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. Doris

    Here's a previous post from Colin that puts the Creationist view in good perspective:

    ======

    To put the sheer idiocy of Topher's, Awanderingscots' etc. creationist claims in context, here are some very basic pieces of evidence that make the biblical creation story utter garbage.

    Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

    Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

    Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

    Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

    Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

    Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

    Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

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

    Number made in support of creation science: ZERO

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

    There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:

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

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

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

    I know which alternative my money is on.

    August 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms,"

      – a real mouthful stated in just this one sentence, on topic, these bacteria have remained in stasis for 3 BILLION YEARS, no change whatsoever, hardly a case for evolution.
      – one celled animals, the prokaryotic bacteria were locked in stasis and have have absolutely no links to multi-celled organisms. It is now known that Ediacara are not descendants and were a separate form. no transitional forms found at all.

      – blah blah blah blah, skip the hyperbole there are so many holes in evolution the theory looks like swiss cheese

      – Cambrian Explosion, mass extinctions, no transitional forms at all, established animal kingdoms, phyla, body forms remaining virtually unchanged throughout stasis until extinction, and i could go on and on with how the fossil record actually DISPROVES evolution.

      – case in point the coal formations in Montana and the fossil forms found there, the layers dated millions and millions of years, guess what? virtually no change in the species from top to bottom, MILLIONS OF YEARS! Paleontologists affirm.

      – oh, and because Darwin's gradualism is pure D (with a capital 'D') BS; the fallacy of punctuated equilibrium has been created. in this sub-fallacy of evolution, the former concept of saltation which has been totally debunked has surfaced again (this time as "punctuated equilibrium"). it's the same thing, a bird can supposedly hatch from a reptile egg. pure rubbish. macro-mutations? sure, and that's why we see so many beautiful monsters running around and which by the way are totally non-existent in the fossil record. Oh but it's easy for the evolutionist to explain, THEY DON"T HAVE TO! It's magic, the speciation just happens so fast that no fossil records are left. How convenient.

      – evolution is complete and utter nonsense. stooges like Colin, RedZoa, IGAFRT, Bostonola, find it convenient to parrot this garbage because it fits nicely with their delusion, a world in which God does not exist. The facts speak for themselves however and facts do not support the delusional myth of evolution.

      August 6, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
      • halero 9001

        Well well, look like the creationism crowd has been busy making up more "science".

        Like I've always said creationism is TOTAL NONSENSE now and forever more!

        August 7, 2014 at 12:16 am |
  2. awanderingscot

    "This work is not presented in the form of a fanciful story, but to test a hypothesis: Are the skeletons from Liang Bua cave sufficiently unusual to require invention of a new human species?"
    "Our re-an.alysis shows that they are not. The less strained explanation is a developmental disorder. Here the signs point rather clearly to Down syndrome, which occurs in more than one per thousand human births around the world."

    – Robert B. Eckhardt, professor of developmental genetics and evolution at Penn State
    – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804151510.htm

    – foolish evolutionists thought they had an early ancestor of man; instead, it was someone with Down's Syndrome. LOL
    – evolution is complete and utter nonsense, aforementioned proof shown.

    August 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. Atheism has many tenets that have to be accepted by faith. For example that the universe) came from nothing, inorganic matter evolved into living cells by random chemistry, complex biological information arose without intelligence, and that morality came about by natural selection.

      – Atheism and evolution are complete and utter nonsense believed only by people who refuse to accept accountability to their creator.

      August 4, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
      • bostontola

        Awwww, nobody will have discourse with you so you converse with yourself. Your first pile of chum got no takers so you throw in a different chum blend. Very sad.

        August 4, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Thanks much. I really don't need any more bigoted commentary such as yours anyway. It was meant for others besides the atheist trolls who inhabit this blog.

          August 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Doris

          Boston you should have known that Snotty was targeting others like him – you know, people who watch the Flintstones thinking they are watching a documentary....

          August 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • bostontola

          Doris,
          The Flintstones goes with his 'I know you are but what am I' response. Sad.

          August 4, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        "A" = lack of.
        "Theism" = belief in gods
        "A" + "Theism" = Lack of belief in gods.
        That's it, that's all.
        Atheism is a negative statement that describes only one thing that someone doesn't believe.
        It has nothing to do with hypothesis regarding the origin of life, the Universe and everything – nor does evolution address abiogenesis.

