Is the Internet killing religion?
A new study suggests that the Internet may play a role in the demise of organized religion.
April 9th, 2014
12:17 PM ET

Is the Internet killing religion?

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

(CNN) We can blame the Internet for plenty: the proliferation of porn, our obsession with cat videos, the alleged rise of teen trends like - brace yourself - eyeball licking.

But is it also a culprit in helping us lose our religion? A new study suggests it might be.

Allen Downey, a computer scientist at Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, set out to understand the national uptick in those who claim no religious affiliation. These are the “nones,” which the Pew Research Center considers the fastest-growing “religious” group in America.

Since 1985, Downey says, the number of first-year college students who say they're religiously unaffiliated has grown from 8% to 25%, according to the CIRP Freshman Survey.

And, he adds, stats from the General Social Survey, which has been tracking American opinions and social change since 1972, show unaffiliated Americans in the general population ballooned from 8% to 18% between 1990 and 2010.

These trends jibe with what the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project reported in 2012. It said one in five American adults, and a third of those under 30, are unaffiliated.

Downey says he stepped into the ongoing debate about the rise of the "nones" not because he has a vested interest one way or the other, but because the topic fascinates him. He says it’s good fodder for study and appeals to students who are learning to crunch real data.

In his paper “Religious affiliation, education and Internet use,” which published in March on arXiv – an electronic collection of scientific papers – Downey analyzed data from GSS and discovered a correlation between increased Internet use and religious disaffiliation.

Internet use among adults was essentially at zero in 1990; 20 years later, it jumped to 80%, he said. In that same two-decade period, we saw a 25 million-person spike in those who are religiously unaffiliated.

People who use the Internet a few hours a week, GSS numbers showed Downey, were less likely to have a religious affiliation by about 2%. Those online more than seven hours a week were even more likely – an additional 3% more likely – to disaffiliate, he said.

Now, Downey is the first to point out that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

But he was able to control for other factors including education, religious upbringing, rural/urban environments and income, to find a link that allowed him to “conclude, tentatively, that Internet use causes disaffiliation,” he said.

“But a reasonable person could disagree.”

The Internet, he posited, opens up new ways of thinking to those living in homogeneous environments. It also allows those with doubts to find like-minded individuals around the world.

He believes decreases in religious upbringing have had the largest effect, accounting for 25% of reduced affiliation; college education covers about 5% and Internet use may account for another 20%.

That leaves 50% which he attributes to “generational replacement,” meaning those born more recently are less likely to be religiously affiliated – though he doesn’t attempt to explain why that is.

The Pew Research Center has offered its own theories.

One explanation Pew gives is that our nation is experiencing political backlash – "that young adults, in particular, have turned away from organized religion because they perceive it as deeply entangled with conservative politics and do not want to have any association with it."

More specifically, Pew explains, this brand of religion and politics is out of step with young adult views on same-sex rights and abortion.

Postponement of marriage and parenthood, broader social disengagement and general secularization of society may also play a part, according to Pew.

But to be religiously unaffiliated doesn’t require a lack of faith or spirituality, researchers say.

Yes, the "nones" group includes those who might call themselves atheists or agnostics. But it also accounts for many – 46 million people – who don't belong to a particular group but are, in some way, religious or spiritual, according to Pew.

This is all part of the changing face of society and faith, and where the Internet fits in is just part of a complicated puzzle.

The evolving landscape includes plenty of people who go online in search of spiritual and religious sustenance, said Cheryl Casey, who delved into the issue for her 2006 dissertation.

Casey, now a professor of media, society and ethics at Champlain College in Vermont, wrote about the “revirtualization of religious ritual in cyberspace” and the morphing relationship between technology and religion.

That Downey would find a correlation, that the Internet is increasing disaffiliation, makes perfect sense to her.

"The institutional control over the conversation is lifted, so it's not just a matter of more churches to choose from but more ways to have that conversation and more people to have that conversation with," she said Wednesday.

People move away from formal affiliation and toward what she calls "grass-roots religious exploration," where "the nature of the medium allows for those conversations to grow organically."

Innovations have long played a part in influencing religion, she said, and will continue to.

Something she wrote back in 2006 said it best.

“When a new technology, such as the printing press or the Internet, unleashes massive cultural change, the challenge to religion is immense. Cultural developments change how God, or the ultimate, is thought of and spoken about,” she wrote.

“The dynamics of this transformation, however, await continued investigation.”

- CNN Writer/Producer

Filed under: Internet • Technology

soundoff (1,632 Responses)
  1. irieawards


    May 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
    • igaftr

      Lionly lamb?

      May 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Exactly what I thought!

        May 9, 2014 at 12:37 am |
  2. atheisticallyyours

    Let us certainly HOPE that the Internet IS killing religion! Its demise cannot come fast enough!

    May 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. – Matthew 24:14, NKJV

      May 7, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
      • observer


        When you quote from the Bible, is it because you BELIEVE and SUPPORT all of it, like in Romans, or do you just HYPOCRITICALLY pick and choose?

        May 7, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          He loves me and justifies me "Observer". In His eyes I am righteous on account of my Lord Jesus Christ, because i am in Him and He is in me. Does that answer your question? When you look at the cross, do you see love? Perfect love? It's there. I hope you will someday embrace it and your salvation.

          May 7, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • observer


          By not answering the question, you actually HAVE answered it.

          "When you look at the cross, do you see love? Perfect love? It's there."
          So why are you CHOOSING negative verses from the Bible about gays when you could be CHOOSING the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule? You CHOOSE negative rather than show the love Jesus preached. Well done.

          May 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. – Matthew 24:14, NKJV – all of the gospel Observer, all of it. so do you look at the cross and see perfect love? now that you 'believe' God's word and quote it, do you quote because you believe it? or are you just being a hypocrite?

