a Cardinal, Ratzinger had been for twenty years the man in charge of enforcing the docu-ment.[44] While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a cover-up.[45] Later, as pope, he was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, but sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from prosecution.[46]"

    September 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
  7. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    This is boring... I'm going home now...

    September 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
  8. Lawrence of Arabia

    I take it that school must be out, because there are a lot of people acting like children in here.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

      I'm guessing by children you mean people you don't agree with?

      September 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        🙂

        September 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        No, I don't mind when people disagree – that's what sparks worthwhile conversations...

        What I DO disagree with is supposedly mature adults acting like gradeschoolers giving "your moma" insults...

        September 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Happens all the time on these forums 🙂

          September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Alias

          I KNEW WE WOULD EVENTUALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Which, I suppose is ample proof that many in here need either a coffee / tea break, or a time out... Given the level of maturity in some of the comments, I'm leaning more towards the time out, wouldn't you say?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          I would say there's a larger problem with people having no idea what they're talking about, poor language usage, using suspect logic to push ingrained agenda...when someone is that unreachable, there's little left to do except to let them know they're an idiot and hope they go back to a place where they receive more positive reinforcement for their lack of potential, like maybe the play area at a local McDonald's.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Wynona's,
          If a blind man cannot be made to see, it by no means indicates that he is stupid, he merely has a different perspective than you do. You may look at something with your eyes and draw a certain conclusion, he may see the object with other senses, but although one perception in fact may be right while the other view is wrong, he is not to be treated like an idiot. All one can do is present evidence – it is up to the individual to make up his own mind.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
        • Colin

          @WBBB – and keep them away from schools or school text books. Can you believe that grown adults do not understand the basics of evolution!! In Europe, Asia and Australia any self respective seventh grader could explain it to these Bible thumpers. We cannot let them be around children!!!

          September 27, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
        • Colin

          Lawrence of Arabia – no, not when it comes to basic scientific facts. Accepting it is ok for people to be so jawdroppingly stupid as to not accept evolution on the basis of "equality of opinions" is tantamount to accepting that an opinion that the Earth is flat is as valid an opinion as that it is round. I am sorry, but these simpletons need to be either educated or kept away from children. Calling a fool a fool is no more erroneous or immoral than calling a spade a spade.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • got evidence?

      It may come as a huge surprise to you but evolutionists don't like to be challenged to think, to provide evidence and be courteous.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        silly statement. people who follows science are ignoring the facts? seriously, just cut out your frontal lobe - you aren't using it anyway.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        oh the irony!!!

        September 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        That would be a surprise if that were true. I also wonder how courteous the mathematical society would be to an entrant who claimed that 2+2 = purple...

        September 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          I bet 'got evidence' can count to potato...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Dan Quayle

          You mean count to Potatoe...

          September 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      TE Lawrence was a great man ... and you're a bit of a fool ... would you consider changing your name out of respect for him?

      September 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        Let's hear it for the Horse's mouth... *applause*

        September 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          So would you consider this a 'your momma' type comment, then?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Nope. Are you familiar with the phrase "straight from the horse's mouth?" Well, Dislexic Dog just made my point, so I applauded his effort.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          It was more the sarcasm I was alluding to.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          huh?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          Larry thinks he won some kind of contest there, but he's trying too hard in this case.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        Don't bother, very few Christians on these boards have any respect.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
      • Rudy

        You indeed sound very wise , calling others a fool! You must be on a power-rush, eh 😉

        September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Who're you calling immature, Mr. Poopy Pants?
      I know you are but what am I.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
  9. Apple Bush

    This probably won't sway many, but please take a moment to read:

    He could smell her from his position, directly downwind of the Santa Ana’s, the putrid air-born tendril of urine and body odor makes a formidable weapon. Her socks, slung over the tops of her borrowed Converse flaps. Here teeth only a reminder of public service announcements. The hair was everywhere. Not untidy exactly, just….everywhere. Like a blanket over her. She had a pleasing form though. Hard not to look twice. So hard in fact, many had made her their project. Each had failed. For her the addiction was her destiny and would lead to her death. But not today.

    Joe Skinner rarely looked up when he was walking in L.A. Nobody on these streets needed directions or knew where any stars lived. This was Korea Town, the crossroads where Heaven and Hell conduct their business. It was different now. The riots broke the peace and historians were quick to point out that Korea Town was marginalized during the Rodney King Riots of 1992 and it was happening again. Neighborly “hellos” became tense and less friendly. If you want someone to get your back, stay in your part of town. And don’t bother calling 911.

    Joe called 911. The voice on the other end of his “iMate” spoke in hushed tones. Joe laughed. He knew they would have to follow up on any call. If Ryerson shows up, He’s dead. Joe still had friends everywhere in the eight block neighborhood of K-Town. He walked without being disturbed, but only because he understood protocol. K-Town in 2033 was not only unsafe, it was anarchy and there were untouchables.

    That is when he saw it. A photograph. Hard to see in the wet gutter, but the man in the image was beautiful. Long flowing hair that wasn’t messy but practically covered his whole upper section. Skinner reached for it. It sizzled in his fingers and glowed. This was Jesus and he was come unto the Earth to save humans at long last.

    Joe on the other hand really wanted to get baked before work and needed a paper and Jesus was handy. It was wet but they had one of those electric 2025 hand dryers in the rest room of the filling station he stood next to. He blazed, and soon saw Jesus once again. This time Jesus stood before him saying, “I brought unto you a miracle and this is how you betray your lack of awe to the sight of me?

    Joe thought a moment and finally looked at Jesus and said, “You crazy fuck, here, toke up bro!” The party lasted long into the night. Jesus got tore up and the moral of the story is that Marijuana should be legal in the United States.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • sam

      Righteous, dude. Totally righteous.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
  10. Live4Him

    @bostontola : my understanding or yours is not required for evidence to be valid.