        So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
        If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

        August 5, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • awanderingscot

          For one thing, the fossil record absolutely does not support evolution. Gould has even been quoted saying that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology. Other notable experts in the field of paleontology have admitted having doubts about gradualistic evolution but these doubts were suppressed. Niles Eldredge stated the following .. "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change all the while really knowing that it does not". As previously noted, evolution is complete and utter nonsense. It's a fairy tale.

          August 6, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Quote mining again?
          That bit is from a book about evolution called "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria,".
          The author says without question that evolution occurs, and that adaptation via natural selection is real and important. He is saying that paleontologists need to be more vocal about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady, but rapid and static in turns. The book from which the quote is mined is from 1985.
          In the last 30 years, the change in tone to which he refers has indeed occurred.

          August 7, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • awanderingscot

          @DOC
          "He is saying that paleontologists need to be more vocal about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady, but rapid and static in turns."

          – that's exactly right, he wants paleontologists to lie even more. the reason paleontologists are not more vocal is because the evidence is not there. stasis is prevalent throughout until extinction.
          – evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          August 8, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingdolt: When you provide your own peer-reviewed evidence that evolution is false, instead of just quote mining from dolts who share your opinion (making you biased), you might have justification for these delusions you suffer from. No-one is believing you because all the EVIDENCE is AGAINST you! Get an education.

          August 8, 2014 at 8:35 am |
        • awanderingscot

          TP
          – in case you had not noticed, most of the quotes and material i post concerning evolution are actually from evolutionists. you need to learn reading comprehension or better yet, mind your own business.

          August 8, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • halero 9001

          I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your assertions still have the value of 0. Although you frequently reference quotes by evolutionary biologists, your method of quote mining frequently misrepresents the primary point of those scientists. This is why your assertion value of 0 is almost always a polar opposite of the scientists that you reference.

          August 8, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • kmosley2799

        The fossil record clearly supports evolution through natural selection. The geologic column is separated into different layers called strata with the oldest sediments at the bottom. You won't find any modern animals mixed in with the Cambrian layer fossils. You certainly will never find the remains of a human with a trilobite. I think you've been reading Henry Morris books or listening to Duane Gish, Ian Juby and Ken Ham. You are full on religitarded awanderingscot. You find it difficult to accept that humans are evolved apes but have no problem believing that an invisible sky wizard put a dirt man and a rib woman in a garden with a talking snake and a magical tree. It takes no faith to be an atheist. It is simply a rejection of theistic claims because they cannot be substantiated. Would you say that not believing in werewolves is a faith based claim? Evolution is a scientific fact confirmed by the fossil record, comparative anatomy and molecular genetics. The theory of evolution is how it happened. Natural selection, random genetic mutation and genetic drift. It is indisputable and is a case closed scientific discovery regarding the diversity of life on Earth. To deny this is owed only to willful ignorance and religitardation. The Buybull is a handful of fanciful myths created by Bronze and Iron age, desert dwelling goat herders. It is filled with several contradictions and absurdities.

        August 6, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Right. Just like evolutionists are always trying to explain away the abrupt appearance of new species by saying that the transitional intermediates were for some reason were not fossilized. The fact of the matter is the fossil record does not have a single transition from one species to another. The Bighorn Basin in Wyoming is a perfect example of stasis and the fallacy of evolution. It holds a continuous record of early mammal fossil deposits going back about 5 million years. Paleontologists assumed at least some of the populations would be linked by transitional forms to prove gradualistic evolution. They were wrong, species remained unchanged and in fact there was an overlap and species thought to be ancestors appeared long after their supposed descendants.

          – evolution to complete and utter nonsense

          August 7, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering,
          Do you have any evidence for creationism?

          August 7, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          @Santa

          – indeed the lack of real evidence of evolution necessitates a creator.
          – for example the myth of a seemingly billions of years old geologic column as mentioned above would have the total sedimentary activity represented as layers 100 miles thick or even 200 miles thick. But the average of each local geologic column on earth is about one mile thick. This is a fact. Evolutionists are liars and deceivers.
          – evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          August 7, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • halero 9001

          I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your assertion score is still 0. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module (IEEM), this equates to:

          "Creationism 'science' is UTTER AND TOTAL NONSENSE now and forevermore!"