          May 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • observer


          Why are you CHOOSING negative verses from the Bible about gays when you could be CHOOSING the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule? Don't you care what Jesus said?

          May 7, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • igaftr

          He just keeps quoting from Matthew, a part of the bible that no one know who wrote it, was mainly a copy of Marl, and was written by SOMEONE long after Jesus allegedly did his thing, so it is one of the most dubiuos parts of the bible, yet he posts it as if it were valid.

          May 8, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "After these things He went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he left all, rose up, and followed Him. Then Levi gave Him a great feast in his own house. And there were a great number of tax collectors and others who sat down with them. And their scribes and the Pharisees complained against His disciples, saying, “Why do You eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” – Luke 5:27-32, NKJV – Luke also mentions Matthew in the book of Acts.

          May 8, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • colin31714

          awanderingscott. Has a Middle school student explained the basics of biological evolution to you yet? Do you understand now how it is not inconsistent with metamorphosis, or should we get a teacher who works with the intellectually challenged to help out? You do know the Earth isn't flat, right?

          May 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Doris

          Why wouldn't Paul's sidekick come out with the same story? I don't see that Luke adds much validity as the /disciple/buddy/physician/whatever of Paul who's Gospel testimony was hearsay.

          May 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. – John 3:16, NKJV

      May 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Like an omnipotent god would be limited to only one child or be unable to find a better way to solve the problems it created!

        May 7, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "I have revealed You to them, and I will continue to do so. Then Your love for Me will be in them, and I will be in them." – John 17:26, NKJV – we have the love of God and the Spirit of Christ in us. He justifies us, not your hate-filled language.

          May 7, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          scot How can I hate an imaginary creature? Don't you see how much you have to suspend reality to believe? An omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being (which you claim for your god) would not need to be limited to the twisted logic of the bible. It wouldn't need to drown the vast majority of earth to restart, nor send a son to do the same. The main reason this nonsense survived is that religion and power have been hand-in-hand for centuries.

          May 8, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      • colin31714

        YEs, the very taproot of Christianity is a deeply flawed contradiction isn't it?

        “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

        So, God sent his son Jesus to Earth to die on the cross to atone for the original sin of Adam and Eve. This single concept is pregnant with veritable litter of logical inconsistencies. It’s God. It makes the rules. Why did it “have to” go through the gruesome act of the crucifixion to forgive us? Why not just forgive us? Why did we need forgiving anyway? Holding us accountable for things that happened before we were born is ludicrously unjust.

        What about when we realized Adam and Eve was a myth and there was no original sin? What does it even mean for a god to have a human “son” and then demand him as a sacrifice? The whole thing is nothing short of preposterous.

        May 8, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • enderspeakerforthedead


        When you start quoting scripture, you remove yourself from the conversation as it adds no value and lacks intelligent cohesion to the topic. It is best if you try and explain the topic instead of using another's words. This is PLAGARISM. by the way.

        June 1, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
  3. moiraesfate

    Education is the solution to religion. Its about time.

    May 6, 2014 at 10:45 am |
    • atheisticallyyours

      I would say the Internet has a good "strangle-hold" on religions tenants, and adherents. Its a virus that has infected the world for several THOUSAND years now. Its gonna take time to CHOKE IT TO DEATH! May that happen sooner then later!

      May 6, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
  4. janesauric

    "Is the Internet killing religion?"
    No, but I wish something would.

    May 5, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
  5. igaftr

    scot hartwell
    "Hypotheses, half-truths, and outright lies don't qualify as real science."...exactly...that is why creationism is not a science. You should avoid those sites. You should learn more about the FACT that evolution is ongoing, has gone on and willl continue to go on. YOUR DNA shows you evolved with the rest of us.

    May 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. This is a natural phenomena independent of your junk science. It is the most complex and dense information storage device known to man and cannot be attributed to evolution. it is in fact it is so complex that it cannot be explained adequately by science today, scientists still cannot explain why some single-celled organisms have a higher genome pg than humans or how the dna editor editase knows when it should make a change. fact is it quite simply could not have come about due to your still unproven theory of evolution. it simply doesn't fly. only a super-intelligent designer, the creator of the universe and all the laws of phyics at his disposal could have designed and created it. science has yet to create a simple seed although they've been trying for years; and cannot even explain how a seed knows when to germinate taking into consideration temperature, humidity, soil conditions, etc etc etc. stubborn and stiff-necked pride has some thinking they have the answers but their intellect pales in comparison to the infinite wisdom and intellect of the Lord.

      May 5, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
      • Cybershaman

        You, sir, are staring up at the cliff of Mount Improbable without realizing, or even caring to, that there is a gentle slope on the other side...

        May 6, 2014 at 1:49 am |
      • igaftr

        scot hartwell
        Just because YOU don't understand does not mean WE don't.
        Your claim is ridiculous...that something that complex requires a creator...so here is where that takes you. Only a creator could create something that complex, so then your creator would need something even MORE complex to create the creator, and THAT creator would need something more complex to create..etc.etc.etc. SO how complex is the creator of the creator of the creator of your creator? You have once again employed NON-logic. you leap to a conclusion (improbabllity of complex chemistry) and then claim it is impossible rather than improbable.
        There continues to be a 100% total lack of any information indicating any gods.
        You clearly do not understand science in the slightest.

        May 6, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • awanderingscot

          i won't be intimated by faceless cowards such as IGAFTR who uses others names in an anonomous forum. your insults prove only your ignorance.

          May 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Doris

          Sorry scotty, but you proved yourself quite the idiot the other day with your hilarious argument that metamorphosis posed a problem for evolution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the absurdity in your non-scientific delusion.

          May 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          nonetheless it won't stop me from commenting on what i see as the foolishness of atheism just because a coward posts my name on an anonymous blog.

