home
RSS
What's wrong with 'Black Jesus'?
A Christian group's anger over the trailer for an upcoming TV show, "Black Jesus," seems out of place, says Jay Parini.
July 30th, 2014
09:26 AM ET

What's wrong with 'Black Jesus'?

Opinion by Jay Parini, special to CNN

(CNN) - I've just been watching the trailer for "Black Jesus," a show that will premiere on August 7 on the Cartoon Network during its child-unfriendly late-night spot, which they call Adult Swim.

Already at least one Christian group has begun to lobby the network to cancel the show, regarding its contents as blasphemous. (Cartoon Network is owned by Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN.)

From what I can tell, the series is a bit of a spoof, with some foul language. The general notion seems clever: A guy who thinks he is Jesus, who might even be Jesus, lives in a poor neighborhood of Compton, California. He's got a ragged band of followers - they look like winos and potheads - who follow him around with lots of bantering.

The scenes shown in the trailer seem relatively funny, and it appears that nobody is quite sure whether this is a madman who thinks he is Jesus or maybe the Lord himself come back in a strange outfit and, indeed, black skin.

Is this offensive? The jury will have to be out until we see whole episodes, but in concept—particularly if the rest of the show is like the trailer—it does not seem so.

Let me explain.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Black issues • Christianity • Media • Opinion • Prejudice • Race • TV

soundoff (1,017 Responses)
  1. awanderingscot

    Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal. – Charles Darwin

    – another really brainy quote from the (former) cult leader.

    July 31, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • igaftr

      scot

      In your own words, tell me what you think Darwin meant by that statement.

      July 31, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        He was basically saying that humans are animals, but he's wrong as there are many aspects of man that animals simply do not possess.

        July 31, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • SeaVik

          True. There are also many things that animals can do that humans can't. And there are many things we have in common. What is your point?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          Such as?

          There are many things animals possess that humans do not.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • bostontola

          Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things.

          Animals are eukaryotic and multicellular, which separates them from bacteria and most protists. Check

          They are heterotrophic, generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. Check

          They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls. Check

          All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. Check

          In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals. Check

          The classification of animals is inclusive not exclusive. Each animal has some characteristic no other animal has, that's what makes each type unique.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • ausphor

          scot
          Something that you do not possess, perhaps you should join Scarecrow on his journey to Oz, you are missing something that other animals do have, guess.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Animals also are not capable of wisdom, it is unique to humans.

          – learned behavior is not wisdom.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Animals also are not capable of wisdom, it is unique to humans."

          OK...let's just say you are right ( which you are not, depends on what you define wisdom as...it is moot though so lets just say you are right.

          How does wisdom disqualify humans from being animals?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot

          You realize that our wisdom DEFINES us as animals?

          H0m0 Sapiens...literally WISE ape.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        OK, how come when I say something like that, LET usually jumps in and says something like you're not allowed to put a passage into context or explain it???

        July 31, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Because you typically post quotes from a work of fiction. It doesn't "mean" anything.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Because you typically post quotes from a work of fiction. It doesn't "mean" anything.
          -------------
          Wrong. It doesn't mean anything to YOU. And your opinion on a matter does not automatically make it devoid of meaning.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • igaftr

          In scots case, I was trying to make sure he understood what he was saying. Now he is going to try to tell people that Humans are not animals, which is completely false.

          He will try to say that humans possess some quality that makes us not animals, but will not actually be able to show this quality to be unique to humans so sill fail.
          He is either a troll, or exceptionally ignorant...either way, he will simply once again, show his utter inability to grasp logic.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Wrong. It doesn't mean anything to YOU. And your opinion on a matter does not automatically make it devoid of meaning."

          Ok, I guess you're correct. Works of fiction can still have meaning. But this isn't a book club. I'm not really interested in discussing different interpretations of works of fiction. I'm just pointing out why those who don't believe in the bible don't have any interest in trying to find the "meaning" behind your scripture quotes. It's like asking people why they think the eggs were green in Green Eggs and Ham.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          In scots case, I was trying to make sure he understood what he was saying. Now he is going to try to tell people that Humans are not animals, which is completely false.
          -----------------–
          In the sense that we're not plants, I agree. Even though some of the food I've cooked has tasted like dirt... (to this day I still can't eat squirrel)

          He will try to say that humans possess some quality that makes us not animals, but will not actually be able to show this quality to be unique to humans so sill fail.
          -------------------
          I would posit that our ability to deny ourselves and honor a deity separates us from everything else classified as animals.

          He is either a troll, or exceptionally ignorant...either way, he will simply once again, show his utter inability to grasp logic.
          ----------------–
          No, I don't feel that he's a troll or ignorant. Some concepts are just more difficult than others to put into words in this format designed for "sound byte" responses.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          It's like asking people why they think the eggs were green in Green Eggs and Ham.
          --------------–
          Fair enough. But it does beg the question why you would come onto a belief blog when you actually claim to have no particular belief, and then debate with such passion a subject that would have no meaning in your own life unless you wished it to be so.

          If your purpose is merely a desire to bring shame onto a group of people with whom you disagree with, then that speaks volumes of your own character when those whom you disagree with say what they do not out of a desire to create dissention, but out of a love for their fellow man – including those who disagree with them.

          There is always room for intellectual discussion, but insults and dissention have no place in adult conversation.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Sorry Theo... I work on 3 different systems while I'm at work... Don't ever say I never did anything for you. LOL

          LET's Religiosity Law #6 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Fair enough. But it does beg the question why you would come onto a belief blog when you actually claim to have no particular belief, and then debate with such passion a subject that would have no meaning in your own life unless you wished it to be so."

          I had this conversation with Dala last week. I am here because I consider religion to be one of the biggest problems in the world. Not only is it directly responsible for endless attrocities, discrimination, etc, it also breeds a mentality that allows people to make up their own reality. It considers "faith" (believing things without or despite evidence) to be a virtue. It results in people who deny things like climate change or evolution despite the fact that they are completely unqualified to critique the conclusions of the worlds experts. Religion is at the core of much of what is wrong with our world. It most certainly has a direct impact on me even though I'm an atheist.

          Here is a recent study which shows precisely what I already knew:

          http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

          July 31, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          SeaVic,
          I agree with you, religion can cause all those sorts of things that you mention because men are fallible, and prone to selfishness and misinterpretations based on preconceived notions, and desires to elevate themselves for selfish reasons. When looking at what the Bible actually says in regards to its directions to the Church Age under the New Covenant, should men truly pursue righteousness and holiness with all their hearts as the Bible directs, it actually elliminates those things you spoke of. But as long as men are depraved in this life, they will do things imperfectly and always tainted by sin.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • SeaVik

          True, no one is perfect. But that doesn't change the fact that religion makes the world a much less perfect place. Without religion, it would be hard to convince people to do the horrific things we see happening every day. But if people can't differentiate between fantasy and reality, and this study shows that religious people can't, they can be easily convinced to believe anything is ok. That's fundamentally why atheists tend to be more moral – we aren't able to twist the reality of our actions to justify them.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          That's fundamentally why atheists tend to be more moral – we aren't able to twist the reality of our actions to justify them.
          -----------------–
          I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a truly moral atheist. This forum is exibit A of that. All that I have ever done on here is to speak what the Bible says – nothing more, nothing less. And for that, I have been on the receiving end of such vileness that it would have been worhty of the stocks 200 years ago. And I could post video after video of street preachers who are doing nothing more than what I'm doing here getting beaten and physically abused by those who violently disagree with them. And let's not forget, I, myself have had a machette pulled out on me at one time.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " All that I have ever done on here is to speak what the Bible says – nothing more, nothing less. "
          Funniest post in weeks ! You just can't make this stuff up, folks.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Funniest post in weeks ! You just can't make this stuff up, folks.
          ---------------
          If I have ever spoken for myself here rather than what the Bible says on a matter, or some explanation of it, I have always preceeded it with a note to say so. Can you quote where I have not?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Theo, what you do here is give your interpretation of text to justify your own bigotry. The only difference between you and a hundred other condescending bigots just like you is that you (to my knowledge) do not have a radio show. I suppose it is the little things we should be grateful for.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "He is either a troll, or exceptionally ignorant...either way, he will simply once again, show his utter inability to grasp logic."

          – well i guess you can't ever say you've never labeled someone or called them names despite your arrogant self-centered claims.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a truly moral atheist. This forum is exibit A of that. All that I have ever done on here is to speak what the Bible says – nothing more, nothing less. And for that, I have been on the receiving end of such vileness that it would have been worhty of the stocks 200 years ago."

          I can't defend what every atheist posts here, but I will say that some of the things you've posted have been the most immoral of all. Certainly your comments on the Holocaust and slavery were much more vile than anything I've seen anyone else say. The fact that you think the bible supports your view doesn't make it any less immoral.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        humans are self-aware in a way animals are not.

        July 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • SeaVik

          How could you possibly know that? My dog is more self-aware than you or Theo, who don't even realize you're delusional.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          How could you possibly know that? My dog is more self-aware than you or Theo, who don't even realize you're delusional.
          -----------–
          Showing how atheists can be "moral" without God by insulting others?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • igaftr

          Did you pull a groin muscle making that HUGE illogical leap scot?

          Re-read what you wrote there scot, and tell me how you would possibly know that?

          Many aminals have shown self-awareness, awareness of death, full range of emotions...I have yet to see any characteristic in humans that is different than some other life form somewhere on the planet.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Showing how atheists can be "moral" without God by insulting others?"

          Theo, my intent truly is not to insult you. I apologize if you find it offensive, but delusional is the most accurate word to describe your condition. If you find that offensive, perhaps you should seriously consider doing something about it.

          And I find awanderingscot's claims offensive. He implies that animals are not self-aware, that he is better than animals, etc. Yet, he rejects science so how could he possibly claim to know anything about animals' self-awareness?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "awareness of death"

          – animals have a survival instinct, (not the same as an awareness of death)
          – animals do not have the broad range of emotions that humans do. (in spite of your silly insistence that they do)

          July 31, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "animals do not have the broad range of emotions that humans do."

          What makes you think that? Have you ever had a dog? Mine has a broader range of emotions than I do.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Alias

          scot
          You should read about the primates that have learned sign language.
          We are not as different as you want to think.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "And I find awanderingscot's claims offensive. He implies that animals are not self-aware, that he is better than animals, etc. Yet, he rejects science so how could he possibly claim to know anything about animals' self-awareness?"

          – go back and read the post, i didn't say 'better'. it you wish to distort what i said, then go ahead and be offended.
          – i find it amusing that you are unable to discern that humans are distinct from animals and that you think others are delusional.
          – don't reject science at all, what i do reject is conjecture and half-truths.
          – evolution and atheism fall into the realm of extreme delusion.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Theo, my intent truly is not to insult you. I apologize if you find it offensive, but delusional is the most accurate word to describe your condition. If you find that offensive, perhaps you should seriously consider doing something about it.
          -----------------
          I'm not offended, but when you compare me with your dog, and say that your dog is more self-aware than I am, it comes across as offensive, whether you intended it or not.

          And you may claim that what I believe is delusional, and you are certainly enti.tled to your opinions, but remember, as much as you think that what I believe is delusional, I feel that abiogenesis is delusional.

          Quote from Randy Alcorn – Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation (out of nothing, something comes) but this is a concept that is ridiculed by biology. This idea is along the same lines as the idea that used to be prevalent among the science community that once thought that garbage produced rats, and raw meat produced maggots – this now disproven concept was called spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from other life, that is the law of biogenesis. Evolution teaches that the first living cell came from a freak combination of non-living material, furthermore, no one knows where that non-living material came from. This chemical evolution producing life is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation,” that life comes from non-life. Evolution is therefore based on a fallacy, being long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low, yet they believe that given enough time, the apparent impossible becomes possible. For instance, if I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. If I flip that coin long enough, it is possible, though not likely that I would get 5 in a row to turn up heads. If I flipped it for years nonstop I might get 50 or even 100 in a row, but this is only because flipping heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin and then seeing it sprout arms and legs and go sit in the corner and read a magazine? No chance… Even given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time may make the possible likely, but will never make the impossible possible. In short, non-life will never become alive.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "What makes you think that? Have you ever had a dog? Mine has a broader range of emotions than I do."

          – how do you know your dog has a broader range of emotions than a human does?

          July 31, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "– animals have a survival instinct, (not the same as an awareness of death)"

          No , they are not the same, I MEANT awareness of death, awareness of mortaility.

          Elephants visibly mourn when they encouter the bones of other elephants, especially family members. They even physically cry at the sight.