          August 8, 2014 at 10:04 am |
  3. Robert Brown

    http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/Darwin.htm

    August 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      With all this agreement on Darwin's four key tenets, why is there so much fuss about evolution? Ah, but for one small, annoying small point. Modern scientists, following Darwin's last great insight, have proven an acc.umulation of small changes can lead to an entirely new species, given sufficient time. Creationists deny there is either enough time (i.e. the Earth is only a few thousand years old according to one biblical interpretation), or small changes can never acc.umulate into a species sized change. Thus, the argument is not over the Evolution of a species by Natural Selection, but the Tra.nsmu.tation between species under any circ.umstances, including Natural Selection.

      Scientific evidence for species-changing evolution was already quite strong in the time of Darwin, but indirect. Now, with the advent of DNA mapping, we can clearly read evolution's history in our genes, and track genetic change and reuse from 4 billion-year-old strains of bacteria to their expression of proteins in modern humans. Yet we still have never seen a species transform.”

      August 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        "why is there so much fuss about evolution?"

        I have been asking this question for years. The existance in evolution in no way discounts the possibility of a God, perhaps certain literal interpretations of certain religions. And even if evolution on earth could be proven wrong, it does not prove a God exists. I have actually seen some of the same stuff scot cuts and pastes being used on websites to prove that we were put here by aliens.

        August 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          That is the fuss. Some think if you take evolution far enough, you don't need God. I tend to take the bible literally, but I'm not a scientist. I'm convinced there is a God, whether genesis is a parable or literal.

          August 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • kudlak

          Robert
          Yet, evolution demonstrates that no god was necessary for there to be such a diversity of life on this planet, just as other sciences demonstrate that no god is necessary to explain where diseases come from, how a rainbow is made, why people go insane, volcanoes, what the sun is, and basically every other question people had about nature.

          Science has been finding the actual explanations for things since its beginnings, and nowhere has it found that any god is necessary to explain nature. In Paul's time you could call someone who denied the gods a "fool" because they simply wouldn't have a viable alternative answer to any of these questions, like we now do. You can still insist that some god exists, but fewer people see the need for any to necessarily have to exist. The universe actually makes more sense if you presume that no gods are influencing its function, or had a hand in its creation. The burden of proof then falls upon you to make a case for an unnecessary god existing, where people in the past just assumed that gods and other supernatural beings simply had to exist in order to explain things.

          August 5, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        "given enough time". this is laughable and a mathematical improbability. Evolutionists also have to deal with the 5 major mass extinctions each of these almost wiping out all life on the planet. you're right though given enough time monkeys could type out the entire works of Shakespeare, but it didn't happen and never will, just like evolution.

        August 7, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Evolutionists also have to deal with the 5 major mass extinctions each of these almost wiping out all life on the planet."

          And what do you believe it is they have to deal with? Is it you believe that these events make it impossible for "enough time" to be available?

          August 8, 2014 at 10:17 am |
    • Science Works

      http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/the_truth_about_science_vs_religion_4_reasons_why_intelligent_design_falls_flat_partner/

      August 4, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
  4. awanderingscot

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” – Charles Darwin

    – It's called irreducible complexity and it is the principle that functionality can only be obtained when multiple independent
    processes work in unison to jointly produce the functionality. The theory of evolution will never be able to account for this.
    – Evolution has never been proven to exist and is a delusion entertained only by atheists and deists.

    August 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Please don't feed the troll.

      August 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        But he is just so cute and adorable.

        August 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      I look around and see no signs of evolution at all, i do see delusional God-deniers doing alot of whining and name-calling.

      – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense. Only delusional atheists and deists need apply.

      August 4, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
      • igaftr

        You calling people out for name calling, especially when you ARE name calling is really pathetic scot.

        Would you like the extremely long list of ridiculous names you have called people?

        August 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I know it's tempting, but please, please stop feeding this guy. Even he doesn't believe the crap he's posting. He just loves getting the response. He's just wasting time and space.

        August 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      wandering, If you finish the quote from Darwin it wouldn't look like it supported your nonsense. Do you have any evidence for creationism?

      August 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
    • igaftr

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

      scot, you are the one who is the most guilty of this I have ever seen...they actuall use that quote to show the example.

      How utterly lame and pathetic.

      August 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Scot
      This was already addressed on this very same comment page earlier today, as it was several other times.
      Whenever it is, you abandon the thread.
      So here we go again.