          May 6, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          my point was that there is absolutely no primer in evolution for a delayed development of juvenile to adult in the many species it is seen in. survivability dictates that this process not be delayed at all. for example tadpoles to frogs, tadpoles are limited to the water and do not have the air to escape to as frogs do, but to ensure survivability they must have some other mechanism to resort to; but why the delay? it makes no sense at all and science really has no answer for it, or they may pretend to as evolutionists do. try to follow the bouncing ball Doris.

          May 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • redzoa

          " it makes no sense at all and science really has no answer for it, or they may pretend to as evolutionists do. try to follow the bouncing ball Doris."

          Delaying maturation allows for juveniles and adults to occupy distinct niches and reduces direct compet-ition for resources. I believe this explanation was given in the sources you were previously directed to.

          May 7, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot d hartwell
          "it makes no sense at all " To you perhaps, but that is just your poor comprehension. It makes perfect sense. Too bad you can't see it. Metamorphosis is a good way of allowing many parts of the body to grow to the point where certain threats are no longer threats. It is the time to develop that is the key the metamorphosis
          Just because YOU don't understand does NOT mean it doesn't make sense. It just means you need more education.

          May 8, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • igaftr

          scot d hartwell.
          SInce you use the same name all over the internet, and it is attached to your email account, your address etc.YOU are the one who chose to not remain anonymous. I did not do any wizardry, I just looked up your handle, and you popped up all over the place. Childs play. If you choose to use the same name all over the internet, you have chosen to NOT be anonymous.

          May 8, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
    • redzoa

      " It is the most complex and dense information storage device known to man and cannot be attributed to evolution."

      We have clear evidence, most notably in Lenski's E. coli experiments, that evolution can and does produce novel "complex specified" biological information. We have many clear examples of whole genome duplication, particularly in plants. Yes, the information storage in DNA is impressive, but it is by no means beyond the ability of evolution to explain. Again, ID/creationism offers neither a "how" nor a "why" explanation. ID/creationism has no identifiable or testable mechanism, just "god did it," and the claims of "super intelligent design" are confounded by the numerous examples of less than optimal design, e.g. male nip-ples, recurrent laryngeal nerve, retinas that detach, bad knees/backs/necks/wrists, an appendix prone to life threatening infections, our defunct gene for egg yolk protein, etc, etc. On the other side, evolution has validated mechanisms ranging from the molecular level to the ecosystem level. Furthermore, evolution not only explains the well-adapted traits, but also explains these anomalous features as the byproduct of historical constraints within a given lineage (which are readily examined and corroborated via morphological and phylogenetic analyses).

      May 7, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        thank you Red, you described God's curse on mankind perfectly. isn't it wonderful he showed us a measure of mercy in allowing us to live?

        May 8, 2014 at 8:08 am |
        • James XCIX

          awanderingscot – Why is that considered merciful, when the alternative (dying and going to heaven) is supposed to be so superior?

          May 8, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • Cybershaman

          "thank you Red, you described God’s curse on mankind perfectly. isn’t it wonderful he showed us a measure of mercy in allowing us to live?"

          How does what he said describe "God's curse on mankind perfectly"? Your willful ignorance is staggering, sir.

          May 8, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • redzoa

          @Cybershaman – Perhaps your question was rhetorical, but creationists must separate immortal Adam and Eve from "post-fall" mortal Adam and Eve, so they assign every negative anatomical trait, like those traits I mentioned, to the "curse." However, this simple-minded magical explanation just ignores that these features would have also been present in the alleged immortal Adam and Eve. Take for example our defunct gene for egg yolk production. It serves no purpose in placental mammals, but its inclusion as part of the curse also serves no purpose (except, perhaps to trick us into accepting evolution). The phylogenetic evidence indicates this defunct gene is simply baggage left over from our pre-placental ancestry. Similarly with male nip-ples, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, etc; they're just artifacts of our developmental patterning.

          The "curse" is another untestable magical explanation offered by ID/creationists in the absence of any supporting physical evidence. And like the other magical explanations offered, because it can account for any and all possible observations, it effectively explains nothing. Evolution, on the other hand, can be falsified, e.g. observation of a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian or a human fossil alongside dinosaurs; observation of a true chimera; observation of a species arising ex nihilo, etc. The strength of an explanation is in its ability to predict and evolutionary predictions are validated in direct applications within medicine, agriculture and engineering to name a few. ID/creationist explanations serve only a single unvalidated purpose: apologetics.

          May 8, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
  6. Dyslexic doG


    May 1, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
    • Alias

      And thank god that it is.

      May 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
  7. jaareshiah

    There are many factors that are having an impact on people's view of religion, such as seeing science as having more merit than religion, more "truth" than what the churches teach as well as other religious organizations around the earth. Many also see the hypocrisy, massacres and ostentatiousness in religion and turn away, such as the "bishop of bling", Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst spend some $43 million on renovating his home in Limburg, Germany.

    Ironically, a leading cause of atheism is religion. Irish historian Alister McGrath explains: “What propels people toward atheism is above all a sense of revulsion against the excesses and failures of organized religion.” Religion is often seen as a factor behind wars and violence. An atheist and philosopher named Michel Onfray muses on how it is possible that the same religious book could inspire two types of men, one “aspiring to saintliness,” the other “carrying out an act of inhuman cruelty”—terrorism.

    Seeing the gross number of pedophiles in the Catholic church (some 12,000 to date) has caused many to abandon it. Others have had bitter experiences with religion, such as a man named Ciaran who grew up with the violence in Northern Ireland (Protestant and Catholics at each other throats, murdering one another) and was repulsed by the doctrine of hellfire. That was one religious doctrine of the churches that turned off both my father and my wife, seeing only a vicious God who supposedly torments people in a fiery hell forever.