    On the surface, this is true. However, if you don't understand it then you must assume whether it is valid or not valid. Thus, it isn't evidence except for those who DO understand it. And that it the nexus of the problem.

    September 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

      noun

      noun: nexus; plural noun: nexus; plural noun: nexuses
      1. a connection or series of connections linking two or more things.

      Can't even use the correct word while making one of your dumb 'points'.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Wynona's Big Brown Beaver : Can't even use the correct word while making one of your dumb 'points'

        Read the dictionary a LITTLE further next time.

        definition 3: CENTER, FOCUS

        Thus, my statement becomes: "And that it the FOCUS of the problem."

        September 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          The point of using words effectively is to use the common meaning, to get your point across. You have failed in this consistently on this board. Maybe you're always like this.

          I think you meant crux.

          Maybe quit while you're behind. You are making yourself look pathetic.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Wynona's Big Brown Beaver : The point of using words effectively is to use the common meaning, to get your point across.

          It IS a common meaning – at least for those who are college educated.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
        • Rudy

          I learnt a new word 'crux' today and I would like to use it in a sentence.

          However you try to argue your case, the crux of the matter is that in the absence of evidence, your words are meaningless!

          September 27, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Wynona's Big Brown Beaver : I think you meant crux.

          BTW – Crux implies a problem to be solved. I was not trying to solve a problem, but define a problem. This is why center/focus applies to the discussion and crux does not. Albeit, I almost used "heart of the problem", and in hindsight I guess I should have since nexus was too difficult for some.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
        • Colin

          Agreed Rudy. What evidence is there for the "six days and a talking snake" theory of the origins of the Univers?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
        • Alias

          Live4him is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
          Either everyone who tries to read your posts is wrong, or you are.
          Think about it.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          @Live4 –

          Ah yes, how trite, the insinuation that anyone who does not understand you must not be college educated.

          It's a nice attempt at cover, but you're actually living in the real world (physically, I mean) and using a common public forum. It's called knowing your audience. That must be so challenging for you, what with all your special knowledge and education. What a chore.

          And now you're arguing with me about crux and taking more than one post to do it. Did I hit a nerve?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      stop using the word "evidence" since you don't know what it means.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • Colin

      I assume you mean the "crux" of the problem, and no it isn't. The crux of the problem is people who do not (or cannot) understand the fundamentals of a basic principal of biological science and then try and fill the void with Bronze Age mythology.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Colin : The crux of the problem is people who do not (or cannot) understand the fundamentals of a basic principal of biological science

        Sigh, you've resorted to insults and other childish behaviors. Good-bye.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          run away, run away ...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          that wasn't an insult - it's a fact.
          how could someone tell another person it's obvious they have little understanding of a subject without offending them?
          deal with it.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
        • sam

          Don't worry, we understand that words not regularly used in the bible are tough for you.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
      • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

        Is it a regular practice to try and get something that makes any sense out of Live4? If so, I'll just give up now and go find a horse with two asses and try to teach it to drink.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
        • sam

          He's one of our regular village idiots that people spar with out of sheer boredom.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
  11. Live4Him

    @Colin : please take five minutes to read this.

    Why? If you could defend it, then you wouldn't need a long post, thus it is a paraphrase from a different source. (BTW – I didn't read it).

    September 27, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Translator

      Believe what I, @Live4Him, believe or shut up.

      Black/white. Easy.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
      • Live4Him

        No, defend your beliefs or shut up. Much more accurate to express it that way.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

          You suck at defending anything so maybe just shut up.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
        • Translator

          Live4Him
          "... defend your beliefs or shut up"

          I, @Live4Him, won't bother to read your contributions, though, so shut up.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
        • Patterson

          Evolutionists can write but can't think.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          yes, we use words christians are scared of, like 'evidence' and 'fact' and 'logic' and 'reasoning.'

          September 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Lootmen

      Evolutionists are good story tellers. 😉 In the absence of evidence all they can do is write long winded sentences that have absolutely no content whatsoever.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        stop using the word "evidence" until you find out what it means.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
      • Commenter

        A ton more content that the supernatural flights of fancy from old Israelites.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
      • sam

        You are your idiot sockpuppet 'Patterson' need to go back to Chik-Fil-A where you belong.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        "the absence of evidence" " long winded sentences"

        Sounds like the definition of every religion on the planet.

        September 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Winner!

      If 'words' were evidence then evolutionist would win!!!

      September 27, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
      • G to the T

        If words were evidence the bible would be true. But alas it requires evidence to make words true...

        September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
  12. Live4Him

    @Just the Facts Ma'am...: I thought it was pretty clear that I was explaining MY beliefs, not anyone elses

    I guess you missed MY point. So, let me lay it out for you in simple terms.

    Christians try to live by a single standard – The Bible. We don't succeed, but our standard remains unchanged. When we make a mistake, we try to get back on track.

    Atheists, on the other hand, don't have a single standard. When they fail to follow their own standards, they are free to revise those standard or get back to the original track. So, in the end, they are never wrong, unless they had a wrong standard which needed to be adjusted.

    September 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you've made several errors. allow me to correct:

      "Atheists, on the other hand, don't have a single standard. When they fail to follow their own standards, they are free to revise those standard or get back to the original track."
      +++ yes, we are free to continually improve our ethics. ours aren't set in stone, like the bible. and that's a great thing. the bible says to kill all g.ays, disobedient children, non-virgin brides and anyone working the weekend. atheists are free to say, "you know, now that i've thought it through, i realize h.omophobia is wrong." a very good thing.