      The evolutionary development of the eye is observable even today becuase its various stages are still there in extant species, with each stage fulfilling the organism's needs in their respective environmental niches.
      Some very simple animals have nothing more than light sensitive spots that enable them to differentiate light and dark.
      If a patch of such spots developed even the slightest of pits, it would cast a shadow and thereby show the direction of light. If the pit got deeper and started to close,then light would form a blurred image. Mucous secreted by the cells would bend the light and focus it. If this mucous hardened, it would form a lens and transmit a better image.
      All these different fully functional stages at different levels of complexity are found in living animals today.

      So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
      If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

      August 4, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Illogical and wishful thinking concerning the 'evolution of the eye' is sheer fallacy

        – 5%, 10%, 50% of an eye will not produce sight, an eye needs %100 of components to work
        – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense

        August 4, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Irreducible complexity is a load of bunk and you know it.
          There are many successful organisms with "less than 100%" of an eye by human standards, and yet what vision they have is sufficient for them to thrive in their respective environments.
          Since there are organisms whose sight is superior to ours, does that mean that they have 110% of an eye?

          So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
          If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

          August 5, 2014 at 8:04 am |
        • awanderingscot

          That is factually incorrect. There are absolutely no organisms with less than 100% of the eye given to them for the purpose intended. In other words there are absolutely no organisms that possess an eye that is still evolving and you cannot prove otherwise.

          August 5, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Since there are organisms whose sight is superior to ours, does that mean that they have 110% of an eye?

          So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
          If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

          August 5, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • bostontola

          scot: "That is factually incorrect. There are absolutely no organisms with less than 100% of the eye given to them for the purpose intended."

          THAT is factually incorrect. There are animals that live in dark places that have vestigial eyes that function well below 100%, some don't work at all like the Tetra cave fish. You spew pseudo-facts incessantly. You apparently have no shame because you come right back with more bald face assertions that are false. Very sad.

          August 5, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, The human eye has a blind-spot so does it really qualify as 100%? http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/sciencefacts/humanbody/eyes.html.
          Any evidence for creationism yet?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • G to the T

          " 5%, 10%, 50% of an eye will not produce sight, an eye needs %100 of components to work"

          Absolutely incorrect. Indeed we can see parallels in nature for the various forms an eye could take on it's way to what we currently have. From simple "eye spots" that can detect light to cupped depressions of these to "pin-hole" eyes and finally to a lensed eye.

          Let me ask you this – do you wear glasses? I do. Without them, my sight is about 60% of what I'd have without them. Does that mean that my vision without the glasses is useless? Nope – I'm still able to get around, not bump into things, etc. Ask someone who's had to have their lens removed (cataracts, etc.) if what they have is preferable to no sight at all.

          August 8, 2014 at 10:21 am |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    Looks like the bible will have to undergo some major revisions:

    A 1500-year-old bible has been discovered in Turkey. It contains the Gospel of Barnabas and has been transferred by the Turkish government to the Ethnography Museum of Ankara with a police escort. Barnabas was a disciple of Christ, and in the work, claims that Jesus was not crucified, instead it says he ascended to heaven alive and Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place. Furthermore, the 1500-year-old bible states that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, but simply a prophet who passed on the word of God.

    August 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Oooh! Got a link? That sound fascinating.

      August 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
  6. awanderingscot

    I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them. – Richard Dawkins

    – [atheists and deists] made a religion out of them.
    – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense, there is no evidence for it and never will be.

    August 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Give it up, troll. Go find another blog to bother. Your schtick is played on this site.

      August 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      asinine, as ever.

      August 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • LaBella

      When did Dawkins say that?

      August 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
    • igaftr

      Dawkins never said that. Just scot NOT researching anything and not verifying his info before posting.

      see :

      http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/six-things-darwin-never-said

      just scot showing he is nothing but a troll, or insane, or whatever his problem is, but he is a liar...that is certain.

      August 4, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      ‘"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."’ – Charles Darwin

      – not true science
      – thanks IGAFTR

      August 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Please stop feeding this troll.

        August 4, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • LaBella

        Quote mining again?

        August 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • tallulah131

          That's what trolls do to get responses. Please don't feed him!

          August 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Not mining at all, just a simple google search. You shouldn't be so offended when evolution is exposed for what it is, pure and utter nonsense.