    This harsh doctrine may also have helped prepare the way for the theory of evolution. According to Alister McGrath (who is also a Northern Irish theologian), it was Darwin’s “visceral distaste” for the doctrine of hellfire—not his belief in evolution—that raised doubts in his mind about the existence of God. McGrath also notes Darwin’s “deep grief over the death of his daughter" when she was 10 years old, unwilling to accept the belief that his daughter was perhaps in "hell".

    It is of interest that Jesus gave an illustration concerning Judaism in the 1st century, speaking of "a rich man" who pictured the Jewish religious leaders and of a man named "Lazarus" who pictured the common people that received only spiritual "crumbs" falling from the table of the "rich man."(Luke 16:19-21) What a sham ! Christendom's religious leaders have, in reality, mocked the Bible, by both their life-style and conduct, putting themselves on a "pedestal" like a "god".(2 Thess 2:4)

    April 23, 2014 at 10:13 am |
  8. thatinthebible

    Ever notice how it seems as if every time the subject of religion, God, faith, or any subject even remotely related to them comes up, the conversation always appears to be so "black and white?" It's almost always going to be the so-called Believers vs. the so-called Atheists. Never any middle ground. Very interesting...

    I actually like this topic.

    I really like the idea of taking any random current local, national, or international news event and just seeing what the Bible has to say about that particular subject; if anything.

    I blog at http://isthatinthebible.com

    April 20, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
    • ssq41

      was interested the first time you posted...now I know you're just selling yourself and your blog...pathetic

      April 20, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
  9. Reality

    And your god said, "let there be light" and the Internet was born. And your god then said, OOPS.

    April 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
    • devendequito

      The internet will hasten and will be the medium of change from monotheism and all present religions to Panthrotheism in the next 200 years of religious evolution

      April 17, 2014 at 7:03 am |
  10. TruthPrevails1

    "Contrary to the claims of religious leaders, Godless countries are highly moral nations with an unusual level of social trust, economic equality, low crime and a high level of civic engagement."

    April 14, 2014 at 6:16 am |
    • Cybershaman

      Having grown up within the Christian cult, I can tell you that part of maintaining your belief is propagating myths about how others are worse off not being Christian. It's amazing that they spend an inordinate amount of time validating their religion with mutually reinforced group belief in fake "facts" when the chief virtue of their religion is blind faith.

      April 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
  11. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    Is the Internet killing religion? It's a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways.

    The Internet is a blessing from God and fulfills Scripture in spreading the "Good News" of the Lord Jesus Christ to all the nations and ends of the world.

    Matthew 24:14
    "14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (NASB)

    Romans 10:18
    "18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
    “Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
    And their words to the ends of the world.”" (NASB)

    Following the drift of the theme picture, I would like a "Carriage Return" with "Jesus Christ's Return" & "Yellow Ribbon" on it.

    Early on:

    April 12, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
    • Emiliahhhh

      Vic that's nice to see your first line the triple ♰♰♰ repeated twice. We use triple ♰♰♰ to signify our hot lesbian threesomes and doubling up those is even more fun because we can double chain series or parallel if we get a lot of friends over. It means extra mattresses tho. Do you do that too and are you a Vicky? We like to find new friends.

      April 12, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
    • sam stone

      Jesus Christ is mythology, Vic

      The rest of you post is more blah, blah, fvcking blah drivel

      Par for the course

      April 13, 2014 at 5:24 am |
  12. Ally

    It's 2014 people. Yo. Really, fuck your stupid Jesus stories and get with the times.

    April 12, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
  13. basehitter

    Religion is killing religion.

    April 12, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
  14. new-man


    April 11, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
  15. samsjmail


    If you only speak of religion with the people who brainwashed you into religion, or other people who are similarly brainwashed, it will perpetuate itself. It's happened for thousands of years. Common sense, logic, and science tells us it's all silly, but we believe anyway.

    Then you read different views on religion, and yep, it all sounds stupid, and silly, and the people who most vigorously defend it sound like idiots. You start to wonder, "how in the hell did these beliefs persist this long?" You can an understand ignorant, medieval, goat herders, but reasoning, logical, educated, modern humans?

    I think that if we never confessed to our children that Santa Claus was real, and we continued to insist that he really exists, majorities would still believe in Santa, even if he stopped bringing presents. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of a supernatural, go.

    April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • ellabulldog

      exactly right, brainwashed is so correct for the people that believe, I have to go to a Bat mitzvah soon. I will sit quietly and not partake. The thing is the Rabbi will say the kid is choosing this. Really? What kid can tell their parents they will not go to Temple and it is something they are brainwashed into. All her friends are doing the same. I was confirmed a Catholic. My parents made me go to church. I had no choice. When you do get away from home you can then not go to church and stop pretending. Many that go now do so for $$ reasons or for their mates. So many will find religion if in love. It is also won't help your career or social life to not belong to a church. It is a networking event for many. Most politicians claim they believe while in truth they don't because it gets them votes. Most newscasters claim belief so people watch their show.

      April 13, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
  16. ihavetopushthepramalot

    Eyeball licking? Damn, whatever happened to teens making out and (if you got lucky) finger-banging?

    April 11, 2014 at 10:47 am |
    • The Answer Is 42

      I have read that eyeball licking was a hoax.

      April 11, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
  17. lookatuniverse

    Quran says (Islamic Scripture)

    “Does the human being not see that we created him from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent enemy?” [36:77]

    “He raises a question to us – while forgetting his initial creation – "Who can resurrect the bones after they had rotted?" [36:78]

    “Say, "The One who initiated them in the first place will resurrect them. He is fully aware of every creation." [36:79]

    “Is not the One who created the heavens and the earth able to recreate the same? Yes indeed; He is the Creator, the Omniscient.” [36:81]

    “All He needs to do to carry out any command is to say to it, "Be," and it is.” [36:82]

    “O people, here is a parable that you must ponder carefully: the idols you set up beside God can never create a fly, even if they banded together to do so. Furthermore, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; weak is the pursuer and the pursued.” [22:73]

    “They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.”[22:74]

    “If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.” [Quran 6:116]

    “The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]

    “It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [19:35]

    Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.