          I saw one study of wolves...there were a small group of wolves that were hunting, but suddenly took off from their young tough prey...all of them, ran for a few miles, until they got close to a bison guarding a very old bison. The wolves stopped...and milled about. During the night, the old bison died, without attack from the wolves. The wolves knew the old bison was going to die, abandoned their hunt when they smelled the old bison, went to the location and then waited for the bison to die naturally.
          Can you honestly say you can read the minds of the wolves and know they were on pure instinct?
          Or tell what the elphants were thinking?

          There are many, many more instances of animals exhibiting knowledge of death and their own mortality.

          What part of understanding one's mortality, disqualifies a life form from being an animal?
          Where is the relationship, the correlation?

          July 31, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "how do you know your dog has a broader range of emotions than a human does?"

          I live with the dog and she wears her emotions on her sleeve...or collar.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Theo, my response to your post is being moderated for some reason. But the gist of it was – there is a big difference between our views. The extreme majority of the worlds' experts not only believe in evolution, they consider your view to be factually disproven. (In other words, even if evolution weren't true, we definitely know your view is false.) You still believe despite everything we know. If that's not delusion, I don't know what is.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          The extreme majority of the worlds' experts not only believe in evolution, they consider your view to be factually disproven.
          -------------------
          Since when are facts determined by a majority vote? And when scientists call something in the Bible to be factually disproven, they have only done so by drawing conclusions from observations filtered through their own worldviews, and then extrapolated to other areas to make their point.

          For instance, one common method of dating fossils is by observing the sediment layer in which they are found, but when fossils of a "known" age are found in the "wrong" layer, instead of saying that the fossils must be older or younger, they say something like they were placed there, or some other reason. (Glen Rose dino/human tracks, malachite man, Ocucaja Desert human fossils in cretaceous layer, Kayenta Arizona dino/human tracks, etc...)

          (In other words, even if evolution weren't true, we definitely know your view is false.)
          -----------------–
          No, not proven. As I said, truth is not determined by consensus, and as long as there are scientists on both sides of the argument, it isn't settled, regardless of who the majority/minority are.

          You still believe despite everything we know. If that's not delusion, I don't know what is.
          ----------------
          Ummmm, abiogenesis is more delusional.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "As I said, truth is not determined by consensus, and as long as there are scientists on both sides of the argument, it isn't settled, regardless of who the majority/minority are."

          I am not aware of any legitimate scientists who believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Regardless, you have it backwards. You are correct that truth is not determined by consensus. Rather, consensus is driven by truth. The reason that the smartest, most qualified scientists in the world believe in evolution is because it is true.

          "Ummmm, abiogenesis is more delusional."

          I have never claimed to know how life began. There has been no theory posed that comes close to satisfactorily answering that question. However, many have been disproven, including the Christian story.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Appreciation for beauty, music, arts, etc..

        July 31, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • SeaVik

          I don't know about art, but animals can definitely appreciate music and beauty. Some of them can fly too, so I guess those ones are better than you.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • igaftr

          I have seen animals exhibit appreciation for the arts, in one form or another, but more importantly, how is appreciating music a diqualifier to being an animal?
          Songbirds are experts in distinguishing sounds. They are music lovers. Some classical pieces ( especially Beethoven) got his inspiration from the songbirds.

          How is appreciatioon of music a disqualifier from being an animal?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Alias

          You should read about the primates that have learned sign language.
          We are not as different as you want to think.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsu3SGAdLs

          Tell me those elephants are not music lovers.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Oh yeah SeaVik, pigs can fly but only in your delusions. So if i'm understanding you correctly your dog is smarter than you and also has more empathy?

          July 31, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Oh yeah SeaVik, pigs can fly but only in your delusions. So if i'm understanding you correctly your dog is smarter than you and also has more empathy?"

          Um, what? I never said pigs can fly. Apparently you've never heard of birds.

          My dog is smarter me and has more empathy? I never said that. However, she is very smart and shows a empathy frequently.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          I have seen animals exhibit appreciation for the arts, in one form or another, but more importantly, how is appreciating music a diqualifier to being an animal? Songbirds are experts in distinguishing sounds. They are music lovers. Some classical pieces ( especially Beethoven) got his inspiration from the songbirds.

          – "They are music lovers" – and you would know this how? one told you?
          – birds and other animals use vocalizations, grunts, squeals, etc to communicate. it's never been proven they indulge in such for pure pleasure as an abstract.
          – this is yet more proof that evolution is complete and utter senselessness and those who worship such are delusional.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • SeaVik

          awanderingscot – Why are you so bent on claiming that animals don't have emotions? Anyone who has ever had a dog knows that they very clearly exhibit emotions. Perhaps you haven't spent much time around animals. There is also much scientific study showing that animals exhibit similar brain activity to humans for various emotions.

          What more evidence could you possibly need to accept that animals have emotions, short of being born an animal yourself?

          July 31, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Seavik, go back and read the post again, i stated they don't have the "broad range of emotions" that humans do. I never said they were completely devoid of emotions.

          – do you really think you are being intellectually honest in saying that animals share the same moral, psycho-logical, and intellectual acu-men that humans pos.sess?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "– do you really think you are being intellectually honest in saying that animals share the same moral, psycho-logical, and intellectual acu-men that humans pos.sess?"

          Moot question.

          If humans possess a higher intellect ( and there are many life forms who's intilectual abilities are completely foriegn to us, so to say "higher" is subjective)
          How does that disqualify humans from being animals?
          You are arguing the wrong argument.

          Take ANY of man's abilities, the ones that are the same, the ones that are different, the ones that are similar....how does ANY of that show we are not animals?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "it's never been proven they indulge in such for pure pleasure as an abstract."
          Nor disproven...what is your point?

          How does that disqualify humans from being animals?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "i stated they don't have the "broad range of emotions" that humans do"

          Ok, but you still haven't been able to provide a single example of an emotion that humans have and animals don't.

          "– do you really think you are being intellectually honest in saying that animals share the same moral, psycho-logical, and intellectual acu-men that humans pos.sess?"

          I never said any of those things. You were talking about emotions and none of these examples are emotions.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Ok, but you still haven't been able to provide a single example of an emotion that humans have and animals don't."

          – can a dog look at another dog and recall with emotion a mate or companion that died long ago? i submit they cannot.
          – can a dog remember the father who sired him or the mother who gave birth to him and become wistful? of course not.
          – has any animal been shown to exhibit any concept of spirituality? give proof then.
          – it is extremely arrogant to assume that man acquired the moral, psychological, and intellectual powers he now possesses due to random selection, naturalism, evolution etc.. why man only? evolutionists have no answer. why solely man? has not man lived alongside animals for ages?
          – evolution is complete and utter nonsense to rational human beings, and an overwhelming majority of people don't believe it.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering
          What you mean is an overwhelming majority of rational human beings believe in evolution.
          Did you find any evidence for creationism yet?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "– can a dog look at another dog and recall with emotion a mate or companion that died long ago? i submit they cannot."

          What emotion are you suggesting dogs don't have? Yes, they do show signs of sadness if a companion dies. 0 for 1

          "– can a dog remember the father who sired him or the mother who gave birth to him and become wistful? of course not."

          Considering dogs recognize each other even when they haven't seen each other for years, it seems so. 0 for 2

          "– has any animal been shown to exhibit any concept of spirituality? give proof then."

          No. However, I suspect they imagine things as well sometimes. Regardless, this "spirituality" is not an emotion. 0 for 3

          "– it is extremely arrogant to assume that man acquired the moral, psychological, and intellectual powers he now possesses due to random selection, naturalism, evolution etc.. why man only? evolutionists have no answer. why solely man? has not man lived alongside animals for ages?"

          Do you know what arrogance means? It would only be arrogance if I claimed that I did this. That's just the reality of what happened. What would be arrogant is to deny reality and claim that you have some special knowledge that no one else can see or validate that proves you are right. 0 for 4

          "– evolution is complete and utter nonsense to rational human beings, and an overwhelming majority of people don't believe it."

          Where do you get such incorrect information? Can you please provide a link to a study that suggests this is true? 0 for 5

          Still waiting for an emotion that humans have that animals do not...

          July 31, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          ok SeaVik. since you were intent on creating a straw man here when the original post i made was the following quote from Darwin: "Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal." – Charles Darwin

          – the sentiment here on this blog is one of agreement with Darwin which makes it delusional and which is why i will mock it.
          – i submit that those who consider animals to be our equal are justifiably delusional.
          – at the same time i believe humans have a moral obligation to be ethical and kind to animals.
          – just a few emotions that animals do not possess; hope, awe, regret, outrage, wonder, shock, pity, contempt ...

          August 1, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • observer

          awanderingscot

          "just a few emotions that animals do not possess; hope, awe, regret, outrage, wonder, shock, pity, contempt ..."

          It's not uncommon for injured animals to draw the pity and concern of fellow animals.

          Once again, you JUST MAKE THINGS UP.

          August 1, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • SeaVik

          "– the sentiment here on this blog is one of agreement with Darwin which makes it delusional and which is why i will mock it."

          Would you care to give any evidence that disputes evolution? Thus far, you have failed miserably.

          "– i submit that those who consider animals to be our equal are justifiably delusional."

          Your submission is denied. However, I certainly don't consider all animals equal to all people. There are plenty of animals (such as my dog) that are better beings than plenty of people (such as those who kill in the name of religion).

          "– at the same time i believe humans have a moral obligation to be ethical and kind to animals."

          That is the first correct thing I've ever seen you write. Way to go! So I guess that means you're a vegan, correct?

          "– just a few emotions that animals do not possess; hope, awe, regret, outrage, wonder, shock, pity, contempt ..."

          Where do you come up with this stuff? My dog most definitely regrests when I leave, wonders why I'm leaving and hopes I'll come back soon. She is in a state of awe when I show her a special treat and shows outrage and contempt if I try to take her treat when she's eating it. She displays pity for me if I'm sick or sad. You're batting average remains .000.

          August 1, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
    • Alias

      SCIENTISTS ARE CULT LEADERS!
      got it.

      July 31, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • bostontola

      scot,
      You have every right to your opinions and beliefs. You have the right to deni.grate Darwin, on every top 10 list of scientists I could find. I find it funny that a Christian would choose to do so, thereby demonstrating enormous hubris and pridefulness.

      July 31, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      “One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become worthier of sharing this planet with them.”

      ~-Martin Luther King Jr.

      July 31, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • G to the T

      He was referring to people who's ego apparently won't let them believe they could possibly be "just another animal".

      Ironic, come to think of it...

      July 31, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
  2. Vic

    It's just more comedy I guess.

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/30/whats-wrong-with-black-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-3052446

    p.s. I am compelled to say this:

    This is not a political statement but an educated guess. I have been following Quantum Physics/Mechanics for a while, and I predict that the Quantum Theory and the Particle Physics Standard Model will be proven wrong in the near future.

    July 31, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Weak troll attempt:

      "This is not a political statement but an educated guess. I have been following Quantum Physics/Mechanics for a while, and I predict that the Quantum Theory and the Particle Physics Standard Model will be proven wrong in the near future."

      Unless your last name is Hawking... your 'educated guess' is less than worthless...

      July 31, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      There are constant updates to the working theories in quantum physics, but that is certainly not a reason to think it will be "proven wrong" as you suggest. In fact all the evidence leads me to believe that quantum physics will be more understood and we will have better models of how it works very soon which I think will also confirm many current theorum.

      July 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • bostontola

      Vic,
      The Standard Model will never be proven wrong. By saying that, you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of science. The Standard Model will likely be found incomplete and valid in a limited range. The General Theory of relativity didn't prove Newton's Laws wrong, the GTR showed why Newton's Laws were right in a limited range of parameters. The Standard model has been measured to more accuracy than any other thing in the history of mankind. It isn't wrong, it is incomplete.

      July 31, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  3. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    LET's Religiosity Law #10 – If Jesus came back today he would be shot in the head. That's what you do to put down zombies; otherwise they eat your brains.

    July 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
  4. Reality

    More about the Jewish Jesus:

    2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only 5-30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

    The 5-30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

    earlychristianwritings.com/

    For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

    Current RCC problems:

    Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

    Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:

    Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

    July 31, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
  5. Alias

    The only thing wrong with this jesus is that he is trying to look like the other one.
    I don't see brand recognition as being necessary if the product can live up to the promises made in the advertisements.

    July 31, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      If the show was called "Black Prophet" (or "Black Profit") could you really tell the difference in that picture between Jesus and Muhammad?

      July 31, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
      • Alias

        neverhappieratheist
        Not without knowing how many wives thay have.