        August 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • LaBella

          I'm not offended in the least. Why should I be offended at a person who quote mines? It just proves the innate dishonesty of the person who thinks it's a valid way to make a point, whether the quote mining is from someone taking Darwin's quotes out of context or someone taking Scripture out of context. It's amusing.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
      • igaftr

        Scot
        Why not print the entirety of that letter, so you can show the context of it. He was musing, so not true science, and it was Darwin...so he had a basic theory at that point, and it was coelescing into a practicle testable theory. We have come a long way since Darwin, and there is a lot that Darwin speculated on that was not as accurate as he wanted.

        You are absolutly quote mining, and are as dishonest as they come.

        August 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • LaBella

          Ah, yes. Context.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          In scientific investigations, it is permitted to invent any hypothesis and, if it explains various large and independent classes of facts, it rises to the rank of a well-grounded theory. – Charles Darwin

          – ah yes, "invent any hypothesis" ... and the delusional will believe it.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • LaBella

          For context, here is the entire paragraph:

          In scientific investigations it is permitted to invent any hypothesis, and if it explains various large and independent classes of facts it rises to the rank of a well-grounded theory. The undulations of the ether and even its existence are hypothetical, yet every one now admits the undulatory theory of light. The principle of natural selection may be looked at as a mere hypothesis, but rendered in some degree probable by what we positively know of the variability of organic beings in a state of nature,—by what we positively know of the struggle for existence, and the consequent almost inevitable preservation of favourable variations,—and from the analogical formation of domestic races. Now this hypothesis may be tested,—and this seems to me the only fair and legitimate manner of considering the whole question,—by trying whether it explains several large and independent classes of facts; such as the geological succession of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their mutual affinities and ho.ologies. If the principle of natural selection does explain these and other large bodies of facts, it ought to be received. On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation of any one of these facts. We can only say that it has so pleased the Creator to command that the past and present inhabitants of the world should appear in a certain order and in certain areas; that He has impressed on them the most extraordinary resemblances, and has classed them in groups subordinate to groups. But by such statements we gain no new knowledge; we do not connect together facts and laws; we explain nothing.

          August 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot

          "ah yes, "invent any hypothesis" ... and the delusional will believe it."

          Yes, and that is how religions are born

          Science starts with any hypothesis , that is true, and when there is enough information that can be confirmed, it becomes a theory, which then can be tested and worked on.

          The god hypothesis has never graduated to theory because there is no evidence anywhere, so you are right..the delusional will believe it...you are catching on.

          August 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  7. bostontola

    Is there proof that no God exists? No.
    Is there proof that any Gods do exist? No.

    No proof either way. That only leaves evidence. Everyone has their own subjective evidence that can't be shared, so that leaves objective evidence for discussion.

    Is there objective evidence that more complex life evolved from less complex life? Yes. There are libraries full of objective evidence that has been independently verified. This evidence comes from chemistry, geology, biology, physics, etc. The evidence from the various sciences positively cross checks across the various fields.

    Is there any objective evidence that the evolution of complex life is false? No. None. Just assertions with no objective evidence.
    Is there any objective evidence for an alternative to evolution of complex life? No. None.

    Summary: All objective evidence says complex life evolved from simpler life. No objective evidence exists to the contrary or alternative (questioning the objective evidence for evolution is NOT evidence against evolution).

    At this point, asserting that evolution is false is like saying humans are not animals, or the earth is flat, or that the universe orbits a stationary earth. These are preposterous statements in 2014. When they come from people that are uneducated in science, the preposterousness is squared. It's no different than an uneducated person asserting to a doctor that disease comes from Humors, bile, phlegm, etc., or telling a cosmologist that the universe is static. Saying the preposterous thing over and over, louder and louder doesn't make the statement any less preposterous.

    August 4, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
    • igaftr

      If you look at any creationist sites, all they do is attack known science, and not even logically...just smoke and mirrors. Not one of them offers any evidence at all of what they choose to believe, they just quote from the bible as if it were an authority, and then you have guys like scot that clearly do not understand what he is reading, parroting the flawed logic and false information on those sites, and quoting scientists out of context in an attempt to refute known fact.
      Pathetic really.

      August 4, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • bostontola

        When you provide proof that the literal bible is false, they claim, "the bible is not a science text". Then in other situations, they quote the bible as if it were a science authority.