    April 11, 2014 at 9:43 am |
    • Span.k Your Imam

      lookie, do not be spamming us thusly with your website and the Coo-ran-ran so verbosely and pastedly. Here it is now said. Hearken:

      For such overt and voluminous spamming, you must nakedly assume the to-be-spanked position, and so receive. Lean forward now, with hands grasped tightly on ankles.

      Do not be embarrassed as such with red post-spank posteriority. We have experienced vestal goats close quartered in Tehran if you need to be resanctified.

      Of this year, shall no imams be spanked without above goats. No more. The Coo-ran-ran. The Coo-ran-ran.

      Here it is written and must be so.
      Here it is written and must be so.
      Here it is written and must be so.
      Said thricely. Hear well. You have been spanken.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:20 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014


      Does the quran say love one another? Thou shall not kill? Turn the other cheek? Sacrifice for the sake of others? If so, we may have the same god who sent jesus.

      April 11, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • Bob

        Yeah, sacrifice -sacrifice that goat. The lurid instructions in your babble demand it. And Jeebus said in the babble that all the OT laws still are in effect, so don't try that dodge. Your handle sure doesn't fit your book or his, gotta say, though.

        Funny though that loo needs to get span-ked near a goat and you need to kill one. You seem to have some goat activity in common anyway, but I'd stay far away from his imam if I were you, Cate.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Islam and Christianity are both Abrahamic. It is the same God.

        April 11, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014


          I am more interested in its teachings.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
      • iamyourgod2014

        Yes Peaceadovacte2014. Me and jesus and muhammed hang out all the time. But I can change my mind at the last minute and not let you in the pearly gates. afteral I created the world you didnt. na na na nah.....hey, have you ever watched jesus walk on water? it's quite amusing. he does it a lot in heaven. what the??? sorry, I just saw noah walk by me, he's 986 years old, you know the same age he was when he was alive, man he hasnt aged a day!! K toodles, gotta go wreak havoc in africa again

        April 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • samsjmail

      Yes, yours is the true religion, except for all the other religions that existed before yours. Funny how ancient people knew about the concept of a god or gods, but they just had the wrong one, isn't it? They believed in "false" gods before they found out about the "real" god. They sacrificed animals to the "false' gods before they sacrificed animals to the "real" god.

      The more you really think about it, the dumber it sounds. Mumbo jumbo, firmament....and some firmament.....and water above the firmament (where rain comes from, of course). Magic Beans, and giants and geese that lay golden eggs. Why the hell not?

      April 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014


        What teachings do you follow? Just winging it?

        April 11, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • sam stone

          if you do not determine your own morality, you are not making a moral choice anymore than a dog is making a moral choice by not jumping up on the couch because he has had his nose smacked for doing so

          April 12, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • iamyourgod2014

      Hi it's Allah (a.k.a "god" in arabic, hardy har har) I am really looking forward to judgment day. hehe. 72 virgins heeeeeey!! for shay!! dont be cray cray. Oh can you tell all da non believers this message....
      2:48 And guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped.

      April 12, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • iamyourgod2014

      Hi! It's me allah again. me and muhammed are just sitting here, (well i am floating, muhammed has a 9-year-old on his lap)......anyway here you go!! please do like i asked......
      2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors
      2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers
      2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
      2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers
      Omg can you imagine if the whole world was muslim!!! woot woot, 72 vergionios for everyone! Afghanistan! Afghanistan! Afhghanistan!

      April 12, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
  18. vpolgolosa


    April 11, 2014 at 9:17 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest, who have no hope" 1 Thessalonians 4:13. The ones who have "no hope" are the unregenerate unbelievers. Those who are born again know they only fall asleep prior to waking to eternity.

      May 5, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      • colin31714

        awanderingscot. Have you found that evidence to support Genesis yet? I have been asking for it for a week now and you keep running away. Once again, not holes in other theories – I get that you don't accept evolution – I mean EVIDENCE OF YOUR THEORY. Come on now.....

        May 5, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • awanderingscot

          no answer to metamorphosis yet? i thought so. your lengthy cut and paste was not particularly impressive either. heat and pressure are responsible for fossils and fossil fuel and not your supposed eons of time which you still cannot prove. i need facts sir not your mumbo jumbo.

          May 5, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • colin31714

          You clown. I have given reams of evidence to support my position. I provided evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, and historical linguistics. You have given.....zero, because you have none. A lot of people follow these discussions, so please prove me wrong. Please table your evidence to support Genesis – FOR THE SIXTH TIME.

          May 5, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • awanderingscot

          While most fossils don't come with labels that allow you to work out their age, a recent "fossil" find off the coast of Victoria, Australia, does. It is a ship's bell, firmly encased in solid rock. In former times, ships' bells carried the name of the ship on which they served. Found in about three feet of water, this "fossil" identifies itself as being from the sailing ship Isabella Watson, which sank off that coast in 1852. That means that this "fossil", and the rock in which it is encased, is less than 150 years old!

          May 5, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • Cybershaman

          Do you really believe that they found a ship's bell encased in rock? I found a few mentions of it or something like it online. But they are those stupid blogs that post crap like ancient cities or "alien bases" found underwater that often link to each other as "sources". Could you please state your source for this "amazing" "fossilized" ship bell? And please...it better not be "Billy Bob's Fantastic Blog of Amazing Facts the Government Doesn't Want You To Know". Actually, if it is, please DO post it! It would be nice to show any impressionable individuals who find your statement online that you are indeed insane...