      "So, in the end, they are never wrong, unless they had a wrong standard which needed to be adjusted."
      +++ incorrect. you seem to think that if an atheists does something "wrong" he then changes all his own rules to make it "right". incorrect. you have a very childlike understanding (obviously purposefully) of nonbelievers. i have a very high ethical standard. it doesn't change on a whim. it changes only after careful consideration. you seem to believe atheists can't live by their ethics - that's just false.

      also:
      "Christians try to live by a single standard – The Bible. We don't succeed, but our standard remains unchanged. When we make a mistake, we try to get back on track."
      +++ you aren't doing a very good job of living by the bible. any christians that did would be among the world's worst serial killer/mass murderers ever to have lived. so get off your high horse.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • Colin

      You said "Christians try to live by a single standard – The Bible. We don't succeed, but our standard remains unchanged."

      What utter nonsense. The Bible mandates the DEATH PENALTY for

      Working on the Sabbath or any other holy day
      Blasphemy
      The worship of other gods
      Enticing intimates to worship other gods
      Being a stubborn and rebellious son
      Adultery (recall Jesus’ dilemma in the forged story of Jesus and the adulteress)
      S.ex with an engaged virgin
      Striking one’s father or mother
      Cursing or saying cruel things to one’s father or mother
      Practicing as a medium or a fortune-teller

      Name a Christian who still supports that morality.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
      • AE

        Christians are supposed to follow the holiness code for Levite priests? No.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          those aren't for priests, silly. read your bible. do you think the rule about killing non-virgin brides is for a priest who finds his wife unfaithful? be dumber.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
        • Joey

          Only the one's who claim god never changes. You can't claim that god never changes and then claim that he doesn't want those types of people to get the Death Penalty anymore.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
        • AE

          But suggesting that Christians should support the death penalty for such acts is silly, too, considering what Jesus said. For example:

          When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”

          September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          jesus also said to beat disobedient slaves "with many stripes." kind of contradictory in messages sometimes, that wacky messiah...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
        • AE

          No, he didn't say that, Booty. You are taking a story he told out of context.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Colin

          AE- you are showing your ignorance of the Bible my friend. Jesus never said that. The pericope of Jesus and the Adultress was a forged addition to the Gospel of John, added in the Fourth or Fifth Century. This is almost universally accepted by biblical scholars.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
        • AE

          Jesus did say it. It just wasn't included in the early Greek manuscripts.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
        • Cristeros for Satan

          Jesus was no different than any other cult leader with mental illness. Christianity is a cult

          September 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
        • Colin

          AE – oh bullsh.it. It is absent from all eary Aramaic, Armenian and coptic versions and in the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from Old Latin manuscripts. No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

          At least tell the truth about your book of fairytales, don't fuc.king lie just becuase you think nobody will call you out on it.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
        • AE

          Actually there is a lot of uncertainty on the issue. And some pretty good theories on both sides of the coin. Does it point out the hypocrisy of the self-righteous religious leaders and reveal the nature of what God is like? I believe it does.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
        • Colin

          AE – no there isn't. The evidence for the non-Johannine origins of the pericope is overwhelming. In addition to its absence form geographically and linguisticallyy diverse early texts, there is the fact that the pericope uses words and and a style of writing found nowhere else in John, that the gospel is clearly interrupted by the story that has no place in the gospel of John and the absence of the tory from the 3 other (earlier written) gospels.

          September 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
        • AE

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

          It is not certain, there appears to be early acknowledgment of the story.

          "The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John – P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. "

          September 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • sam

      Don't you ever grow weary of being so full of misinformation and just basic bullshit? Nothing you said was true. Not even about following the bible.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • HeavenScent

      Yes indeedy. The Babble tells you to kill your disobedient children.
      Shall we call the police and alert them to your admission ?

      September 27, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      "Christians try to live by a single standard" which is why there are over 42,000 different denominations...

      September 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
      • sam

        Yeah, they forget that little tidbit...

        September 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
      • G to the T

        BINGO!

        September 27, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
  13. Proof that evolution is factual!

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJ-nvNoTSg&w=640&h=360]

    September 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Lootmen

      Thanks for the evidence!

      😉

      September 27, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
  14. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you.

    Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your “six days and a talking snake” theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupi.s familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and contained less adrenaline, a principal hormone that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans – all began to use dogs. Then something astounding happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allowed the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, the litter they produced would be slightly faster than if either parent had randomly mated with a partner dog. The humans could repeat this process, generation after generation, allowing only the fastest members of the litters to breed. After many years of such selective breeding, the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity to their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would 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.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge of evolution and genetics increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s. There are now 600 or so breeds of dog, all of which descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.

    If this last sentence sounds slightly familiar to you, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Now, in the example I gave you, humans were acting as the selective agent, selecting which dogs would breed and which wouldn’t. Now take humans out of the equation and parachute in a purely natural factor, such as a predator. Imagine if, instead of dogs, we are dealing with zebras on an African savannah. In this case, in lieu of humans, the predators – hyenas, lions and wild dogs – will be the agent (blindly, unintentionally) doing the selective breeding. They will tend to kill and eat the weaker, slower zebras, allowing the faster, or better camouflaged individuals to preferentially survive, breed and pass on their advantageous traits to their children.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable; living in every suburb, licking our faces, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of the evolution of one species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. 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 market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast male racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two instances of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less). Likewise, the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead Greco-Roman Jewish hippie, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”

    Amen!

    September 27, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      Colin, are you trying to get the fundies to use cognitive thinking again?

      September 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
      • Colin

        Fair comment man. It took me an entire morning in Charleston (and $20 of Starbucks coffee) to write that and I doubt I have changed one mind.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          None of the christards that come on here are going to read that... it doesn't say god or jesus a single time...