        August 4, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • believerfred

          Where do you find science in the Bible? I see where we can comment on the Bible from a scientific perspective or comment on science from a biblical perspective. When say Isaiah was saying the earth was a sphere he was referring to an all encompassing 360 degree 3 dimensional wedding dance of the Hebrew (i.e. the marriage was encircled with the presence of God). It would be a stretch to think he observed earth as an oblate spheroid

          August 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • bostontola

          fred,
          Quite a bit of Genesis is assertions that contrast with science. The order of creation, the time span of creation, etc. There are other aspects of the bible that contrast with science. Ho.mose.xuality is defined as a sin which means it must be a choice. There is science that shows that for some, it is a biological phenomenon well below the level of choice. With regard to the shape of the earth, the bible has entries that range from flat to arguably round, so that is not in the favor of a perfect doc.ument.

          August 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • believerfred

          bostontola
          "Quite a bit of Genesis is assertions that contrast with science"
          =>I like your choice of word "contrast" !

          " The order of creation"
          =>the universe is spot on unless you add the atheist assumption that the sun and moon were made late in the cycle rather than simply made clear (i.e.dust or heavy atmosphere began to allow for observable light ). As to evolution we have changed classification systems many times in the past 300 years alone and are not happy with the current one. The Bible classified whales with the marine life and seed bearing plants with vegetation. I am up in the air on birds but the Bible does not address dinosaurs as marine or land so this "contrast" lacks a transitional paragraph.

          "the time span of creation,"
          =>Six days of creation and one day of rest is important as to worship centered around God every day of week with the day of rest being rest with God from our existence in creation. 7 is the number of perfection and many have spent a lifetime with numerology associated with the Bible.

          "Ho.mose.xuality is defined as a sin which means it must be a choice. There is science that shows"
          =>In context it is a sin and science does not address sin. Science will only confirm man is not physically evolved for male on male intercourse and for those who believe in social evolution apes are homosexual for display of dominance. There is no scientific evidence concerning choice however predispositions are evident in early life.

          "a biological phenomenon well below the level of choice."
          =>Jesus comment on this saying some are made this way by man and some are born this way.
          =>This issue brings to the surface of deception in all its forms. The serpent put the deception out there for Eve. "Did God really say that"
          =>sexual lust is a sin regardless if with beast, women or man. There is always a choice. If there is no choice the sin falls elsewhere

          August 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • G to the T

          "the universe is spot on unless you add the atheist assumption that the sun and moon were made late in the cycle rather than simply made clear (i.e.dust or heavy atmosphere began to allow for observable light ). "

          Isn't that adding to the bible though? If it doesn't say it, how are coming to that conclusion?

          August 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • believerfred

          G to the T
          It does not say. We have day one light then day 4 we have lights. The argument I get from atheists is that the sun and moon came late in the game so their assumption is they were made on day 4. I don't know how light on day one or 4 differ other than lights on day 4 are made to serve functions we are familiar with in the sun and moon.

          August 4, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • G to the T

          "It does not say."

          Exactly – you are adding to the Bible in an attempt to make it "jive" with science.

          August 8, 2014 at 10:25 am |
      • new-man

        "they just quote from the bible as if it were an authority, "
        For the believer in the God of Abraham, IT IS an authority. "Only a fool will throw away a manufacturer's manual in favor of some conjecture and dubious reviews by those who have only seen the finished product."

        August 4, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          Have you actually seen the "finished product" _ God _ with your own eyes?

          The Bible appears to be the manual to a product that nobody even knows exists.

          August 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • new-man

          friend,
          you're looking at God's creation all around you. you may choose to give credit to nature- itself a finished product, but hey God's not mad at you. He loves you, whether you choose to admit His existence or not. You were born with an internal witness that there is a God, a creator of the universe and so is every single person on the face of the earth.

          August 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          "you're looking at God's creation all around you"

          I look around, and I see no sign of any gods.

          What you are saying, is the exact same as this
          I see the effect of the wind, can feel it, so the giant invisible dragons that make the wind must exist.

          August 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • igaftr

          "You were born with an internal witness that there is a God, a creator of the universe and so is every single person on the face of the earth."

          Prove it, otherwise you are bearing false witness once again.

          August 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • new-man

          santa, done in a lab, that requires human beings with INFORMATION & a CONTROLLED environment.

          boston, there has never been the evolution of life from a simpler form into a more complex one.

          the principles of adaptation and natural selection of species is quite evident to anyone (and should not be confused for evolution), likewise the mutation of viruses and bacteria however there is NO evidence pointing to one specie evolving into another.
          I have no problem with a person believing in evolution, they must admit however, this belief is based on faith rather than evidence.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • G to the T

          That's like saying if you only take a step at a time, you'll never reach a mile...