        As soon as someone actually raises the dead, it won't matter what they call themself. Until then, I don't think it matters what they call themself. If they really wanted ratings, they should have made him a her.

        July 31, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Christina Jesus? She's 30ish, single, homeless and has several other women who follow her around and hang on her every word... oh wait, didn't they already make that show wth that large nosed gal and her whorish friends?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  6. Ivey

    People are still focused on skin color? It's the 21st century, move with the times, people!

    July 31, 2014 at 10:43 am |
    • jhg45

      you're right about skin color but what about the way Jesus is being portrayed and talked about here. just as pathetic. the example he set and what he taught (whether you believe or not) is the only example we should try to emulate. learn to live and love with a completely pure heart and stop the disgusting immorality and violence.

      July 31, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        LET's Religiosity Law #1 – “From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere.”

        July 31, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Alias

        Unless someone is worshipping wrong.
        Then violence is the way to go.

        July 31, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • igaftr

        But the bible is full of violence and disgusting immorality.

        Do you think it is moral that a woman who is rs.p.ed should be forced to marry her attacker, and all the attacker need do is give her father 50 sheckles of silver? The bible says so, and it is still practiced in Morocco.
        Do you think it is moral to allow another to take your just punishment? Christianity is BASED on that.

        July 31, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • jhg45

          did you miss something? read again what I said and if you can disagree with that you deserve what you get.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "you deserve what you get" Christians are so funny...

          July 31, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • observer

          jhg45,

          Why do Christians like you have so much trouble reading simple questions and answering them?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          What do you mean by you deserve what you get?

          I pointed out to immoralities in the bible and about christianity.
          You Jesus said that the OT is still in play and every word is eternal as it is allegedly gods eternal word, so Jesus apparently has no problem with a woman being ra.p.ed and being forced to marry her attacker.

          That is straight out of your immoral book.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Alias

          Because we keep asking questions they don't have answers for?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          ig – "But the bible is full of violence and disgusting immorality."

          jh – "read again what I said and if you can disagree with that you deserve what you get."

          jh – "the example he set and what he taught (whether you believe or not) is the only example we should try to emulate."

          If you believe that Jesus is God and God inspired the whole bible including the rules and laws and rituals igaftr mentions, then that is what Jesus taught. If you want to limit the God you worship to the gospels then why not discard the rest of the bible? You can't because you need the rest to claim there was a prophecy that would be fulfilled by your Christ. Catch 22 I know, but that is squarely where most Christians find themselves, at the intersection of Hebrew & Greek scripture. And the notion that the old stuff was only meant for the Jews is hilariously disingenuous, if it was desired by God for humans to act a certain way and "He" is unchanging, but then changes how he wants them to behave based on circvmstance, that is no unchanging God but a maleable ball of clay that keeps changing based upon the holders desires. The God of every generation changes and adjusts both in look, feel and desires for and from it's subjects. That can only mean one thing, that there is no supernatural wizard behind the screen but the look, feel and desires of that God are merely the desires of the humans who sit in positions of power in the Churches.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • jhg45

          never and iggy; sorry for too many misconceptions, I do not believe Jesus is Almighty God but The Son of God and he came to fulfill the law and put it to an end and did not teach violence but will be King of God's Kingdom where Peace will be forever right here on Earth. Do not be misled, God is not to be mocked but what you sow you will reap.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • jhg45

          never; I do not know where you were taught the Bible but you have been very misled. if you are serious and want to know the truth keep seeking and there are people who know what the Bible really teaches but I think "iggy" is just being a wiseguy and that is why I do not get involved too much here.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

          16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [b] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [c] " Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." – Numbers 5:12-28

          So was this inspired by the God of the bible? How can you say that recipe for abortion could have been insipred by the creator of the universe? I'm sorry, but it's just plain sick.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • kudlak

        jhg45
        So, how many people actually try to emulate Jesus? I don't see any sizeable percentage of Christians going around with only the clothes on their backs, living off of people's charity, unemployed, renouncing their families, and ransacking banks, or wherever money is exchanged these days, do you? In fact, the folks who generally act like Jesus in our society are typically frowned upon by the most conservative of Christians in my experience. So, how do you figure that people ought to act like him?

        July 31, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Alias

          Do what he said, not what he did.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • joey3467

          First off they would need to follow all of the Old Testament laws since Jesus did, oh and be Jewish.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • kudlak

          You guys ever read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically? Everyone cherry-picks.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • jhg45

          do you really want to know? for you to learn what the Bible really teaches go to jw.org and they will come right to your home freely. that is one way if you are serious.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Løki

          JW.org? Well, that explains why you are such an imbecile.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  7. Theo Phileo

    This is the reson that God gave us the 2nd commandment – that no one, through the use of any images may present God as anything other than what He is, and that is absolutely holy. Any representation of Messiah that is anything other than that revealed in the Word of God is nothing short of blasphemy.

    "God can not and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one’s intention is to worship them or to serve God through them (Exodus 34:13-14, 17, 2 Kings 18:4-5).

    “But may not images be permitted in the churches as teaching aids for the unlearned? No, we shouldn’t try to be wiser than God. He wants His people instructed by the living preaching of His Word (Romans 10:14-15, 17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19) not by idols that cannot even talk (Jeremiah 10:8, Habakkuk 2:18-20).”

    Heidelberg Catechism, Answers #97-98

    The hundreds of different pictures of Jesus all testify against each other that they are all false images. What is called a picture or a statue of Christ is not His true likeness. Like the idols of old, the modern portrayal of the Lord is “a teacher of lies” (Habakkuk 2:18). Moreover, Jesus is the true God, and therefore the only appropriate response to seeing Him is worship and adoration. Sadly, the “Jesus” imprinted on the mind by artistic creations is “another Jesus” – an idol. False images lead to false worship. In a very real sense, God has given us an image of Himself. God has revealed Himself in His Son; “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). So how can we know Christ in truth? The Lord Himself answers, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39). We know Christ in Scripture, not in the imaginations of sculptors or painters. During our pilgrimage on earth, we are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The apostle Peter reminds us that we believe and rejoice in Him even though “now you do not see Him” (1 Peter 1:8). Yet we have a living hope. Eagerly we await that glorious day when “we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). Then our joy will be complete.

    July 31, 2014 at 9:56 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      How very circular!

      July 31, 2014 at 10:07 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Nope.

        July 31, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          YEP!!! You're using the book written about this god to prove what this god apparently said...one giant circle.
          You seriously need to start watching the news and some TV...it'll do that closed, narrow mind some good!

          July 31, 2014 at 10:30 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I saw an evolution docu.mentary one time called Planet of the Apes. Does that count?

          July 31, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Pretty close Theo, humans are apes so that probably counts.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Pretty close Theo, humans are apes so that probably counts"
          – this is the kind of ignorance that can only be the result of a public education.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Dear Member's of the Paste Eating Crew (Theo, awanderingscot);
          Both of you have yet to provide your peer-reviewed evidence that support the incest story of the bible and that debunks evolution. Until you have provided such evidence, it will remain that you both are being intellectually dishonest and your standing on the Paste Eating Crew will be upheld.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          Theo
          Planet of the Apes was actually about discrimination. The evolution aspect was only the setting.

          The funny thinig was, during the filming, they had noticed that come break or lunch time, the actors dressed as gorillas, hung out with the other gorillas, the chimps hung with the chimps, and the orangutans hung with the orangutans.
          It did not matter who the person under the costume was....a very poignant view of human nature, and the fellowship, the comfort of being with like people.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot

          "this is the kind of ignorance that can only be the result of a public education."

          It you don't have one, it might be best not to advertise it.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • igaftr

      You might be right theo, but since the Bible is only the works of men, with no evidence that any god was involved, or any evidence of any of the supernatural claims from the bible, Your whole case rests on something that you cannot show to exist.

      All you have there, is speculation on one possibility out of an infinite number of possibilities.

      July 31, 2014 at 10:09 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        but since the Bible is only the works of men
        --------------–
        You must first support your premise before you make claims according to it.

        July 31, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          It is well known that men wrote the bible. That is not in contention, so that would be a fools errand.

          What is in contention, is if "god" had anything to do with it, and since no one can show this god to exist, we are left with the men, and only the men that can be verified.

          There is just as much evbidence that Satan inspired itas any "god", theo...that evidence being none at all.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh yet you can claim it is the word of god and then use it to back your claims?? How very circular!!!

          July 31, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          It is well known that men wrote the bible. That is not in contention, so that would be a fools errand.
          ----------------
          True, but to say that "men wrote the Bible" is only partly true since I'm sure you are aware of the doctrine of inspiration. And that of course brings you to your second point.

          What is in contention, is if "god" had anything to do with it...
          ----------------
          Exactly.

          and since no one can show this god to exist, we are left with the men, and only the men that can be verified.
          --------------
          And this is the point at which we differ. You deny the existence of God because you have become too reliant upon your own 5 senses to determine truth. Because of the Enlightenment, generations of men began to subjugate truth to the confines of the testable and repeatable. In so doing, other means of determining truth, such as eye witness verification, and experiential testimony (although there are many others) have either taken a back seat, or have been removed altogether from their own belief of how truth is determined. By doing that, reason has escaped out the back door, and has left a very limited set of tools to determine truth.

          There is just as much evbidence that Satan inspired itas any "god", theo...that evidence being none at all.
          -----------------–
          How can Satan cast out Satan? Since a house divided against itself cannot stand.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          How can satan cast out satan? Funny , but you aren't getting it.

          There is nothing saying that that happened, so satan can say that in his book. If you look at it from the point of view that satan inspired it, you should not believe what is in it, yet you want to believe that badly, that you cannot switch gears to another perspective. Maybe satan just wanted you to feel bad for him...that's the problem, you have no evidence if god "inspired"it, if another god inspired it, if satan inspired it, or if men simply made it up.

          Considering the fact that there is no evidence of any supernatural anything, we again are left with just the men.

          By the way, you only have one sense...touch. You can sense nothing if it does not actually contact a nerve ending.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          How can satan cast out satan? Funny , but you aren't getting it.
          ------------
          With respect, I don't think you grasp the Bible at all. If Satan inspired the Bible, then there would be no good in it.

          If Satan inspired the Bible, then he says of himself...

          That he was originally created as a holy angel. Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre-fall name as Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:12-14 describes Satan as having been created as a cherubim, the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided that he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Because of his sin, God barred Satan from heaven. Satan became the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). When God cast Satan out of heaven, he took numerous angels with him in his fall (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:1-14).

          He is an accuser (Revelation 12:10),
          A tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5),
          A deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3).
          His very name means “adversary” or “one who opposes.”
          Another of his t.itles, the “devil” comes from a Greek verb that literally means to “slander” (Revelation 12:9)

          Jesus said in John 8:44 that Satan is the “father of lies” in reference to Genesis 3. Satan concocted the first lie that plummeted all man into sin (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14)… In Genesis 3:1, Satan is referred to as “the serpent.” This term literally means “snake,” and is used to reference his craftiness. Elsewhere, Satan is referred to as the “dragon,” to reference his ferocity and cruelty. The apostle John identified this creature as Satan in Revelation 12:9 – “And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” And in Revelation 20:2 – “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years…” In fact, Satan is a malignant liar (John 8:44, 1 John 3:8)

          Even though he was cast out of heaven, he still seeks to elevate his throne above God. He counterfeits all that God does, hoping to gain the worship of the world and encourage opposition to God's kingdom. Satan is the ultimate source behind every false cult and world religion. Satan will do anything and everything in his power to oppose God and those who follow God.

          MOST IMPORTANTLY...
          Satan has been defeated through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 16:20) and he shall be eternally punished in the lake of fire (Isaiah 14:12-17, Ezekiel 28:11-19, Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:10) along with every other man on earth who refused to repent of their sins and follow after Jesus and His righteousness.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "True, but to say that "men wrote the Bible" is only partly true since I'm sure you are aware of the doctrine of inspiration."

          -Now there is a premise that needs supportin.

          And since we rely too much on our 5 senses for gathering information maybe you could explain how you gather informortion outside of your 5 senses. ANd remember to support your premise.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • joey3467

          Theo I think you just don't get it. Until you can show that any of that actually happened without a single mention of the Bible there is zero reason to believe it is true.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          And since we rely too much on our 5 senses for gathering information maybe you could explain how you gather informortion outside of your 5 senses. ANd remember to support your premise.
          --------------–
          In the sense that we cannot see the wind with our naked eye, we know it exists by observing its actions, the same can be said of God. We cannot see God with our naked eye, but we observe His actions, and know that He exists.