          September 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • Colin

          So LET, "Greco-Roman Jewish Hippie" won't cut it?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          you never know. could be a 15 year old on the fence reading this, knows in his heart that religion is silly, but has been brought up christian. people like that reading it will be encouraged to use their brain, encouraged to think for themselves. all this adds up.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          it was beautiful nonetheless!

          September 27, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Colin

          Thanks DD.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I liked it.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Colin : please take five minutes to read this.

      Why? If you could defend it, then you wouldn't need a long post, thus it is a paraphrase from a different source.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
      • Colin

        Can you keep one thought in mind for a single sentence? What the hell does the (nonsensical) first half of your sentence have to do with the second?

        September 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Colin : What the hell does the (nonsensical) first half of your sentence have to do with the second?

          I'll bring it down to your level.

          1) A person who understands an issue can explain it in small and simple to understand terms.
          2) A person who understand an issue can defend it.
          3) When a person doesn't understand an issue, they lean upon "authoritative" sources (i.e. websites they trust).
          4) When a person doesn't understand the issue and they are asked questions, they get angry and say "just read the words".

          Do you understand now?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          you make several false assumptions:

          1) A person who understands an issue can explain it in small and simple to understand terms.
          +++ untrue. not everyone is good at explaining things. never had a teacher that knew his subject but wasn't good at teaching it?

          2) A person who understand an issue can defend it.
          +++ not always true, though you state it as a definite. bad assumption.

          3) When a person doesn't understand an issue, they lean upon "authoritative" sources (i.e. websites they trust).
          +++ again, just plain wrong. may people find websites that explain information they believe in a concise manner. so they post it. posting something doesn't mean you don't understand it. bad assumption.

          4) When a person doesn't understand the issue and they are asked questions, they get angry and say "just read the words".
          +++ some people think great on their feet when angry. some people get angry when they feel the opponent is being ridiculous. again, you make a bad assumption.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
        • Colin

          Live4Him. that's the problem. The principles of evolution by natural selection take a bit to explain. They cannot be reduced to a paragraph or two.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          yea, try explaining quantum physics in a single sentence.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
      • sam

        Yeah, and if you could defend the bible, which is an ancient contradictory text of fairy tales...

        September 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • Joey

          Plus the Bible is a lot longer than Colin's post so it can't possibly be true.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Here is a quintessential example of someone repeating that which they do not understand.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
        • sam

          Live4, that's rich coming from you; you barely have a grasp of what your own posts mean, your language skills suck, and you're an embarrassment to anyone calling themselves christian (who should already be embarrassed in the first place).

          September 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
        • Joey

          Oh wait, I guess it could be true but it just shows that the people who wrote the bible didn't really understand it because it took so many pages to write.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
        • sam

          Joey, are you trying to make a point? It's not making much sense, try one more post for luck.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
        • dannyzihua

          Sam can you give an example of what YOU red as contradiction in the Bible. Dionysodorus Vs Socrates

          September 27, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Wynona's Big Brown Beaver

      Fundies don't like things that make actual sense.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      A wolf hybrid is the offspring of a wolf (Canis lupus) and a dog (Canis familiaris). Breeding is possible since wolves and dogs are closely related genetically.
      A wolf-dog is a cross between a pure wolf and a dog or another wolf dog hybrid, usually malamutes, huskies and German shepherds. Hybrids tend to be heavier and taller than wolves.
      Some breeders refuse to believe that wolves and dogs are separate species, claiming that in 1992, scientists reclassified dogs and wolves as the same, thus making the term "hybrid" obsolete.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
      • Colin

        Agreed, which is why many biologists regard canis lupus lupus and canis lupus familiaris as subspecies. Those who regard them as seperate species point to the fact that alleles will not be exchanged absent human intervention.

        September 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • fred

      Colin
      Good summary until you could not control yourself and revealed the perfection of Gods plan through your slap at Catholics. The Catholic church, generally speaking, does not have a problem with evolution by the way. Acceptance of evolution does not impact the Bible nor is it a "sin". Atheists and believers run into problems when they drink the "blood of Darwin" as opposed to simply understanding the science behind evolution.

      The problem and solution is in the Word as John liked to call it when he said "in the beginning was the Word". Not only did God speak creation into existence it was the word of a serpent that drew the attention of man in the beginning. I notice that same serpent (snake as you like to call it) has you very captivated, so much so that you can only see the existence that serpent spoke about.

      The Bible is very simple as it lays out the truth for anyone that is interested. In the beginning the choice was the way of the serpent or the way of God and that has never changed. On the one hand you have the physical or natural represented by the serpent calling attention to the naturalism represented by; the apple, tree, desire and knowledge. On the other hand we have the way of God which is generally spiritual in nature. When Jesus said I am the way he was showing the clear path that is very different than the ways of man and the religions of man in his day.

      Nothing has changed in 10,000 years. Your wolf is nothing more than the serpent in sheep' clothing.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
      • Bob

        fred, certain Christian subcults have only recently and very grudgingly acknowledged evolution, but the reality is that evolution blows away their silly creation stories about borrowed ribs and you and they know it. As for your disgusting bible, it is a truly evil book to follow, with demands and actions from its human rights abusing sky fairy such as these, alongside the threats of torture from your god nasty ass hole:

        Numbers 31:17-18
        17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
        18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

        Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

        Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

        Leviticus 25
        44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
        45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
        46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

        Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

        Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

        And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

        So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

        Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
        Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
        http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

        September 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
        • dannyzihua

          Bob what is the point your trying to get across from the Bible texts you used, By reading the context and understanding the Original purpose Of Why the Israelites had to follow so clossly the LAW will give you an answer to your mixed up thinking of the Bible.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
        • Bob