          May 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          So what? A ship's bell is not a fossil that informs the age of the Earth. FOR THE SEVENTH TIME your evidence to support Genesis please.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • awanderingscot

          i have an answer to how metamorphosis came about, it is those who have no answer that respond by calling names. again sir, how do you reconcile metamorphosis and evolution? you cannot.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • igaftr

          Scot Hartwell
          You have a lot of nerve calling someone else out for name calling when that is all you have done on this site and several others.
          Grow up.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • awanderingscot

          you'll need to consult the nose-haired government-grant sycophants to get them to contrive an answer to metamorphosis.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • colin31714

          Yep, no evidence whatsoever. I thought so. Everybody reading this thread, please note. He was given seven chances to lay out his evidence supporting Genesis and he couldn't. I laid out my evidence and he refused to lay out his.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • awanderingscot

          There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are "millions of years old". hmm .. what comic-book character name can we give them?

          May 5, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • igaftr

          Scot Hartwell
          You mention the bivalves, but do you understand what it means?
          Anti-science sites like answers in genesis ( most ironic webname ever) claims to have concluded ti throws a monkey wrench in the fact of evolution, but it does not. They calim evolutionary bias when they are bible biased...even going so far as to say if it disagrees with the bible it must be wrong, talk about bias...

          What do you have from SCIENCE, not anti science creationist sites? You will find, if you can comprehend it, that you are chasing a red herring.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • awanderingscot

          What about the "highly accurate radiocarbon dating" of the fossil wood from Sydney? (they put the age at 33,720 ± 430 years but this conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary “age” of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone formations in Australia. Again and again, no answers, just obfuscate and make excuses... it was buried in a worldwide flood some 4500 years ago. There is your "Genesis answer" friend.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • colin31714

          That's your evidence!! Lol. How many times do I have to tell you, radiocarbon dating IS NOT USED to measure the age of the Earth. Did you get it this time. Let me repeat. Radiocarbon dating is not used for measurements of the age of the Earth. Oh please, keep giving me more "evidence." This is precious. I am saving this discussion to show others.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • igaftr

          scot hartwell
          There has never been a world wide flood event on this planet since life began. It did not happen.That has been proven by many branches of science. The only ones who think it did are the anti-science creationist sites, but since they are all delusional beyond belief, and will not listen to reason, there is no reason to ever look on those sites except for the laugh.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Even presuming that you have found a discrepancy, how does it prove Genesis which is essentially the best guess of Bronze Age nomads embellished to make a "complete explanation"? Why do you accept those imaginings over modern knowledge. You clearly accept modern knowledge when it comes to computers and internet and presumably a lot more – they are produced with the same scientific method which you reject when it disagrees with Bronze Age nomads.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "He was given seven chances to lay out his evidence supporting Genesis" LOL .. next blog it will be 14! Metamorphosis? you're dodging and obfuscating friend.

          May 5, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • awanderingscot

          you want to take a stab at metamorphosis Santa Clause? how do you reconcile it with evolution? Colin can't seem to get his nose-hair buddies on the line for an "answer". go for it friend!

          May 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • colin31714

          what is your question about metamorphosis?

          May 5, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • redzoa

          Regarding Metamorphosis, I provided this link in a previous response:


          See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10519548

          Evolution explains the process as a function of various selective pressures ranging from predation escape, resource allocation between adults and juveniles, synchronization of mating opportunities, etc. ID/creationism offers neither a "how" nor a "why" explanation. ID/creationism has no identifiable mechanism, just "god did it," and as for "why," ID/creationism offers no rationale for the complex transformation when the final form could have just been "specially-created" to begin with.

          May 5, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          explain how it could occur with your THEORY of evolution. there would be an extinction of the species prior to it "evolving". you cannot reconcile this phenomena with your THEORY.

          May 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • redzoa

          By the timestamp of your reply, it's clear you didn't bother to attempt reading the links . . .

          May 5, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Why are you capitalizing "THEORY" ?
          A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
          In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
          (as a side note, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of 5 laws)

          May 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • igaftr

          Scot Hartwell
          " there would be an extinction of the species prior to it "evolving"."

          False. Just because some of a species evolves, does not mean ALL must evolve. That is you CLEARLY not understanding how evolution works. Back to class with you. You do not need to have an extinction for evoltuion,. I don't know where you made up that nonsense .

          May 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          that's ridiculous and a non-answer. the species would have become extinct since we are not speaking of adaptation but rather evolution. it also defies the laws of probability that it could adapt before becoming extinct. it's virtually impossible according to the laws of probability. you'll have to first prove that the monkeys can produce ANY volume of Shakespeare first .

          May 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • colin31714

          At this point, I am prepared to write awanderingscott off as a pig-ignorant windbag who doesn't know the first thing about evolution. Anybody else who still has the patience to deal with the idiot, good luck.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • redzoa

          With this last response, awanderingscot betrays his/her ignorance of evolution and again, betrays they failed to even attempt to read or understand the links I provided. Metamorphosis is a regulation of the timing of development from juvenile to adult. The ancestral forms already moved through the development; the evidence indicates that metamorphosis arose as a delay and then a concentration of the development, all regulated by hormones (in turn, regulated by genetic expression and hormone receptor affinity/antagonists).

          Again, in plain english, the ability to produce adult features was already present. The principal change was the timing of when these features would manifest.

          May 5, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          Scot Hartwell
          There does not need to be an extinction of a species for some of that species to evolve into a new species. That is simply unfounded ignorance.
          Also, I do not know what calculation you are using to calculate the probablity, since we do not yet know all factors, you probabilty calculations are inaccurate, and low probability does not mean impossible.
          Seriously, take some biology classes. You do not understand what you are talking about.