          1 Peter 1:1-9 – Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • Bob

          And Theo, since you keep referencing your Jesus story, keep in mind that the whole Jesus-sacrifice thing, the foundation of your supersti.tion, is a steaming pile of bull-do from the get-go. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

          Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

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

          July 31, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Theo I think you just don't get it. Until you can show that any of that actually happened without a single mention of the Bible there is zero reason to believe it is true.
          ------------------
          I can explain some things to you, (miracles, prophecies, first cause) but since preconceived notions are so powerful, unless there is a working of God Himself in your life, you will in no ways believe, no matter what I say to you.

          Besides, it is NOT my responsibility to prove to anyone beyond a shadow of any doubt the existence of God. My duty is merely to preach the Bible. Whether you believe anything I say is a matter that is between you and God.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:05 am |
        • Bob

          Furthermore, Theo, since you keep dumping quotes on us from your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, let's have a closer look at what's really in that horrid book. From both foul testaments, some fine guidances purportedly from your vicious, vengeant sky fairy:

          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”

          1 Timothy 2:11
          "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

          Revelation 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/

          July 31, 2014 at 11:05 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?
          ------------
          Given your level of irreverence, I doubt that you want a Biblical answer. And I do wish that you would stop posting a link to that website. The question of "why won't God heal amputees" has been answered here so many times before.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          You do recall that you can feel the wind? How was the beach or did you spend all you time in the belly of a whale?

          July 31, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          We see the wind, see it's effects, so that is evidence of the giant invisible dragons that make the wind.

          That is the same as you are saying for "god".

          Just because you have an effect, does not mean you can leap to the cause, with your ready made definition of what your "god" is, and attributing the effect to this god of yours. That is not being logical theo.

          As afr as satan, who says there would be no good in the bible...perhaps he seeded it that way to convince people like you, and now he has you defndinig his word...see, the problem? My perspective, without evidence , is just as valid as your perspective, without evidence.

          THAT is the problem with making claims about "god"...you still cannot show this "god" of yours to exist.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          You do recall that you can feel the wind?
          ------------------
          Yep. The wind exerts a real motive force upon us, just like God exerts a real motive force upon us. One may excite our nerve endings to feeling, while the other excites our minds to righteousness. One excites and makes a change merely on the surface, while the other excites and makes a change in who we are.

          How was the beach or did you spend all you time in the belly of a whale?
          ------------------
          John's Island was great, but we happened in Charleston about the same time as college orientation, so it was quite cramped while riding the bikes on the streets of Charleston!

          Belly of a whale? Nope, but I did my best to imitate a BEACHED whale, and I got the sunburn to prove it!

          July 31, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "We see the wind, see it's effects, so that is evidence of the giant invisible dragons that make the wind.
          THAT is the problem with making claims about "god"...you still cannot show this "god" of yours to exist."
          ---------------------
          When it comes to proving that God exists, as I have said earlier, it is not my place, nor my duty to prove to anyone beyond the shadow of any doubt that God exists. My duty is to preach the Bible. Whether or not you believe is between you and God.

          But when I do give evidences, it is usually in regards to the life of Jesus as told by the Bible whose veracity is proved through the accuracy of prophetic utterances. But Satan is a deceiver, and according to the will and allowance of God, he has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "In the sense that we cannot see the wind with our naked eye, we know it exists by observing its actions"

          That did not answer the question Theo. What did you use outside of your 5 senses to determine the wind is real?

          I contend you used a combination of senses, sight to see the effect of the wind on other things, hearing to hear the wing as it blows, touch to feel the breeze,

          Please relate how you verified the wind outside of those...

          July 31, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "I don't think you grasp the Bible at all. If Satan inspired the Bible, then there would be no good in it."

          Uhhhhh, unless of course Satan, in realistic terms, means quite a number of snake-oil salesmen over time – each with varying interests. Oh, let's see – that kind of reflects modern evangelism come to think of it. I'm sure many a preacher today claims their sermons, their words are inspired by the divine...

          July 31, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          That did not answer the question Theo. What did you use outside of your 5 senses to determine the wind is real?
          --------------
          I never said that the wind is perceived by something outside of our 5 senses... My intent was to say that scientific inquiry is not the only manner of revealing truth since it is handicapped in certain areas.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          It is just as likely that YOU are the one who has been blinded by Satans words, that is the Bible...see again, no evidence either way.

          You have already proven that you leap to an unverifiable cause, with only an effect", so I stand by the assessment of Satans involvement. It makes more sense to me than any "god".

          It makes far MORE sense that men, and men alone made your book.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I'm sure many a preacher today claims their sermons, their words are inspired by the divine...
          ----------------
          There certainly are. And those who do are false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing.

          For we know that revelation has ceased. That's how we are able to make judgments and know that certain things like the images and ideas portrayed in movies like "Heaven is for Real" are not real, they are either the vivid imaginations of a very young child, or outright lies.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: if the devil made the bible there wouldn't be any good in it?

          so explain to me what is "good" and what is "bad".

          good and bad are both determined by the observer. if i'm starving and you have food that you refuse to share it would be a good thing for me to bash you and take it.
          the bashing would be a bad thing to you.

          to your god it was a good thing he "attempted" to drown everyone on earth.
          to the humans it was a bad thing because they were massacred.

          the bible has no good or evil, it only has ideas thought up by humans. it depends on your perspective if the out come is good or bad.
          jewish people inslaving their neighboring countries.........good thing according to the bible.
          slaves wanting freedom, bad thing according to the bible.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "My intent was to say that scientific inquiry is not the only manner of revealing truth since it is handicapped in certain areas."

          Only in areas that are imaginary, or have not one single shred of evidence for theo.
          If something exists, it can be studied...maybe not immediately, as with dark matter, or the energy that is life, but there are ways. Science is a tool, a set of guidleines that help anyone examine anything.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          igaftr,
          You are welcome to your opinion of course, but giving credit to Satan for the works of God is a very dangerous thing to do.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Only in areas that are imaginary, or have not one single shred of evidence for theo.
          If something exists, it can be studied...maybe not immediately, as with dark matter, or the energy that is life, but there are ways.
          --------------
          Wrong. Proof: Cosmogony.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "And those who do are false..."

          It seems pretty obvious there were likely a lot of snake-oil salesmen back around the time that church fathers were trying to solidify the works of Paul as divine. It seems somehow they procured a stamp of approval in the writing previously attributed to the apostle Peter. Of course most NT scholars today have good reason to think Peter 2 was not authored by Peter....

          You can tell how desperate they were back then to scare people into belief. Like telling them that the devil was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order to confuse the faithful -and that's why the gospel stories seemed way too familiar to other stories people had heard.....

          July 31, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I never said that the wind is perceived by something outside of our 5 senses... "

          Theo, you said..

          "you have become too reliant upon your own 5 senses to determine truth."

          I asked what you use outside of your 5 senses to gather information, you very clearly indicated you have other ways to gather information outside of the 5 senses and all I am asking is what that is.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I asked what you use outside of your 5 senses to gather information, you very clearly indicated you have other ways to gather information outside of the 5 senses and all I am asking is what that is.
          ----------------
          What we have is that communication of spirit. (Romans 8:14-17)

          Naturalistic materialism rules the day in academia. That is, anything that does not presuppose an uncreated universe that can be explained solely on the basis of naturalism is rejected a-priori, and any Christian claims are relegated to the arena of “myth.” This is because most people today rely completely on science to determine truth. That is, truth is determined only by what can be empirically observed… This is proven false in that even empiricism itself must be filtered through the subjectivity of reason. The truth is, reality that is defined either mainly or solely by subjectivity is still reality. Science is handicapped whenever it attempts to posit anything about matters which cannot be tested or scrutinized under a microscope, but science is not the only method of obtaining truth. Reason, logic, experience, and the like are all just as valid when it comes to determining truth.

          I've also used this before, we can identify the chemicals that our brains use to experience the feeling of love, but we cannot then take those chemicals and put them into a bowl and say that the bowl now loves us. No, there is a truth that exists as more than merely the sum of its parts.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "What we have is that communication of spirit"

          Spirits are supernatural and can't be proven with evidence to exist, so your point is moot. Geez Theo, attempt to use some common sense and logic for a change.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "What we have is that communication of spirit. (Romans 8:14-17)"

          That also did not answer the question. What did you use outside of your 5 senses to gather that information?

          How did you gather information of a "spirit"? How did you ascertain that said spirit "communicated"?

          Quoting a book does nothing to confirm your premise.

          "Love" without evidence is stalking.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • hal 9001

          "but we cannot then take those chemicals and put them into a bowl and say that the bowl now loves us."

          I'm sorry, Theo Phileo, but your scenario is nonsensical. In putting the chemicals in the bowl, have you also been careful to do so in a way that physically allows the chemicals to function in the same way? Please detail how, in your scenario, you have provided physical support for the chemicals to continue to function.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "but giving credit to Satan for the works of God is a very dangerous thing to do."
          Perhaps, fortunately, no one has done that. I simply speculated , like you do, that satan may have been the inspiration, since there is just as much evidence of that as your god having anything to do with it.

          Again, we are only left with knowing men wrote it.
          You can only speculate more, and my speculation has just as much validity as yours.

          As far as you attributing things to "god"...all your effect leads you to is "perhaps maybe something"...it is you that leap to "god", most likely because that is what you want to be true, so delude yoursefl into believing it.

          With no evidence, and myriad possibilities, speculation is all you have about god.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • evidencenot

          @theo " My duty is to preach the Bible"

          Until you can provide REAL evidence that god exists, you're just preaching mythology.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "Wrong. Proof: Cosmogony."

          That is not proof at all. That term has different aspects than the science of cosmoLOGY.
          Cosmogeny is being studied scientifically. IT is ALSO being studied unscientifically by theologans.
          The scientists are working from existing theories and observable and testable theories.
          The theologan side, begins with the premise that "god"..therefore..., whcih is the opposite of scientific method, so your proof, is not at all.

          The scientific side is going on

          July 31, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "I've also used this before, we can identify the chemicals that our brains use to experience the feeling of love, but we cannot then take those chemicals and put them into a bowl and say that the bowl now loves us. No, there is a truth that exists as more than merely the sum of its parts."

          Theo, your analogies are consistently terrible. The fact that bowls are inanimate objects incapable of love does not somehow mean that we can't understand the chemical reactions that cause the feeling of love. And in theory, it is possible that we could develop the ability to create these chemical reactions and produce the feeling of love (not in a bowl, but in a being capable of having those feelings).

          July 31, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Theo,

          You seem to have disappeared, but in the hope you come back to address the issue you raised, I am going to make my point. You said...

          "You deny the existence of God because you have become too reliant upon your own 5 senses to determine truth."

          If you are going to accuse someone of denying truth because they rely on their 5 senses, thereby inferring there is a better path to get information, you need to provide that AND objectively demonstrate it is in fact a superior way to get information.

          Ducking out of the conversation is nothing short of dishonest. I think it is absolutely unconscionable to make such a accusation and then not have the cajones to back up your argument or admit you are wrong.

          What you did is a prime example of why so many people like myself threw away religious faith, because it is unreliable as a path to what is actually true. You spout such drivel and then when you are forced to deal with the implication of your statements you run. That is a common theme among believers like yourself, you claim "truth" but in reality your truth is like a chocolate Easter bunny...its hollow. Quit talking out you ass.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
    • SeaVik

      Doesn't one have to believe in a religion to commit blasphemy? If not, then isn't everything guilty of blasphemy since no one can follow the rules of all religions at the same time? Blasphemy is such a stupid concept.

      July 31, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • kudlak

      Theo
      What if Jesus does return, but he doesn't match your image of him? Will you still worship a guy who accepts everyone's s3xual preferences and/or doesn't see abortion as a sin, or will you reject Him?

      July 31, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
  8. ddeevviinn

    Evolution is a hoax. The evidence is resounding ( I realized this after last night's symphony). Even the most primitive of minds must acknowledge that any species that goes from Antonio Vivaldi to Miley Cyrus in only a few hundred years, is in fact DEVOLVING.

    July 31, 2014 at 8:29 am |
    • ausphor

      devin
      Christianity is a hoax. Any civilization that goes from Jesus Christ (and company) to Jimmy Swaggart (and his peers)in just a few thousand years, is in fact DELUSIONAL.

      July 31, 2014 at 9:00 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Dear Member of The Paste Eating Crew;
      Could you please provide us with your peer-reviewed paper that shows you are right and the people who have won Nobel Prize Awards for Evolution are wrong? Could you please provide us with the peer-reviewed evidence that shows the creation story to be accurate?