          My text speaks to that point, Danny. Give it a read. See the comments about context and interpretation, and note that I have used just a few examples among many from the evil Christian mythbook, but from both horrid testaments.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
      • Bob

        fred, certain Christian subcults have only recently and very grudgingly acknowledged evolution, but the reality is that evolution blows away their silly creation stories about borrowed ribs and you and they know it. As for your disgusting bible, it is a truly evil book to follow, with demands and actions from its human rights abusing sky fairy such as these, alongside the threats of torture from your nasty ass hole of a "god":

        Numbers 31:17-18
        17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
        18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

        Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

        Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

        Leviticus 25
        44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
        45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
        46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

        Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

        Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

        And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

        So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

        Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
        Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
        http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

        September 27, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
        • fred

          Bob
          "the reality is that evolution blows away their silly creation stories about borrowed ribs and you and they know it"
          =>no, Adam and Eve represent the first people that God blessed with physical and spiritual presence. The Bible does not give a time certain for this event.
          =>no, it was not a rib. A rib is a very poor translation of the original scrolls which said Eve was formed from a part of Adam or out of Adam. Hard to say what that meant but theologians love to debate it. I like the conclusion that it was speaking to the necessary unity between husband and wife, God and man, Christ and the Church etc.

          September 27, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
        • Bob

          fred, read again what I wrote about your bizarre mistranslation remark and re your ass hole of a sky fairy, who apparently threatens us with eternal torture. That torture threat is human rights abuse, plain and simple.

          So again, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          September 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm |
        • fred

          Bob
          "your ass hole of a sky fairy, who apparently threatens us with eternal torture. That torture threat is human rights abuse, plain and simple."
          =>there is no threat of torture unless you are Satan or one of his demons. Satan and demons are no more human than zombies.
          =>Gods created us with physical and spiritual likeness to himself for the purpose of eternal unity. There are some who do not want anything to do with Gods plan and they reject the offer of eternal unity. At the End of Days there will simply be those who desire unity and those who do not.
          We do not really know what eternal unity with God will be or what eternal separation from God will be. The Bible attempts to explain it in ways we can understand. Light vs dark and heaven vs hell are some common examples.
          Consider you do not and cannot even comprehend what eternity is because we only know our time and space constructs. Somehow believers will forever have been with God while some will forever have been Godless. You have never experienced a world without God or even the delusion of God / gods so how can we possibly say what that is like. For me it would seem like hell what do you think an eternal godless existence would be?

          "ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it."
          =>I think it is very clear that you reject the things of God and I love God. Where is the communication problem?

          "So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created."
          =>no more silly than existence without purpose out of an accidental improbable quantum flux. No more silly than faith that says anything can happen given enough time. That carbon blown out of collapsed star became a protein then a cell that became a fish that became a furry mammal and morphed into you. Now just how silly is it to assume it stops with you.

          September 27, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
        • Bob

          Gettin there, fred. Now that you admit that the threats of torture are in there, and they obviously are, let's take a look again at some of the more direct demands that your ass hole in the sky is presented as making in the bible. Then read my remarks about "context" and "interpretation" this time instead of ignoring them. Keep in mind that these are only a few of hundreds of similarly evil demands:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          September 27, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
        • Greggr

          Great bible quotes Bob. Gonna use those next time a bible thumper comes a knockin at my door.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
        • fred

          Bob
          You never keep your twisting of Bible verses within context and you did not provide any context in your post. I will not bother to go past your first twisting until you understand what that context is:

          Numbers 31:17-18 : The Moabite and Midianite women were part of a sex crazed group that brought a plague upon the Israelites where close to 24,000 Israelite men died after contact with these women. The sexual seduction was an orchestrated event intended to defile the chosen ones. Only this group of women and diseased children were killed not the entire Midianite or Moabite clans. Most of the men were killed in battle and this was not the first time Midianites raided and killed Israelites. The Young virgins were not taken for sex but taken because they were not part of the diseased population or sex worship. All males were killed but only the males from this diseased group. Young women can be assimilated into the chosen ones whereas the men and boys were not only brought up under a different god but trained to hate Israelites and possibly diseased.

          The rules of battle were very different 3,200 years ago and do not apply outside of this preparation by God to create a place where the chosen ones could be separate from the barbaric world around them.

          That is a very brief overview. I will not bother with the theology because it would not mean anything to you.

          September 27, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
        • Bob

          No, fred, it is not valid to claim that the rules were different then, when you claim also that your perfect jerk in the sky made the rules. So, again, read, and try harder to understand the remarks about context and interpretation.

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          September 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
      • kim

        So, what is this "perfect plan"?

        September 27, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
      • fred

        Kim
        =>In reference to Collins' post he revealed his hate for the things of God and his love for the physical godless existence. Our brief encounter with the physical world including all its desires allows us to expose our true selves (soul). In addition, the Bible was written such that the reader finds the truth he or she was looking for. Colin sees foolishness in the serpent, the flood etc. even though the Bible itself clearly warns him that this is what he will find. Jesus even clearly said in the New Testament that He speaks in parables so those with eyes could see and those with ears could hear. In short Collins' posts reflect he does not know God or understand the Bible. If he did then he would not hate believers and see that the Bible reveals Gods purpose for creation.

        September 27, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
        • Fallacy Spotting 101

          Post by 'fred' contains an instance of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy.

          http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

          September 27, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
        • fred

          Fallacy
          Seriously? You do not need a secret decoder ring or do you? Do you not have a clue as to what the serpent was all about in Genesis or what the flood story was about? How many times on this blog has a believer given you a head up on what the Bible is saying?
          You need a decoder ring to be an atheist not a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

          September 27, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
        • Fallacy Spotting 101

          Post by 'fred' contains confirmation bias as well as ad hominem elements.

          http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

          September 27, 2013 at 7:32 pm |
        • fred

          Fallacy
          Ok, I agree there are some ad hominem elements.
          No, confirmation bias however as Christians, Jews and Muslims are given hard text and instruction as to belief thus no decoder ring. Atheists however extrapolate biological evolution into a World View which has no scientific support whatsoever. That requires a decoder ring which translates the unknown into the knowable.