          May 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • Doris

          redzoa: "Metamorphosis is a regulation of the timing of development from juvenile to adult. The ancestral forms already moved through the development; the evidence indicates that metamorphosis arose as a delay and then a concentration of the development, all regulated by hormones (in turn, regulated by genetic expression and hormone receptor affinity/antagonists)."

          Would it be correct to assume that this "regulation of timing" would be similar to how certain insects are able to switch the se.x/function (wing/wingless/worker/defender) of their offspring within very short periods of time before birth, sometimes based on current conditions outside of the host?

          May 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • Doris

          awanderingscot: "how do you reconcile metamorphosis and evolution? you cannot."

          Oh now I see why these are being discussed together. My goodness. You may as well have asked how do you reconcile apples with beach balls.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • colin31714

          It's a beauty isn't it? Thinking metamorphosis and evolution are at odds. This was the point at which I wrote the blithering idiot off as not worth debating with. Might as well discuss trickle down economic theory with a corgi.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          and so what do i get but a very short dissertation on what metamorphosis is... wow you are so good at obfuscating. i know what it is sir, how does it reconcile with evolution? there is virtually no primer for it evolution. as a matter of fact, that nose-hair you worship darwin believed it to be evidence of evolution, it's not.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          not even close Doris, try to focus and stay on topic.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • colin31714

          Oh, please, Scott, tell us again how metamorphosis disproves evolution. My fourteen year old son wants to take it to school with him. ROFLMAO. He wants to show his class what happens to people who don't listen in class when they grow up – .i.e they say really stupid things like "there is no primer in evolution for metamorphosis." Or "if species A evolved from species B, why is species B still alive?" You stupid clown.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • otoh2


          I know of no scientist (or anyone else) who "worships" Charles Darwin. You seem to have a "worship" fetish which you pass off as being a universal feeling. If Darwin had valid premises, they have simply been used as a **part** of the investigations regarding evolution.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Doris

          Maybe I missed this, but why in the world does wandering think metamorphosis poses a problem with evolution?

          May 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • igaftr

          The reason scot hartwell doesn't get it, is because he is extremely ignorant of science. He wants to "reconcile" metamorphosis, which is normally used to describe the change of an animal from child to adult, like with butterfiles, and for some reason, thinks that it has something to do with evolution.
          Some people simply cannot handle reality.

          May 5, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Alias

          I checked with a corgi, and awanderingscot is just too convinced in what he wants to believe to be reasoned with.

          May 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • colin31714

          I hate to say it (well, actually I don't) but he really is super-stupid. Metamorphosis and evolution incompatible. Wow, just wow! I guess when he first "challenged" me with it, I read over it because I couldn't see the link, but, well what can I say.....the guy should be in fifth grade learning about how tadpoles change into frogs.

          May 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule


          If you're seriously interested in exploring current hyoptheses and theories about the topic, I suggest you get yourself a copy of Xavier Belles' 2011 paper "Origin and Evolution of Insect Metamorphosis".

          However, I have a feeling that you're backhandedly trying to present an argument of "irreducible complexity" to support Creationism.

          May 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          well finally a reasonable catchphrase surfaced from the primordial ooze. irreducible complexity, something that cannot and will not be reconciled with evolution... bravo bravo for that fine cut and paste.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Bravo for the fine cut and paste? What now?
          Professor Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity is pure bunk, as demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
          Presented with reams of docu/mentation explaining how each of his examples of ID were not actually irreducibly complex, Behe retreated into repeating "not good enough".
          I cited a proper scientific paper for you to examine, should you be inclined to study facts.
          But you seem to be more in line with The Center for Science and Culture (sponsored by the Discovery Inst.itute).
          This group openly admit that their goal isn't to teach what they think is fact.
          An internal doc.ument leaked in 1999 described the Discovery group's objective in pushing for creationism to be taught in schools as "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies".
          They want to use Intelligent Design as a wedge to separate science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".
          In other words, they fear that teaching FACTS to children will drive them away from religion.
          There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from different branches of science accu.mulated over more than a hundred and fifty years that verify Darwin’s 5 laws.
          Not one has been falsified.
          Creationists have yet to advance a single shred of evidence to support their assertions.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And are you going to respond to the ice core evidence for an old earth, or just pretend like it doesn't exist?

          May 5, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • igaftr

          Scot Hartwell

          "irreducible complexity" Otherwise known as a baseless attempt by creationists to discredit valid science with a hypothesis that has no basis.
          Not even a nice try.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot hartwell
          ""irreducible complexity"
          "The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" per just the wiki page. There is a LOT more showing that the hypothesis is wrong.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • colin31714

          Irreducible complexity = "It's too hard for me to understand, so [the Judeo-Christian] god did it."

          May 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          openly admitting that the goal should NOT BE to teach what we THINK is fact, but rather let fact speak for itself. I agree with their premise. at least they are not hypocrites like your evolutionists, so-called scientists. Hypotheses, half-truths, and outright lies don't qualify as real science.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • colin31714

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

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

          Number made in support of creation science: ZERO

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

          There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:

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

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

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

          I know which alternative my money is on. -:)

          May 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          adiabatic and katabatic effects of polar winds produce the variances in thickness and composition of ice layers at the poles. even grade schoolers know this.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          so you can copy and paste too, it doesn't mean YOU know anything except how to be a parrot.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot hartwell
          "adiabatic and katabatic effects "

          Now you are just throwing around technical terms.
          That doesn't change the FACT that we have 800,000 years worth of ice, along with all of the atmospheric information they contain. We know when volcanoes have erupted, which ones, and to what extent eve. The ice core samples record everything that happens in the atmosphere.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          There is data from ice cores going back nearly a half million years.

          May 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          alias name me one civilization older than 4500yrs including early chinese dynasties.