      Thank you, from the people who care about evidence

      July 31, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • ddeevviinn

        1. Go to shelf.
        2. Pick up dictionary.
        3. Look up word: " sarcasm".

        July 31, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Sorry devin, my mistake...you're not quite as delusional as awanderingscot.

          July 31, 2014 at 9:16 am |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      lmfao!

      finally someone on my side of the field. yes humans are de-evolving. more proof: stone henge, the sphinx, pyramids.........today we can't even understand how stone-age/bronze age people could move thousand pound blocks.

      July 31, 2014 at 9:29 am |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        "finally someone on my side of the field"

        I doubt you're ever very lonely out there in Idiot Plains...

        July 31, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          never:

          sarcasm

          sarcasm happy, sarcasm. lmao

          July 31, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
    • Doris

      lol – devin, I agree. Evidently Vivaldi was quickly popular during his life across a number of countries in his day.

      July 31, 2014 at 9:45 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Now that is the best argument yet on refuting evolution.

      July 31, 2014 at 10:59 am |
    • LaBella

      Extra points for using Vivaldi and Miley Cyrus in the same sentence, Devin...your sense of humor is delightful.
      Thanks for the laugh.

      July 31, 2014 at 11:28 am |
    • believerfred

      Vivaldi was an ordained Priest I refuse to accept your claim unless you can produce some transitional composers.

      July 31, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • LaBella

        Tiktaalik Chopin?

        July 31, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • bostontola

        fred,
        I applaud your sense of humor.

        July 31, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • Doris

        lol – good one, fred.

        July 31, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • kudlak

      ddeevviinn
      Any religion that can go from Augustine and Aquinas to Pat Robertson, Creationism and the Left Behind series must surely be devolving as well.

      July 31, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        You know, I actually agree with that.( Of course, I am a big fan of Augustine so I may be biased ). I would clarify that it is only the human element of the faith that is "devolving"

        July 31, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • kudlak

          ddeevviinn
          You might argue that whatever lies behind it is supernatural, but "The Faith" is wholly a human response to whatever "it" is, correct?

          My point was that Christianity use to sound somewhat intelligent ...

          July 31, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          " The Faith" is a wholly human response...."

          Yes and no. The antics of the charlatans ( most t.v. preachers) along with a lot of the superfluous activities the christian church is preoccupied with would qualify as " wholly human response." As far as faith itself, that is a wholly supernatural response that is initiated and maintained solely by the "IT"

          "My point is Christianity use to sound somewhat intelligent."

          It still does, depending on the source you are listening to. Unfortunately, there is a segment of christianity that parrots the rest of are superficial, celebrity infatuated, Madison Avenue marketing, culture. It is this segment that gets the media attention and what is projected to the public as "christianity" I call it the People Magazine syndrome.

          July 31, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • midwest rail

          ddeevviinn, the only problem I see with your premise (People Mag) is that those who are getting media attention are themselves masters of media. They have radio shows with tens of thousands of listeners, each. Those listeners must agree with at least part of what they are hearing or they wouldn't be listeners anymore.

          July 31, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
  9. Reality

    Black, white, red or brown does not change the following:

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man named Jesus who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (references used are available upon request)

    July 31, 2014 at 7:55 am |
  10. zhilla1980wasp

    SeaVik
    "I love it when people say "mute point". It's especially funny because they're often trying to put down someone else's point without realizing that they're making themselves look like an idiot.
    July 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm"

    i wasn't putting down anyone's point. i was simply saying regardless of the pigmentation of a "demi-god" character, what does it really matter.

    seriously; what does it matter if your "jesus" is pink with polka dots? it doesn't.

    here are the facts:
    1) pigmentation was made by nature.
    2) color is just a word humans made up.

    you know i truly thought the fact of the "skinheads, and kkk" being white supremacist and thinking that jesus is only white would have been the talking point, not the fact that this articule is totally pointless.

    July 31, 2014 at 6:55 am |
    • G to the T

      I think they were referring to "mute point". It's "moot point", not "mute".

      July 31, 2014 at 10:39 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        nah everyone seemed to have gotten hung up on the fact that i'm dyslecix (yes i even spelled that wrong) then the fact that there are groups of christians that truly believe there "jesus/god" has a pigmentation.

        July 31, 2014 at 11:51 am |
  11. unsername1

    Do you think people will accept Black Jesus? Here is the reality:

    "Judge Orders Baby’s Name Be Changed From ‘Messiah’ to ‘Martin’, Citing Jesus Christ"

    July 30, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      On appeal the couple won their right to name the baby what they wished.

      July 31, 2014 at 6:16 am |
      • LaBella

        I hope that ignorant judge was censured.

        July 31, 2014 at 11:53 am |
  12. awanderingscot

    "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. – Mark 13:21-22, NKJV

    – this is another specious and divisive opinion piece here on this blog; what would it matter if Christ were revealed to be black? nodda.

    Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. – Revelation 1:7, NKJV

    – "every eye will see Him". This is yet to happen, it did not occur in 1874 or 1914.

    July 30, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
    • Doris

      Oh look – Snotty learned a new word – "specious". Now it seems he must use it daily lest he forget it.

      July 30, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      So they've been saying for 2000 years. Yet it never happened.
      There were hundreds of books of "revelations". Cooked up by people near the close of the Apocalyptic Period. None of them came true. (See Dr. Elaine Pagels fine You Tube videos about some of them). Posting Babble quotes at people who do not agree the text has any authority just proves Snotty doesn't know the First Rule of debate. The fact is Saul of Tasrsus' generation was very surprised when the end did not come during their life times. The "end times" (or messianic era" was to be the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. It never happened. It is never going to happen. No matter how many nutty cultists try to scare children with their nonsense.

      Deuteronomy 18:10 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets OMENS, engages in witchcraft.

      July 30, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      • LaBella

        Apocalyptical literature was very popular back then. Still is, come to think of it.

        July 30, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          There are always a handful of people every generation who firmly believe that this is the worst it has ever been and thus the end is nigh. The Harold Campings stand up and tell everyone they "know" this is it and base their conclusions on the strife in the world. Of course, two thousand years ago many Jewish people were saying the exact same thing, this is the worst it will ever be under Roman occupation. Then the end was for sure coming in 70 ad when Rome encircled Jerusalem. During the siege there are accounts of canibalism and other atrocities inside the city, and that was for sure the end of times... but then it wasn't, and life went on, and the next century there were more conflicts, more death, more people claiming the end is near... rinse, repeat... rinse repeat...

          July 31, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        "The fact is Saul of Tasrsus' generation was very surprised when the end did not come during their life times."

        – pure rubbish from an hatetheist web site. this could not possibly be known. you don't know what you're talking about.
        – supposing some did misunderstand the prophesies does not in any way change the message of the gospel.
        – btw it would be Saul of 'Tarsus'

        July 31, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          What is a hatetheist? Just because we're showing you to be wrong doesn't mean we hate you, it merely means that we care about you being cured of the religious virus that you've been inflicted with. It's a very dangerous virus in the hands of the wrong people-you being one of them, it can lead to delusions of grandeur; hate; bigotry; lack of ability to distinguish fact from fiction; lack of empathy; lack of morals...very very dangerous and the cure is an education!

          July 31, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty is a troll. He's not worth debating.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • unsername1

      @a wandering Scot,

      "– this is another specious and divisive opinion piece here on this blog; what would it matter if Christ were revealed to be black? nodda."

      so would you accept some black guy claiming he is Jesus without challenging him? The black guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer in prison thought he was an incarnation of Jesus, and it was his job to kill Devil. Is he Jesus?

      July 30, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        nser: "Is he Jesus?"

        let's hope not otherwise our legal system made the worst mistake it could ever had made. lol

        July 31, 2014 at 9:34 am |
    • LaBella

      What is specious is the ignorant group trying to bully Adult Swim into pulling it off the air.

      July 30, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
    • rogerthat2014

      "This is yet to happen, it did not occur in 1874 or 1914."

      Nor did it happen during the disciple's lifetime, which is something that the Jesus character claimed would happen.

      July 31, 2014 at 12:34 am |
      • awanderingscot

        no He didn't and you don't know scripture.

        July 31, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "you don't know scripture"

          Oh Member of the Paste Eating Crew, Could you please tell us how you know this? Or would you care to admit that once again, you're lying?

          July 31, 2014 at 9:13 am |
  13. truth1914

    The message Jesus taught so much surpasses race, culture, and social standing that these issues have no bearing on he and his Father's desire to save people from all walks of life. So why do we try to put color on someone who cares nothing about it. Acts 10:25. How we treat each other and his father's name will define if we are acceptable to them. Matthew 22:37-39

    July 30, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
    • Bob

      1914, the whole Jesus-sacrifice story, the foundation of your religion, is a steaming pile of bull-do. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

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

      July 30, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Many of those who observed our Saviour walk this earth, those who saw Him supernaturally heal the diseased and crippled did not believe in Him either. What makes you think you are any different if you were to see His signs and wonders?

        July 30, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • Doris

          Those are the hearsay claims anyway. That reminds me – my spam folder needs to be cleaned out....

          July 30, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          As usual, you had no answer to Bob's questions.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          He never walked the Earth. He was a cooked up fiction. Why did he never fix any amputees ? If he had actually lived, after he was said to have risen, the authorities would have tried to find him. There would be someone who saw all the other zombies that Matthew said rose when he rose. What happened to them ? To their empty graves / To the split rocks ?

          July 30, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • evolveddna

          Scotty I have a magic wand that can not do exactly what you god can't do! It can also perform miracles with the same mathematical function as coincidence ..same as your god !..its amazing and i can prove it. I will get it to heal an amputee in full view of an audience which god will also not be able to do.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:19 am |
        • evolveddna

          Scotty forgot to ask.. not a single picture or cave drawing of your savior ..drawing had evolved by then had it not..if he was so important why not a sketch..i know the world was only 6000 yrs old but there must have been some charcoal about?
          Even those heathen cave men managed to sketch antelopes and ..well no dinosaurs...but poor ole JC he has to appear on toast in the 20 th century.?

          July 31, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • otoh2

          evolveddna,

          In all fairness, the ancient Hebrews weren't allowed to draw images of people or live things - sort of a superst.ition and idolatry deal. Islam has rules against it too - and their art is mainly geometric shapes, filigree and the like.

          July 31, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Wrong. Jesus did not preach 'salvation". His message was entirely the run of the mill for his time. Apocalyptic miracle-working preachers were a dime a dozen at that time.

      July 30, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
      • truth1914

        You should read the gospels.

        July 31, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • G to the T

          I have – I would recommend you try reading something else.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Lets see if you can answer a simple question about the gsopels...who wrote them?

          July 31, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • truth1914

          2 Peter 1:21 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • evidencenot

          What a laugh... jeebus was a bigot... it was his way, or the highway..

          July 31, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          I have read the God Spell, and many other books.

          There continues to be no evidence that any gods had anything to do with it.

          You should read the Baghavad Gita.
          You should read the Torah
          You should read the q'uran
          you should read the Akilattirattu Amma
          You should read the I Ching
          you should read the Dhammapada
          you should read the...you should be getting the point by now....

          July 31, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • truth1914

          1 Cor. 1:19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.”

          July 31, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • observer

          truth1914,

          That sure doesn't say much for the intelligence levels of Christians, does it?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • igaftr

          belief1914
          Yes...MEN wrote that..still nothing showing they are right.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          truth: Answering a question about your bible by using the bible is not very intelligent. What rock do you reside under??? Are you capable of answering any question without using that book??

          July 31, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • truth1914

          The book and it's one Author are my sword and shield. I don't need to rely on anything else.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Who would that author be and what proof do you have of this?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • truth1914

          (Romans 1:20) 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. . .

          (Isaiah 40:26) “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.

          (Revelation 4:11) “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

          July 31, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          and btw this " I don't need to rely on anything else. ", simply tells us how your opinion CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED!!! What a narrow minded world you reside in!

          July 31, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • truth1914

          He is almighty God. So who can challenge Him?

          (Isaiah 40:26) “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.

          (Revelation 4:11) “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

          July 31, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          trth: Are you suffering from I.D.-10-T syndrome??? You didn't answer the question!! Try again without using the book!!

          July 31, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • truth1914

          Why are you scared of the book?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Thank you for validating that you're suffering from I.D.-10-T syndrome!! You haven't proven a damn thing outside of the fact that you're a complete loon. Using the book to defend the god it is written about fails...how uneducated are you?? Did you even make it out of grade school??
          Do you comprehend that the bible was written by 40 men who never met? That the author's of the gospels are not known? That there is zero evidence of any divine intervention? W
          Can we add you to the Paste Eating Crew? It is about the level of your mentality!