          September 27, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
        • Beth

          fred, with "Atheists however extrapolate biological evolution into a World View which has no scientific support whatsoever. ", you just lost what little credibility you had left.

          A bit of time spent reading the National Geographic's content on evolution would probably do you good.

          September 27, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
        • fred

          Beth
          Science does not and cannot make claims outside common accepted scientific method. A World View that is founded upon no God needed based upon discoveries in evolutionary biology is not factual, observable or falsifiable. It is a World View that typically has naturalism as its foundation rather than the Western World View which to this day still is based upon God.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
        • Beth

          fred, you are the one making invalid statements, as well as unsupported hypotheses. Nice try at a strawman, though, and at tarring all of a group with an unsupported accusation. You are quite the piece of work, but your religion is likely in its dying days and you yourself will soon be a fossil, at best. Your claims are already obsolete.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
        • Tony

          A World View that is founded upon a god rather than based upon science, observables, and testable hypotheses is not factual, observable or even valid. It is a World View that typically has myth as its foundation.

          There, fixed that for you Fred, you backward, deluded moron.

          September 27, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
        • fred

          Tony
          Sorry but all your justifications do not change the reality that we live in. God remains the central foundation and the dominate World View. That is reality and the reality we all live under regardless if God is or is not.
          As to the current minority view regarding the purpose of our existence that is not even one of the main considerations for a World View to replace our current God centered reality should that ever happen.

          We have never experienced a godless existence in all recorded history with the exception of a few localized peoples. We have no way of knowing what such a world would look like.

          September 27, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
        • fred

          Beth
          Yes, the atheists have a great job at undermining truth and pushing towards a world without truth. The problem is when truth becomes relative in the absence of external authority accepted by the majority truth no longer exists. It is atheism that ends in the absence of truth and begins in the absence of truth.

          Once again, science does not and cannot be the foundation of a belief which is not subject to testing under standard scientific method. Philosophy and religion address that which science cannot.

          September 27, 2013 at 10:40 pm |
        • Bob

          Nice try at a dodge, fred, trying to hide from what science has revealed, but it won't fly, Again, this is what your evil holey book really says:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          September 28, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • Tony

          Funny, fred, you trying to claim any comprehension of reality when you try in the same breath to assume that your wacky belief in the supernatural is valid when reality indicates otherwise.

          You are a stupid, deluded fool. That is all there is to it.

          September 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • dannyzihua

      I found this very Awesome Patek Philippe, admiring its workmanship and all the time that was put into it I asked myself Who made this??? I asked and someone tolled me an Ape that works for Bannanas and lives in German in a castle Hohenzollern O by the way monkeys that like to fling poo made it. Orangutans are giving away Jacob & Co. Quenttin 31-day power reserve watches they do not know how to use them.

      September 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
  15. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    The epitome of 'ignorance is bliss'...

    September 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
  16. Doc Vestibule

    The 5 laws of the Theory of Evolution have proven their validity thousands of times by millions of people.
    The principles are practically applied on a daily basis in fields like medicine, geology, mathematics, molecular biology, robotics, chemistry, astrophysics, agriculture, epidemiology, aerospace engineering, architecture, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering etc.

    Tangible proof can be found by studying vestigial features, ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl... all of these things add to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
    We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish and other specimens.

    Some of the methods used to determine the age of the planet include:
    Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.

    Evidence for the Genesis Creation account comes from The Bible and... nothing else, I'm afraid.

    September 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
  17. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Topher

    Lucifer's Evil Twin

    "If the story of Noah is taken as a baseline assessment, Christians don't know how to count..."

    Why?

    (7:2-3) "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens."
    (7:13-14) "In the selfsame day" All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day." With a million or so species (There are more than a million known today.), the animals must have boarded at a rate of at least 10 pairs/second.
    (7:15) "And they went ... into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is breath of life."
    (7:8-9) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon the earth." Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to the ark? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species? How did he obtain and care for the hundreds of thousands of species of plants? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn't last long after if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don't tell me. A miracle happened. Millions of them.
    (7:9) "There went in two and two."
    (7:17)"And the flood was forty days upon the earth."
    (7:24) "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

    September 27, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Topher

      Lucifer's Evil Twin

      "With a million or so species (There are more than a million known today.), the animals must have boarded at a rate of at least 10 pairs/second."

      Wouldn't have needed to take that many. It was of every KIND. So just a pair of dogs, not two of chihuahuas, two great danes, two beagles ...

      "How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him?"

      Noah didn't "collect" anything.

      "How, once he found them, did he transport them back to the ark?"

      See above.

      "How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart?"

      Does the Bible say he took insects?

      "How did he find the space on the ark?"

      There was more than enough space if you understand what actually went onto the ark.

      "How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species?"

      Does it say he took parasites?

      "How did he obtain and care for the hundreds of thousands of species of plants?"

      He didn't bring plants.

      "(Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn't last long after if the plants died in the flood.)"

      Plants regrew. Not a problem.

      "No, wait, don't tell me. A miracle happened. Millions of them."

      Not sure I'd consider it a miracle. Natural explanations abound.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        "Wouldn't have needed to take that many. It was of every KIND. So just a pair of dogs, not two of chihuahuas, two great danes, two beagles ..."

        hahaha, no? so did the other dog species evolve to what they are now? lol, wow are you dumb.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
        • Topher

          Call it microevolution if you want to. But a dog becoming a dog isn't Darwinian evolution.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
        • Colin

          Topher, actually it is. Evolution by natural selection also operates to alter the prevailing physical characteristics of a pool of organisms bot with and accross species lines.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • Topher

          It's not Darwinian. Darwinian says you get a new kind.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Athy

          Topher, you still haven't given us a reasonable answer as to why whales have small vestigial hind legs and why the vertebrate eye has its retina backwards. Care to redeem yourself now?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
        • Athy

          Topher, I'll give you another question about your intelligent designer. This one would be a lot easier for you; no internet searches needed. Why did your creator give us humans toenails? They have absolutely no useful purpose. A human can live a long normal life without them. Evolution provides a simple straightforward logical answer that even a child could understand. Since you deny evolution, you must have an even easier more logical answer. Why would an "intelligent designer" be so damn dumb as to give us toenails?