          May 5, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Clovis culture in what is now New Mexico goes back to around 11,000 BCE.
          Kumari Kandam civilisation was extant in 50,000 BCE.

          May 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Doris – "Would it be correct to assume that this "regulation of timing" would be similar to how certain insects are able to switch the se.x/function (wing/wingless/worker/defender) of their offspring within very short periods of time before birth, sometimes based on current conditions outside of the host?"

          I certainly don't claim to be an expert in insect development, but my guess is that yes, the underlying molecular and hormonal regulation would operate in similar fashion, likely overlapping with many of the same signaling molecules/hormones relevant to the more general metamorphosis. Perhaps more than you'd care to follow up with, but the following paper appears to provide a nice investigation/discussion. It's rather specific to one particular species, but the underlying mechanisms are broadly represented within the types of changes you mentioned:

          May 8, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • redzoa

          "and so what do i get but a very short dissertation on what metamorphosis is... wow you are so good at obfuscating. i know what it is sir, how does it reconcile with evolution? there is virtually no primer for it evolution. as a matter of fact, that nose-hair you worship darwin believed it to be evidence of evolution, it's not."

          As the sources indicated, it reconciles with evolution because it provides relief from direct compet-ition between adults and juveniles by segregating the respective forms into distinct niches. By staggering the life cycle within discrete morphological steps, it allows for more total individuals to occupy a given habitat. I'm not clear what you mean by "primer" but the underlying mechanisms of hormone regulation via gene regulation via environmental and circadian cues communicating via intracellular signaling pathways is ubiquitous throughout the biosphere. In fact, such mechanisms are some of the best evidence for evolution given they are so widely conserved, but have been co-opted to perform different functions in different lineages. I believe Toll and Toll-Like Receptors (along with their respective signaling pathways) provide one such example.

          May 8, 2014 at 12:26 am |
        • awanderingscot

          'since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.' – Romans 1:19-20 – it's all around you, you have no excuse.

          May 15, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "We know when volcanoes have erupted, which ones, and to what extent even." LOL .. misplaced trust

          May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • igaftr

        Scot Hatwell
        People who think that anyone sleeps in death are the ones who are uninformed.

        May 5, 2014 at 10:46 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        If there was a global flood 4500 years ago and the Earth is less than 10,000 years, how do you explain ice core samples?
        In the Arctic and the Antarctic, it is dark half the year and light the other half. This climate creates distinct layers of ice where the seasonal patterns are easily discernible, even to the naked eye.
        Trapped in these ice cores are bubbles of atmospheric gas.
        Weather/climate is determined by spectrographic an/alysis of these gas bubbles.
        If there had been a WWF, there wouldn't be differences in these gas bubbles.
        There is other evidence that comes in the form of trapped dust. For example, volcanic activity causes specific particles to be deposited in the snowfall – these dust particles give further evidence of the age of these samples.
        n 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.

        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

        Speaking of tree rings, let us consider dendrochronolgy.
        Perhaps the simplest, most direct means of determining the age of a tree is to count it's annual rings.
        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.

        May 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Alias

          Why not mention the civilizations around the world that are over 4500 years old?
          That kind of throws off the timing of the flood too.

          May 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
  19. stupidbarbi

    To tell the truth I`m one from the category the "nones". Nothing for surprise. Media and internet give me a great amount of info to feet my brain. So I have many questions to this comlex world, but unfortunatelly religion of my parents can`t give me the answers. So the main issue is – to think, to analyze and explain the world for youself or to believe unconditionally.

    April 11, 2014 at 8:49 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Think for ourselves. What God wishes. Determine what is moral.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • samsjmail

        We're all in this together. Don't do anything to harm other people. Don't need a god for that. Common sense. Empathy.

        That covers "thou shalt not kill", and "thou shalt not steal"

        Most of God's other laws are b.s. don't covet your neighbor's slave. Don't worship one of those old "false gods"

        April 11, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • samsjmail

          In fact, most of "god's" other laws are not even illegal.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Emphathy was derived from the teachings of God proven by our past. God has to send Jesus to validate Gods teachings by Jesus ' examples.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • sam stone

          empathy is derived because we are social animals

          no god required

          April 12, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
      • sam stone

        if god want us to determine what is moral, why the "thou shall not" nonsense

        April 12, 2014 at 8:55 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Thou shall not are the sins or grave sins God does not want us to do. A mandatory law.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • sam stone

          so, do you determine your own morality, or do you acquiese to the world of iron age sheep herders?

          April 12, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
  20. basehitter

    Ready access to information is killing religion. Not too long ago, clergy controlled how people viewed the world. With the internet, those days are gone forever. The more a person sees and understands how the world works, the more ridiculous religion appears to be.

    April 11, 2014 at 7:48 am |
    • Dyslexic doG


      April 11, 2014 at 9:10 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      I agree with more information. Does not mean all information are true. There is a lot more accessibility to commit sin. And as dx post below. Amen

      April 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • snuffleupagus

        Sin, a man made concept to use to control others through fear of other-worldly punishement from some deity. You trot out the same tired statement. Also,morals do not come from your god. Your god is a figment of your imagination. If you tell me that you communicate with this god, I'd ask why his comunication is different to others? They hear voices too.Why doesn't everyone beive the same thing?

        April 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          It may be a man. Made concept but contributed to our moral development. Our evolution. We have achieved so much.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • sealchan

          God could be thought of as an imaginary person associated with the Universe as a whole. His objectivity comes from the community of shared faith. His subjectivity comes from the subject. To each, if he/she speaks, God speaks differently yet is also the same God.

          Remember, when you use your imagination, you are using the human brain and culture. The human brain is a partly social organ. If speaking to a mutually agreed upon invisible person works to resolve certain issues of the spirit or personality, use it.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
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.