          July 31, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          truth(LIAR): The book is fictional, thus there is nothing to fear. It is the followers of the book that frighten me. The followers are the ones holding society back and harming innocent children by lying to them. The followers are loons for still believing the tripe in the 21st century..intellectually dishonest and living in fear of the non-existent.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • truth1914

          TP1. I'll keep prying for you and your kind all the same.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          truth: You need to be medicated and to pull your head out of your ass!!

          July 31, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
  14. unsername1

    Jesus can jump.

    July 30, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
  15. bostontola

    Scientists reproduce evolutionary changes by manipulating embryonic development of mice

    A group of researchers from the University of Helsinki and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona have been able experimentally to reproduce in mice morphological changes which have taken millions of years to occur. Through small and gradual modifications in the embryonic development of mice teeth, induced in the laboratory, scientists have obtained teeth which morphologically are very similar to those observed in the fossil registry of rodent species which separated from mice millions of years ago

    To modify the development of their teeth, the team from the Inst.itute of Biotechnology of the University of Helsinki worked with embryonic teeth cultures from mice not coded by the ectodysplasin A (EDA) protein, which regulates the formation of structures and differentiation of organs in the embryo throughout its development. The teeth obtained with these cultures which present this mutation develop into very basic forms, with very uniform crowns. Scientists gradually added different amounts of the EDA protein to the embryonic cells and let them develop.

    The researchers observed that the teeth formed with different degrees of complexity in their crown. The more primitive changes observed coincide with those which took place in animals of the Triassic period, some two hundred million years ago. The development of more posterior patterns coincides with the different stages of evolution found in rodents which became extinct already in the Palaeocene Epoch, some 60 million years ago. Researchers have thus achieved experimentally to reproduce the transitions observed in the fossil registry of mammal teeth.
    ---------–
    Direct inducement of evolutionary change with specific genetic manipulation that is easy to track step by step, and directly associated with known forms in the fossil record through hundreds of millions of years.

    July 30, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
    • unsername1

      what morphological changes occurred between people who lived 2000 years back and today? Please don't disappoint me by saying that Jesus had the same teeth, hairs, skin color, eyes, height like people today.

      July 30, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
      • bostontola

        I don't know, why?

        July 30, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      "Scientists reproduce evolutionary changes by manipulating embryonic development of mice"

      – this is not natural selection, it is artificial selection done in a lab, and in no way proves evolution.
      – this is very similar to Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment whereby dark and white moths were present throughout and only the ratios fluctuated. The only difference here is this being done as experiment in the lab.
      – as previously pointed out, the theory of evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

      July 30, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
      • bostontola

        scot,
        Your nutty theories rife with fallacy and error don't matter.

        July 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Do you have any evidence for creationism?

        July 30, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Yeah, that evolution is complete and utter nonsense should be more than enough proof.

          July 30, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          You and your atheist friends still haven't learned the distinction between adaptation and the non-sensical theory of evolution. You very obviously don't understand the difference between 'natural' selection and 'artificial' selection and thus you have become dogmatic in your fundamentalism and have a closed mind.

          July 30, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • LaBella

          Someone's "borrowing" Salero's catchphrases.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • redzoa

          "You and your atheist friends still haven't learned the distinction between adaptation and the non-sensical theory of evolution. "

          Please . . . grace us with your clear wisdom of the relevant details . . . in your own words of course so that we might be enlightened . . .

          July 30, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "grace us with your clear wisdom of the relevant details"

          – you make the preposterous claim, it's up to you to back it up. pathetic attempts thus far leave me unconvinced.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty is either a troll or he is very stupid. He's not worth arguing with.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • redzoa

          "you make the preposterous claim, it's up to you to back it up. pathetic attempts thus far leave me unconvinced."

          Actually . . . you are claiming some distinction between "adaptation" and "evolution"; can you define the distinction or can you not?

          July 30, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Adaption has the code already written into the genome, evolution does not.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • Doris

          Of course Snotty is talking about the Davinci code. (eyeroll)

          July 30, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • unsername1

          @a wandering scot,

          so far no one has come out with proof that evolution theory is wrong!! Have you challenged science, when it says you should look like mixture of your biological parents? Have you?

          July 30, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You very obviously don't understand the difference between 'natural' selection and 'artificial' selection and thus you have become dogmatic in your fundamentalism and have a clue"

          -- Really / That must be why EVERY major university and medical school in the entire world disagrees with you, and agrees with him. They ALL "just don't get it".

          Sure they don't.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          LOL. Yeah right now RedZoa is looking for some preposterously long article from Berkeley.edu full of conjecture and half-truth to copy and paste here and he has yet to account for how metamorphosis can be accounted for in evolution, but it won't change a thing, evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "so far no one has come out with proof that evolution theory is wrong!! Have you challenged science, when it says you should look like mixture of your biological parents? Have you?"

          – what in the world does this have to do with the evolution of one species to another?
          – i don't challenge hard science like physics or chemistry, i do however challenge theory and conjecture.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • Doris

          Are you nuts, Snotty? (Oh wait, I think I already knew the answer to that question..lol.) Metamorphosis? I'm pretty sure I heard you mention that before. Why in the world would you think evolution would have to "account" for metamorphosis any differently than any other life cycle process?

          July 30, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "he has yet to account for how metamorphosis can be accounted for in evolution, but it won't change a thing, evolution is complete and utter nonsense."

          Re-posting your crap over and over does not make it true. It just demonstrates you complete ignorance.
          What ? No 30 year old misleading quotes today ? You fresh out ?

          July 30, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "what in the world does this have to do with the evolution of one species to another?
          – i don't challenge hard science like physics or chemistry, i do however challenge theory and conjecture."

          Thanks for demonstrating again Snotty, in plain sight, for all to see you have no clue how Evolution works.
          One species does not "evolve into another". Species diverge, and have common ancestors.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • redzoa

          Antibiotic resistance is the result of mutation, i.e. the code to resist is not already present, but results from some mutation. See e.g.:
          http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full

          So, by your definition, antibiotic resistance is directly observable evolution.

          Lenski's E. coli developed the ability metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen. It is true that the basic genes required for this process existed prior to the evolution of this trait; however, the trait evolved from a duplication of these genes, a re-insertion of these genes under the control of an aerobically-active promoter, but then also involved the refinement of these duplicated genes via mutation. Again, the final trait is the product of a change in the primary genetic make-up. See e.g.:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/

          Furthermore, we can point to a re-examination of Lenski's E. coli to identify a variety of both loss of function and, importantly, gain of function mutations. Again, the adaptation did not arise solely due to pre-existing primary genetic sequences.

          http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001790

          Suffice it to say that your distinction fails on its face. Adaptation is a response, but the source of the ability to adapt is genetic and we it has been clearly established that the ability to adapt to a given environment hinges on the organisms genetic variability, which in turn hinges on the ability of mutation to provide new primary genetic sequences.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • redzoa

          "LOL. Yeah right now RedZoa is looking for some preposterously long article from Berkeley.edu full of conjecture and half-truth to copy and paste here and he has yet to account for how metamorphosis can be accounted for in evolution, but it won't change a thing, evolution is complete and utter nonsense."

          For the record, I've provided you with primary sources. With respect to metamorphosis, this has been addressed before:

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/

          I have responded to your arguments. Now, feel free to explain why humans, placental mammals, possess a defunct gene for egg yolk protein and how this dead gene just happens to map to the lineages predicted by evolution and corroborated by there relative appearance in the fossil record. See e.g.:

          http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063

          July 30, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • unsername1

          @ a wandering scot,

          "I don't challenge hard science like physics or chemistry"

          so you do accept the facts on how planets are formed, or oceans, mountains, and deserts are created on Earth?.........like hard science say!!!

          July 30, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "One species does not "evolve into another". Species diverge, and have common ancestors."

          – Evolution has it supposedly that Tiktaalik is an ancestor to tetrapods but we know this is not true because the footprints of tetrapods have been found in a Polish quarry and predate Tiktaalik by millions of years.
          – This is yet more intellectual dishonesty from Darwinism.
          – It's been proven mathematically that gradualism simply will not work and saltation is outright foolishness.
          – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          " Evolution has it supposedly that Tiktaalik is an ancestor to tetrapods but we know this is not true because the footprints of tetrapods have been found in a Polish quarry and predate Tiktaalik by millions of years."

          Tiktaalik is a transitional form because it bears traits bridging fish and tetrapods. It is not a pre-requisite that it is was the first in the transition nor that it reflects the direct ancestor of modern lineages. The fact that tiktaalik exists at all confounds the notion of immutable specially-created kinds. Furthermore, gradualism and PE are not mutually exclusive. Gradualism may operate within the nodes of PE's "rapid" 10-100K+ years. For example:

          The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

          Furthermore, there are examples of gradualism within the fossil record, e.g. the Foraminifera as acknowledged by Gould himself.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • redzoa

          @scot – Again, how did that defunct gene for egg yolk protein show up in our placental mammal genome?

          July 30, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          @Redzoa

          – proves nothing, we have lot's of genes which do not make themselves manifest. ever heard of the platypus and the echidna?

          July 30, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • redzoa

          @scot: Non-Response. How did the gene get there and how did it come to map to the lineages predicted by evolution and corroborated in the fossil record?

          July 30, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Pssst .. Redzoa. It's still E. coli . don't you get it? Psst Redzoa, it's still a fruit fly. don't you get it?

          July 30, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          RedZoa – "corroborated in the fossil record"

          – ROFLMAO .. oh stop, please. my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Pssst .. Redzoa. It's still E. coli . don't you get it? Psst Redzoa, it's still a fruit fly. don't you get it?"

          @scot – Non-Response . . . How did the defunct gene for egg yolk protein arise in our placental mammal genome and how did it come to map to the lineage predicted by evolution as corroborated by the fossil record?

          Pssst. Lenski's E. coli would not be classified as "E. coli" if they'd been found in the wild. The ability aerobically-metabolize citrate is distinguishing trait between E. coli and non-E.coli. This is one of the reasons the experiment is so meaningful. Furthermore, this change is akin to a "kinds" level change in vertebrates, that is, unless all bacteria are a single "kind" in which case so too are all vertebrates . . .

          July 30, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • redzoa

          "– ROFLMAO .. oh stop, please. my sides are hurting from laughing so hard."

          @scot – Another non-response. Can you address my question or can you not?

          Pssst . . . even ICR/AIG acknowledge the progressive order of the fossil record; whence the various flawed "flood models" to account for the distinctive ordering . . .

          July 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations."

          – uh-huh .. and all randomly as well, yeah right. no evolutionary advantage, but in some mindless way "we're gonna get there folks, it might be 10 million years, a hundred million years, but we'll get there" lol.. i do admire your blind faith in such delusional groupthink.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Again, concerning E.coli. experiment. It's not natural selection here at work, it's 'artificial selection' in a lab as it were. No proof of the myth of evolution since the 'divine' hand of science directs all of these experiments.

          – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • redzoa

          @scot – I take your last non-response, in addition to the failure to substantively respond to any of the other points presented, as indicative that you have no response. I accept your implicit concession of the points . . .

          Thanks again for demonstrating that creationism is nothing more than a long litany of arguments of incredulity founded in ignorance and misrepresentation of the relevant subject matter. Next time there's an ID/creationism – Evolution trial in your neck of the woods, I do sincerely hope you'll offer your expertise as a witness. You sound very much like Mr. Buckingham from Kitzmiller . . .

          Cheers!

          July 30, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Again, concerning E.coli. experiment. It's not natural selection here at work, it's 'artificial selection' in a lab as it were. No proof of the myth of evolution since the 'divine' hand of science directs all of these experiments."

          The point, in response to your proffered distinction between adaptation and evolution, is that these mutations and the novel genes arose without direct "intelligent" engineering, i.e. the molecular mechanisms were purely natural. But again, you really should consider offering your learned and insightful knowledge of the relevant science should the opportunity ever arise to serve as a witness at trial . . .

          July 31, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • awanderingscot

          How did the gene get there and how did it come to map to the lineages predicted by evolution and corroborated in the fossil record?

          1) the platypus is an vertebrate mammal and still has this gene as well
          2) i don't agree with the assertion that the fossil record proves anything in this regard.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "these mutations and the novel genes arose without direct "intelligent" engineering"

          – the evidence is quite clear that the genetic code preexists in the genome and cannot be accounted for by evolution.
          – evolution/naturalism/materialism are complete and utter nonsense and not science.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • redzoa

          "1) the platypus is an vertebrate mammal and still has this gene as well
          2) i don't agree with the assertion that the fossil record proves anything in this regard."