          September 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
        • HeavenScent

          They were "intelligently designed", ya dummy.
          Just like humans, who were "designed" so that innocent 7 year olds get terminal cancers.
          Jebus was a real mean dude, apparently.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
        • Madtown

          If Topher was 2 digits dumber, he'd need to be watered twice weekly.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        absolutely mind numbing ignorance ...

        September 27, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I'm sorry, but your counter-arguments are ineffectual and unconvincing...

        September 27, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Kind" isn't a valid grouping. You say all dogs are a "kind" – how about beetles? Are they all a kind or are all insects a kind? Are all birds a "kind"? How about all fish?

        See what I mean?

        How many generations would you think it might take to go from say a Bear to a dog? Both are mammals, both are generally the same shape etc.?

        September 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Gen 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, which brings us to the year 1656.
      If the Earth is 6,000 years old, minus 1656 gives us 4,344 years since Noah built the Ark.
      The oldest living tree thus far found (measured by ring count) was a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine which was 4,862 years old. That means the tree was around 400 years older than Noah's oldest son Ja.pheth when the flood happened.
      In California there is a colony of Palmer's Oak trees called Jurupa Oak that has been alive 13,000 years through clonal reproduction.
      Professor Frank Vasek confirmed the age of a Creosote bush in the Mojave Desert known as "King Clone" using two different methods. His project counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and then used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring. Both dating methods yielded an age of 11,700 years.
      That makes the plant more than 7000 years older than Noah's flood.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
      • Topher

        Several trees are known to produce multiple rings per year. And second, even if the earth is closer to 13,000 years old, it's still a young earth and not millions.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
        • Colin

          Topher. What is oil?

          September 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
        • Joey

          that is true Topher, but Bristlecone Pines harldy ever do.:

          Dr. Charles Ferguson goes on to say that the growth-ring analysis of about 1000 bristlecone pine trees in the White Mountains, where these tree-ring studies are done, turned up no more than three or four cases where there was even a trace of extra rings. In fact, the case for partially or totally missing rings is much more impressive. A typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing (Weber, 1982, p.25). Thus, if anything, one is likely to get a date that is too young! A careful statistical study, of course, minimizes even that problem. That's why statistics were invented!

          September 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
      • JWT

        One of the clonal tree colonies is estimated to be over 80k years old at the low end of the estimate,

        September 27, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      We know that at the Earth's poles, it is light for half the year and dark the other half.
      We know that the Earth's axis does not change (life could not exist/teh earth would be torn apart etc)
      We therefore know that since these poles' existence, they have experienced this light/dark cycle.
      This cycle results in distinct and easily identifiable layers of ice.
      Trapped in these ice layers bubbles of atmospheric gas as well as particulate matter.
      Weather/climate is determined by spectrographic an/alysis of these features.
      In 2011, a 10,928-foot column of ice was taken out of the Antarctic by US researchers.
      The site for this project was chosen because it is unusually thick and also comparatively stable, not having moved or flowed as much as other Antarctic ice.
      These are very clean and detailed ice samples that will allow scientists to literally count off the time, like with tree rings, more than 40,000 years into the past.
      These samples provide data that is be matched to ice taken from Greenland cores.
      Had there been a world wide flood in the past 40,000 years, it would stand out in these ice cores like a flashing neon sign.
      There are no such signs.
      Detailed ana/lysis of acient ice cores can be found in the paper:
      "Microbial Ana.lyses of Ancient Ice Core Sections from Greenland and Antarctica"
      – Caitlin Knowlton, Ram Veerapaneni, Tom D'Elia, and Scott O. Roger

      http://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/2/1/206/pdf

      September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
  18. My Dog is a jealous Dog

    I have a feeling your dog tricks you on a regular basis.

    September 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
  19. bostontola

    Evidence for evolution is constantly called for by the reality deniers. Are they lazy or what. Thousands of text books, many journals exclusively filled with new evidence, easily found by pointing and clicking.
    Cut and paste example:

    How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

    The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

    1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
    2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
    3. the geographic distribution of related species
    4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

    The Fossil Record

    Geological strata containing an
    evolutionary sequence of fossils
    Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

    The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both.
    Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.

    The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. In addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.

    Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

    Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single-celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

    All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.

    All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.

    These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.

    All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are mostly made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.

    In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

    Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

    All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.

    Geographic Distribution of Related Species

    Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.

    Genetic Changes Over Generations

    The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation–evolution of the population will have occurred.

    This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below–the bacteria population has evolved.

    Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria

    This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.

    Antibiotic resistance–how mutation and fast reproductive rates of
    microorganisms can outpace modern medical breakthroughs. This
    link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click
    the "back" button on your browser program.

    Dog variety resulting
    from selective breeding
    over many generations
    People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits.

    Insect with a high
    reproductive potential

    Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.

    If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species and still share 99.8% of their genes. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

    September 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      When you can discuss your posit with authority, you don't need to copy-n-paste. This is obviously a copy-n-paste job, so I'm not bothering to read it. I've decided to put the same amount of thought into it as you have – none at all.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        OH NO!!! Someone posted some facts from outside my bubble!!! I'd better ignore them!

        what a crock!