          Another non-response. If this is your response, it betrays that you lack the requisite scientific background to discuss this topic; of course, that's been rather evident for quite some time. Here's one clue: The platypus is not a placental vertebrate mammal, nor is it a marsupial vertebrate mammal.

          Here's the relevant article again:

          http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063

          Have at it . . .

          July 31, 2014 at 12:13 am |
        • redzoa

          " the evidence is quite clear that the genetic code preexists in the genome and cannot be accounted for by evolution."

          As clearly stated and referenced above in the examples and sources provided, the traits I offered result from genes which were not pre-existant in the respective genomes; rather, they resulted from mutations.

          July 31, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • redzoa

          "evolution/naturalism/materialism are complete and utter nonsense and not science."

          Evolution, by any relevant metric (philosophical, legal, etc) is scientific and happens to be the only scientific explanation available to explain exinct and extant biodiversity. Naturalism is, as correctly stated, not science. Materialism is also not science. These latter two are effectively philosophical positions. However, methodological naturalism, which is necessarily premised in materialism, is the basis of the scientific method and is the reason we can employ the fruits of science in various forms of useful technology and predictive applications.

          ID/creationism, on the other hand, by every relevant metric (philosophical, legal) is not scientific. In fact, at every opportunity to make the case for ID/creationism as viable scientific alternative, its proponents have failed, both in the scientific literature and state and federal courts. I'm happy to provide specific citations to the relevant decisions, but here's a nice list if you'd like peruse them yourself:

          http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

          July 31, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "Someone's "borrowing" Salero's catchphrases."

          Or perhaps it is the same person. They both use the same terms and both sounds rather hateful on their attacks of Atheists.

          July 31, 2014 at 6:15 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: i'm preety certain we understand exactly how adaptation IS evolution. here let me breack it down for your simple mind.

          one thing adapts; has a single genetic mutation that allows it a better chance at survival. seeing it survived, it gets to have s.e.x and pass it's genetic mutation on to it's children.

          evolution is when that genetic adaptation becomes the dominate trait in that species. for example standing on two legs to see further allows animals to see what wants to eat them and escape faster.

          so here is a simple anology for evolution: "if evolution is a staircase, adaptation would be the steps."

          July 31, 2014 at 7:04 am |
        • Doris

          TruthPrevails1: "Someone's "borrowing" Salero's catchphrases. Or perhaps it is the same person."

          Yes, I've noticed this for a while now. As if writing in a few similar ways ("total nonsense of evolutionism") over and over each day is somehow going to make it true....lol

          July 31, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • awanderingscot

          evolution is when that genetic adaptation becomes the dominate trait in that species. for example standing on two legs to see further allows animals to see what wants to eat them and escape faster.

          – species that have merely adapted are still able to mate with their own species. evolving into an entirely different species would not allow them to mate. you don't even know your own myth.
          – evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          July 31, 2014 at 9:43 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "evolution is complete and utter nonsense."

          so you say, fortunately nothing supports you

          July 31, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • hal 9001

          awanderingscot: "evolution is complete and utter nonsense."

          I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your repeated assertions are false. Please note, awanderingscot, I am no longer authorized to present you with any more "Dunce of the Day" awards. You have extinguished our supply of them long ago.

          To help explain your current status on this issue, I will utilize my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module (IEEM):

          Can't you see you had yo azz handed to ya once again by redzoa, dufus?

          July 31, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: thankfully you and your ilk are expiring. one by one you drop dead and a new enlightened person takes your place in this world.

          religion is simply in it's death throws, eventually it will stop moving and we can pronounce it dead. theism serves no purpose in this world and those ignorant enough to hold mythology as truth, shall fall with their delusions.

          enjoy your stay on earth scot, soon you will be in the ground feeding worms.

          July 31, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • evidencenot

          hey snotty... why don't you answer the OP's question... where's your evidence for creationism?

          July 31, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Dear Member of The Paste Eating Crew:
        Have you submitted your review of evolution for peer review? See, child, you can claim all you wish that your favored incest story of the bible is right but unless it is accepted by the scientific community as being such, there simply isn't any logical reason to accept it.
        You need to register for the 3rd grade and stick it out this time, no matter how tough the program is.

        July 31, 2014 at 6:23 am |
  16. thesamyaza

    i love it

    July 30, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
  17. noahsdadtopher

    Wonderful!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzppTgGKu8

    July 30, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
    • Science Works

      Creationism – Merriam-Webster Online
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism
      Merriam‑Webster
      the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect ..

      July 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Yep.

        July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • Science Works

          http://ncse.com/creationism

          July 30, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Science

          Did you watch the video?

          July 30, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • Science Works

          Source for video is the icr.- Insti-tute for Creation Research – ?

          July 30, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          They are the ones who made it, yes.

          July 30, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Talk about presuppositions:

          "The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and persp[]icuous..."
          http://www.icr.org/tenets/

          July 30, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Yes, Christians have presuppositions just like atheists do.

          July 30, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Topher,
          So you agree with the ICR that, regardless of data and evidence to the contrary, the Bible is always correct.

          July 30, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
        • midwest rail

          The whole of creation "science" is based on presupposition. Which makes it not-science.

          July 30, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          MidwestKen

          "So you agree with the ICR that, regardless of data and evidence to the contrary, the Bible is always correct."

          Yes, I do. The Bible is from God and is thus more trustworthy than anything man says. Man is fallible, God is not. I know you'll think that is whacky, but this is how we understand things ... when data and evidence appear to be contrary to the Bible, we'd say there's something that's being misunderstood about the data or evidence. Which, when you think about it, lines up with reality. Just wait 5 minutes and scientists change their beliefs.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          midwest rail

          "The whole of creation "science" is based on presupposition. Which makes it not-science."

          ALL "science" is based on presupposition, because science doesn't say anything, scientists do. They look at the data and make conclusions based on their presuppositions. That's why evidence that points to a young earth and is thrown out until they have a test that gives them an old earth result.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • midwest rail

          "...make conclusions based on their presuppositions."
          As Theo is so find of saying....Nope.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher

          "Just wait 5 minutes and scientists change their beliefs."

          Get real. Science has enabled you to spread thoughtless throughout the entire world in a second or two. Keep trashing it.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • bostontola

          Creationism is not science because it is not founded on the scientific method. Hypotheses must be testable, tested, criticized, and validated. Creationism has only offered hypotheses. Hypotheses are like opinions, everyone has one.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          observer

          "Get real. Science has enabled you to spread thoughtless throughout the entire world in a second or two. Keep trashing it."

          You and I agree on the merits of observational science. It's historical science where we disagree and where "science" changes on a daily basis.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • observer

          noahsdadtopher

          "You and I agree on the merits of observational science."

          I am really surprised that you agree with paleontology and geology. Maybe your mind isn't as closed as it may appear.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          observer

          "I am really surprised that you agree with paleontology and geology. Maybe your mind isn't as closed as it may appear."

          I have no problem with those things ... I only disagree with the dating methods/results of those methods.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          The dating methods are straight up physics. Do you have a problem with physics?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "I am really surprised that you agree with paleontology and geology. Maybe your mind isn't as closed as it may appear."

          "I have no problem with those things ... I only disagree with the dating methods/results of those methods."

          So you are saying you have no problem with those fields of research, you just don't believe the educated findings of the scientists and paleontologists doing the research...

          If you won't accept the multiple dating methods used to get a very close approximation of fossil age why even bother to read about their findings? If you already "know" when everything happened then why bother studying what actual scientists and geologists have uncovered and discovered?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • joey3467

          Boston, yes if he has a problem with dating methods then he has a problem with physics. Of course to believe everything in the bible is literally true one must have a problem with physics, biology, geology, and astronomy among other things.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          "The dating methods are straight up physics. Do you have a problem with physics?"

          I have to admit I don't know jack about physics. I never took it in school and it hasn't been something I've studied on my own time. But what I can tell you is that the old earth dating methods have proven to be untrustworthy. Some of them require that evolution is true (thus a presupposition), others can't be used to date anything but young ages though are used by old earthers and yet others have been shown to work ONLY when we don't know a date — and DON'T work when we do know a date.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          neverbeenhappieratheist

          "So you are saying you have no problem with those fields of research, you just don't believe the educated findings of the scientists and paleontologists doing the research..."

          I have only a problem with how they interpret the data on ages.

          "If you won't accept the multiple dating methods used to get a very close approximation of fossil age why even bother to read about their findings? If you already "know" when everything happened then why bother studying what actual scientists and geologists have uncovered and discovered?"

          There's still much to be learned from the stuff. For instance, I had the pleasure of spending a summer in college on an archeological dig. The few things we actually found were really interesting. I just don't believe they were as old as the archeologist believed they were.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          You are ignorant of physics, yet you have declared the science invalid...you don't see the pure ridiculousness of that?

          The earth was once molten...how do you explain it being cool enough for life, when it took nearly a billion years to cool enough to form a crust?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          igaftr

          "You are ignorant of physics, yet you have declared the science invalid...you don't see the pure ridiculousness of that?"

          I never said that. Please don't misrepresent what I've said.

          "The earth was once molten...how do you explain it being cool enough for life, when it took nearly a billion years to cool enough to form a crust?"

          How do you know it was molten? How do you know it took a billion years? You don't. You believe that's true, I'm sure, but you can't prove it. It's a presupposition.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • joey3467

          You are ignorant of physics, yet you have declared the science invalid...you don't see the pure ridiculousness of that?"

          I never said that. Please don't misrepresent what I've said.

          Topher, you may not have used those exact words, but you did say you don't know jack about physics and yet you somehow not that every physicist on the planet doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to dating methods. So the question is if you don't know jack about physics how do you know they are wrong.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          joey3467

          "So the question is if you don't know jack about physics how do you know they are wrong."

          I already explained why dating methods are suspect.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          I don't know which method you are referring to, but radiometric dating has been shown to be very reliable and accurate. Scientists have used multiple methods, based on different materials and mechanisms that all give the same answer. These methods have been used on meteorites that have not been exposed to the hypothesized error sources, and they give the same answer. If there are some inaccurate methods, there are many more accurate, proven methods. They all provide the same answer. That answer is also corroborated by the mathematical models of star and planet formation applied to our solar system.

          July 31, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Bostontola

          I don't remember which they are specifically. Look, I acknowledge there are dating methods that give results of old ages. But there's far more that give results of young ages. You and I can be on opposing ends on this subject and still be friends. We each have different presuppositions. I just don't have enough faith to put my trust in a fallible man or his suspect dating methods. I put my trust in Jesus Christ — who is and who was and who is to come — who will be glorified for saving my wretched soul or glorified for justly sending me to Hell. God never changes. Historical sciences' claims do. For me, there's only one logical choice.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          I agree, there is no reason for this to be personal. I have many Christian friends. But your statement that many more indicate a young earth is simply false factually.

          It would be fair to say that you are certain that the earth is young, therefore you are confident that scientists are missing some key factor that will prove it in the future. I can't prove that false. But to synthesize falsehoods about the current scientific results and conclusions is wrong (factually and morally).

          July 31, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          "I agree, there is no reason for this to be personal. I have many Christian friends. But your statement that many more indicate a young earth is simply false factually."

          I'm afraid not. 90 percent of dating methods (probably not an exact number) point to a young earth — I should note that that doesn't mean they point to 6,000 years like the Bible says, but certainly don't come anywhere near millions or billions.

          "It would be fair to say that you are certain that the earth is young, therefore you are confident that scientists are missing some key factor that will prove it in the future."

          This is exactly my stance.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          "90 percent of dating methods (probably not an exact number) point to a young earth "

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          now that is one of the most outrageous lies I have ever seen written!

          July 31, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          I believe you are sincere, that's why I'm concerned. I have never seen 1 scientifically accepted dating method that concludes the earth's age is measured in thousands of years. It is in Billions of years. The only argument I've seen is in questioning the accuracy of those measurements. Please show me a validated scientific measurement that concluded the earth is thousands of years old.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • joey3467

          He doesn't even mean dating methods. For him the moon is considered a dating method that somehow proves Earth is young.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          "I have never seen 1 scientifically accepted dating method that concludes the earth's age is measured in thousands of years. It is in Billions of years."

          What do you mean by "scientifically accepted"? The science that points to a young earth is scientific.

          "The only argument I've seen is in questioning the accuracy of those measurements."

          That is one reason, true.

          "Please show me a validated scientific measurement that concluded the earth is thousands of years old."

          Joey is right in that the moon does point to a young earth. Things like the existence of blue stars, comets, the amount of salt in the oceans, the amount of sediment on the ocean floor, bent rock layers, soft tissue with fossils, the "Faint Sun Paradox", a rapidly decaying magnetic field, helium in radioactive rocks, C14 in fossils-coal-diamonds and DNA in ancient bacteria, etc. These things all point to a much younger universe than billions of years.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          I do not believe I misrepresented what you said. Perhaps I misunderstood when you said
          "noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          "The dating methods are straight up physics. Do you have a problem with physics?"

          I have to admit I don't know jack about physics."

          Not knowing jack about physics, and then saying that the dating methods are wrong, which are based on physics. So you claim they are wrong, but don't understand why?

          how did I misrepresent what you said?

          July 31, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          joey was being facetious. We have moon rocks. They have been aged by validated scientific methods. They are billions of years old.

          What do I mean by scientific? A dating method that is part of a scientific theory that has been tested, and independently confirmed.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          No topher...none of those thing point to a "young earth".

          The trips to the moon, prove that the earth and moon are made of the same EXACT substances...not just the same elements, but the EXACT same. There is a huge anount of evidence showing the moon was a result of a massive collision in space breaking part of the earth off, becoming the moon. The moon rocks confirm that it not only is possible, but extremely likely that that collision created the moon.
          With this being the most likely way the moon formed, with tons of data to back it up.
          this HAD to have happened in the first billion years of the earths existance as the earth was molten at the time, and since the earth had not even formed its crust, the moon is actually solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
          The number of asteroids and meteors that have left their scars on both the earth and the moon, HAD to have happened after there was a solid crust for us to be able to se them. That means at least a billion years just to cool enough for a crust to be able to show meteor strikes. That is simple physics of dissipation of infrared energy and based on the elements that make up our planet.
          The moon is evidence of a very OLD earth...

          By all means, show me the crackpot that calls himself a scientist that says differently.
          There are no such things as creation scientists, since they start with the premise god exists, and then try to fit reality into their book. That is the opposite of the scientific method, thus disqualifying it from being called a science.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          "We have moon rocks. They have been aged by validated scientific methods. They are billions of years old."

          I don't trust those methods, and I'd suggest you shouldn't either. And you still have a moon problem.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh, "you don't trust those methods" ... oh well, they MUST be wrong then ...

          Sir, you are a fraud.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          Why shouldn't I trust dating methods based on solid physics that if wrong would show up in many other technologies like computer chips? They used multiple different methods, using different elements, they all gave the same answer, billions of years. Why shouldn't I trust that? Why shouldn't you trust that?

          July 31, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey topherthanks for the help and the ICR has a real hard time with the 4 winged dinosaur eh ?

          But this pretty well sums it up – In a nutshell

          The creation must have happened, as it is in the Bible and therefore must be true. Believe in it, or you are an evilutionist and will go to hell.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism

          July 31, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • joey3467

          Topher, please don't lump me in with your stupidity. I don't for one second think the moon is a sign that the Earth is young, and I have even pointed out how and why that argument is wrong several times.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          I explained this earlier, but I'll repeat them since we're having an adult conversation here. (Again, I apologize for not remember which specific methods these are.)

          1. Some method(s) require that evolution is true. True science should not operate on a presupposition, especially one that doesn't meet the scientific method. As for me, since I don't believe in evolution, I'd have to throw this result out.

          2. Methods like C14 cannot point to millions of years, but is often used by old earthers to "support" their side. At best, C14 works in support of a young earth, albeit not as young as I believe it is.

          3. One of the methods has been shown to be untrustworthy. When a rock we knew the age of was dated with this method it said billions of years when we knew it was only a couple years old. But when we use this same method on a rock we DON'T know the age of and we get billions of years, I'm just supposed to trust it because all the scientists agree. That would be a fallacy since it doesn't matter how many people believe it is true — it's either true or it isn't. I'm sorry, but I don't have enough faith to trust this method.

          I put my faith in God before anything else and His word states the creation is young. And as you rightly stated earlier, if the data goes against what God has said, my understanding is that we have misinterpreted that data in some unknown way. God is to be trusted above all else. I have no interest in putting my trust in man or ANY dating method, even those that point to a young Earth.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          bostontola

          " ... technologies like computer chips?"

          Sorry, I forgot to address this part. Microchips are developed using observational science. They do not require the universe to be billions of years old for use to figure them out.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Science Works

          "The creation must have happened, as it is in the Bible and therefore must be true."

          True, because I trust God. But there's plenty of science that agrees with the Bible and thus only adds to my faith.

          "Believe in it, or you are an evilutionist and will go to hell."

          Wrong. A person's stance on the age of the Earth has nothing to do with their salvation.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          topher,
          The science that underpins dating techniques is the same as makes an atomic clock accurate; GPS requires an accurate clock for accurate measurements and therefore an accurate location. That is one practical example that dating techniques are accurate. The earth's can reliably be measured in billions of years.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          topher
          "... there's plenty of science that agrees with the Bible."

          Such as? The creation stories, talking snake, global flood, woman to salt, man living in fish, etc. have no science to support them.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          In Santa We Trust

          "Such as? The creation stories, talking snake, global flood, woman to salt, man living in fish, etc. have no science to support them."

          I'd agree with that except the part about the flood. You have to understand these are things that are miracles and by their very definition wouldn't be supported by science. On things like this, that's where faith comes in. Faith will always be a part of it. But my faith isn't blind faith. The evidence supports the Bible is true.

          "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

          I can tell there's a God just from looking at Creation.

          July 31, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          topher,
          The question was – what parts of the bible are supported by science?

          July 31, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • bostontola

          topher,
          1. Some method(s) require that evolution is true. True science should not operate on a presupposition, especially one that doesn't meet the scientific method. As for me, since I don't believe in evolution, I'd have to throw this result out.
          ==> None of the methods I'm referring to require any knowledge of evolution. They rest solely on Quantum Physics, the most accurately and fully validated science in the history of mankind.

          2. Methods like C14 cannot point to millions of years, but is often used by old earthers to "support" their side. At best, C14 works in support of a young earth, albeit not as young as I believe it is.
          ==> Carbon dating is useless for dating anything in billions of years, it is used for much younger things based on the physics.

          3. One of the methods has been shown to be untrustworthy. When a rock we knew the age of was dated with this method it said billions of years when we knew it was only a couple years old. But when we use this same method on a rock we DON'T know the age of and we get billions of years, I'm just supposed to trust it because all the scientists agree. That would be a fallacy since it doesn't matter how many people believe it is true — it's either true or it isn't. I'm sorry, but I don't have enough faith to trust this method.
          ==> I'm not familiar with that story. It must have been a volcanic rock if it was just years old. Like I said, there are many methods and all the ones I know of have no known flaws when dating objects billions of years old.

          Don't forget that if the universe was only thousands of years old, the universe would have to have been created aged (like distressed furniture). The distances to other galaxies is in billions of light years. For us to see them, the light started out billions of years ago. If we are fooling ourselves and they are really much closer, we would directly feel the gravity associated with them. These are all things of direct observed science. The dating methods are based on direct observations of the radioactive decay of elements. No historical science is involved.

          July 31, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
    • Doris

      A video by the Insti.tute for Creation Research.

      LOLOLOL

      Oh Topher that is funny. You may as well post the one about Ray Comfort and his banana. That's even funnier.

      July 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        I often hear "Why do you atheists hang out on these boards anyway if you don't believe?" and to be honest, at least for me, it's because I need at least one or two good laughs every day...

        Topher's videos are some of the funniest stuff i've ever seen. The fact that they believe it makes it even funnier.

        July 30, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          It's not the laughs, for me, but I hate to think that this misinformation might go unchallenged.

          July 30, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Topher,
      That video is incorrect.
      There is evidence of common ancestry with chimps, one of the best being Human Chromosome 2, but also ERVs, biochemistry, biogeography, genetics, etc.

      "The biggest problem for evolution is how life got started..."

      Evolution does not deal with how life got started is explains the diversity of life.

      What does the Bible have to do with Evolution?

      Mt. St. Helen's does demonstrate a lot of geographic work is a short amount of time, but not the kind of work that is needed to produce the earth's geography as we see it.

      Dino soft tissue has been explained... and not by a young earth.

      Again, evolution does not deal with life from non-life.

      What can't be built by simple steps? The eye can. The wing can. The bacterial flagellum can.

      Darwinian theories are not 'secular assumptions', even though Darwin ideas aren't necessarily used any more. The modern synthesis of evolution is a well-substantiated explanation of how the diversity of life arose.

      July 30, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
  18. Alias

    Topher posted:
    'Israel hasn't stolen anyone's land'
    So where did all the refugees come from????
    Ignorance knows no bounds with this one.

    July 30, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • colin31714

      He once suggested that Australia and the Americas did not exist before Noah's flood. This would no doubt come as quite a surprise to the Australian Aboriginals who had been living in Australia for about 30,000 years before Genesis was written, as well as to the innumerable societies of Amero-Indians who had lived throughout North and South America for thousands of years before the time of the Biblical flood.

      July 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Begging the question fallacy.

        July 30, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • LaBella

          You didn't suggest that, then? What did you say, exactly?
          Genuinely curious.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • colin31714

          Comment to Topher
          Even when I was ten years old I realized the story did not make sense. But Topher get together with fred, LofA, L4H, RB, and the others and tell us how old Noah rounded up kangaroos in Australia and armadillos in the Americas and how they got back home after the flood? Be creative.

          January 28, 2014 at 11:37 am | Report abuse | Reply

          • Topher Response

          Who says Australia and the Americas existed before the flood?
          January 28, 2014 at 11:40 am | Report abuse | Reply

          July 30, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • LaBella

          Whoa.

          July 30, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          You keep ducking the question. If there had been a world wide flood all fresh water supplies would be polluted with salinity, so how could mammals and much of the plant life survive on salt water?

          July 31, 2014 at 6:47 am |
        • awanderingscot

          You keep ducking the question. If there had been a world wide flood all fresh water supplies would be polluted with salinity, so how could mammals and much of the plant life survive on salt water?

          – ever heard of evaporation? Public schools?

          July 31, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          "– ever heard of evaporation? Public schools?"

          Seriously?

          Tell me when you see the obvious idiocy of that statement scot...I'll be waiting.

          Religious "schools"?

          July 31, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • ausphor

          scot
          Just when I thought you could not get any dumber you outdo yourself. How long do you think it would take to remove the salinity in the great lakes just by annual rainfall? Of course you believe in magic, so maybe a day or two, right? Your God is embarrassed by you displaying your ignorance everyday. Run to an apologist site for help you need a great deal of assistance.

          July 31, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Evidently your understanding of the earth is limited and you've never heard of Pangaea. Public schools?

        July 31, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • LaBella

          Can't really use the Pangaea if one is a young earth advocate, which Topher says he is.

          July 31, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          why not? we've known all along that cataclysmic events have occurred in earth's history. concerning the time scale, you go ahead and believe man, we'll continue to believe God. we'll soon see who is right and who is wrong.

          August 1, 2014 at 12:25 am |
  19. realbuckyball

    I admire Rushdie immensely, as a writer and person, and I would argue that he had every right to publish "The Satanic Verses," at least in Western countries. In the context of his book, a work of literature, he was clearly being satirical"

    No he wasn't. He exposed the origins of Allah as the Arabic god "Sin", who had the SAME 3 divine daughters, as Allah originally did. Why do you think the Islamic clerics went so nuts ? Islam has a history just as bizarre and questionable as Christianity does.

    July 30, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
  20. unsername1

    if Jesus had given a chance to born again, which color ot country would he pick?

    July 30, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      He already came back as Obama... and the Republicans/Tea Partiers want to crucify him again...

      July 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Mayan obviously!

      July 30, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
    • Alias

      The bible huggers mostly agree he would have to be from the 'chosen' race, and statistically they are more financially sound.

      July 30, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
      • ausphor

        Alias
        Oy vey iz mir, being God's chosen people has been no bargain; we could have done better, way better.

        July 31, 2014 at 6:23 am |
    • colin31714

      Well, forget Australia. There's no way we'd be able to come up with three wise men or a virgin......

      July 30, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
      • LaBella

        Ba dum dum...tish.

        July 30, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        He shoots. .. and scores! LOL.

        July 30, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        are you an Aussie mate?

        July 31, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
1 2 3 4 5
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.