        September 27, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        i doubt you've ever read anything serious about evolution. the only way a religious zealot can have such ridiculous views is to completely ignore the available data.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Live4Him ... this is incredible. Whether facts are hand typed or cut and pasted, they are still facts. Hang your head in shame if you won't read and at least try and understand what modern science tells us about our origins. Shame on you!

        September 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        lol, what a dishonest moron. "You gave me valid info but did it the wrong way so i'm not going to listen, na na na na na na na" with fingers in ears.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
      • bostontola

        L4H,
        That dodge is weak, my understanding or yours is not required for evidence to be valid. I happen to have studied evolution in college so I do understand and appreciate its beauty.

        I bet if a doctor told you you needed a stent to support a weak artery in your heart and you got more medical opinions and they agreed, you would do it rather than praying for a stronger artery. There is many times more evidence for evolution than there is for the efficacy of stents (and there's a lot of evidence for stents).

        September 27, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @bostontola : my understanding or yours is not required for evidence to be valid.

          On the surface, this is true. However, if you don't understand it then you must assume whether it is valid or not valid. Thus, it isn't evidence except for those who DO understand it. And that it the nexus of the problem.

          September 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Colin

      Well said. It is amazing that so many grown adults in this country cannot understand the basics of natural selection and evolution. Whenever I engage I always here the same fundamental mistakes being made. To whit:

      1. they think that evolution means that a dog must give birth to a kangaroo or something like this. They are totally ignorant of the fact that evolution works nothing like this, but with microscopically small changes over vast periods of time.

      2. They think that evolution is "just a theory" becuase they have no idea how completely proven it is beyond all sane doubt and what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense – i.e. a description.

      3. They mix up evolution with abiogenesis – the theory on how life began on Earth.

      4. The think evolutionary biologists believe life just "popped into existence" when in fact no biologist thinks this and the only book that claims such nonsense is, in fact, the Bible.

      5. They think biologists believe that man descended from modern apes or from monkeys. Again, no biologist thinks this.

      In short, they, as adults, believe things that most 10th grade school children know to be wrong. The continued existence of "intelligent design" as a popular belief is proof that our education system has been a failure in the sceinces for at least a generation.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        I can only assume that "it's" must refer to your God theory as we have observable natural selection so that can't be what you are claiming is wrong.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
      • Colin

        Huh? Kill or be killed applies even if you ignore natural selection. ever heard of predators?

        September 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Colin

      Thanks for proving my point. Now, let me explain. In the sciences, the word "theory" means a description. Just like the theory of gravity means the description of how gravity works, not that scientists doubt the existence of gravity. There are many high bridges around if you would like to test that "theory."

      September 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you don't know what 'theory' means.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
      • Joey

        This is a sign of being home schooled, as every single science class I took starting in about the third grade went over what "theory" means in scientific terms.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • bostontola

      Evolution is a physical phenomenon. There are many theories describing it, theories of evolution.

      Swap gravity for evolution in the above and it is also true.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Joey

      There is a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravity. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

      September 27, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      He just needs to change his name to SoTotallyFooled.

      September 27, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
  20. Live4Him

    @Just the Facts Ma'am... : tons of evidence showing evolution in progress

    You're obviously NOT a scientist. When you observe a fossil, you are essentially viewing a still-photograph. To turn it into a moving picture takes imagination. To observe a number of disparate pictures and claim that they make a movie is foolish and without a foundation.

    September 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      mind numbing ignorance ...

      September 27, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you sound like the least educated person on the planet. you obviously don't understand a thing about evolution. you seem to think there is no information to be gleaned from studying fossils - bad. you need to take some basic science classes, gain an understanding of the scientific method, hypothesis, theory, law, etc.

      you ignore facts and evidence and instead believe the world was created by magic. lol.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Bootyfunk : you sound like the least educated person on the planet. you obviously don't understand a thing about evolution.

        Well, with this post, you've acted uneducated. If you have a valid (i.e. educated) point to make, you don't need to attack a person. Instead, you address the facts. I'd love to discuss some facts with you, but your post didn't contain any – just personal attacks.

        September 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          you make ridiculous statements that are so far from reality they make the reader question the author's education level. seriously, you seem to ignore facts and evidence in favor of your opinions.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Bootyfunk :

          Yep, I thought so. You don't have a valid point.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          i'm waiting for you to make a valid point first.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Writ

      Why ask for evidence from an evolutionist?

      You just have to take their "word" for it!

      September 27, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
      • Live4Him

        Yep. I've been asking for more than 12 years now, and I still get the same responses – we don't know, you're an idiot, get an education, etc. etc. etc. I've almost memorized their attacks – and they come from different people!

        September 27, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
        • Writ

          You will never get an answer because there is just no evidence.

          In the absence of evidence all the other defense tactics that you listed above are a natural outcome of a defenseless theory.

          Evolution is a theory and will remain as such with no evidence that complex life structures can somehow evolve from other life forms.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          Right, Zero evidence of evolution is exactly why 99.9% of the scientific community agree that evolution is fact and is observable and testable and is verified by the fossil record. Are there still some missing data meaning we do not have 100% of the evolutionary picture yet? Yes. Does this mean we should discard everything we have learned based on what we havn't found yet? Obviously not, only a sad moron with a nefarious agenda would make that claim.

          September 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        yes, why should christians ask for evidence of evolution when they're just going to ignore it anyway in favor of "Goddidit!"

        September 27, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • Colin

      The extrapolation is an easy one to make as the fossil record shows a worldwide and temporal consistency – and is independently verified by DNA mapping.

      September 27, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      To observe a number of disparate pictures and claim that they make a movie is what a story board editor does. To observe a number of disparate pictures and claim that they mean there is a magical invisible prayer granting genie means you are either a religious moron or you're the story board editor on a new Aladdin sequel...

      September 27, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
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.