          August 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "You were born with an internal witness that there is a God, a creator of the universe and so is every single person on the face of the earth."

          So you think we're born with a knowledge of god??
          You do realize that we are born very immature in comparison to other animals...right? Our knowledge at birth is very minimal...we learn as our brains develop and children are very impressionable, so teaching them belief at any early age makes it easier to keep the story going. Human's are taught and if we were all born with knowledge of your god, we wouldn't be having this discussion to day. Christianity, like many other things in this world has been passed from generation to generation. If you were born to a parent who practiced Wicca, you probably would not know about the Christian god.

          August 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • igaftr

          newman
          "I have no problem with a person believing in evolution, they must admit however, this belief is based on faith rather than evidence."

          False...there is plenty of evidence...your DNA is evidence as but ONE example.. Now it is your turn to admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

          August 5, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • kudlak

          new-man
          I choose to give credit to nature because I actually only have evidence for natural causes.

          I would hope that someone who loves me would save me from any danger they are capable of saving me from, without first being worshipped.

          The Bible claims that I have this "internal witness", but I just don't see any evidence for that being true. That just seems to be a holdover idea from the age before science, where spirits and demons were just assumed to be self-evident.

          August 5, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
    • new-man

      "Summary: All objective evidence says complex life evolved from simpler life"

      An impossibility! There isn't enough time and there will never be enough time for this to happen.
      You have shown great faith in believing this- the evolution of life from a simpler form to a more complex one.
      I still love you friend, just can't agree with you here.

      August 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
      • bostontola

        new-man,
        I have many Christian friends, and I'm glad you regard me as one.

        How much time do you think there has been for complex life to evolve from simple one celled life?

        August 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • new-man

          boston,
          the time elapsed since the beginning of the universe is roughly 4.3×10^17 seconds.
          the time required for the 23 dna proteins to be sequenced such that they are completely functional is roughly 1×10^4000000 (and this is years)

          but to keep it even simpler, life begets life. how did the first single celled organism create itself?

          DV, as said above- age of universe roughly 13 billion years or 4.3×10^17seconds

          August 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • new-man

          I'm speaking of the "random" sequencing of the dna and for the organism to be fully functional would take that astronomical amount of time which is just an impossibility.
          I believe in math, anything greater than 1×10^50 is regarded an impossibility.

          "The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock - only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

          "The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10^450. "

          August 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          "the time required for the 23 dna proteins to be sequenced such that they are completely functional is roughly 1×10^4000000 (and this is years)"

          Where did you get that nonsense from?..There are a huge number of factors involved, so your basic number you have there is ridiculously over simplified, and completely meaningless. We do not even know all of the factors yet, so we have educated guesses at best.
          Also, to say that it is impossible because the odds are small...that is for a single instant, now multiply by the number of instants....

          Your numbers are extremely incomplete...no wonder you believe "goddidit" ...you don't seem to be able to comprehend what you are talking about, so the childrens story seems easier for you, more palletable.

          August 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          new-man, Amino acids have been produced in experiments and under natural conditions so your probabilities are way off.

          August 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • new-man

          correction: not years, or time... but the probability of the protein sequencing itself in such a way as to be functional.
          even by mathematical standards this is still an impossibility.

          the reason there's not enough time in the universe for this to happen, is the amount of time that would even be required to transition from one specie to the next – much more- (I don't know how many species are assumed in between a single celled organism and a human being).

          August 4, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • bostontola

          new-man,
          I wasn't asking how long it would take for the first cell to form. I asked how long for complex life to evolve from simple life. Many evolutionary innovations come from repet.itions in the DNA, and from DNA combinations among different organisms (i.e. DNA from viruses and bacteria). These are far from random. Sequences that have already proven to be active biologically are used in new ways. Some of the DNA are the "symphony conductors" during embryo development. Small changes in them have been shown in the lab to produce large morphological changes in the organism's form and function. These changes have been reversed in lab experiments on animals and the form of the animal reverts to previous forms found in the fossil record. There has been plenty of time for evolution to happen right here on earth.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • new-man

          my response posted a bit above.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • G to the T

          New-man – who ever said DNA was first?

          When you see an arch made of stone, it's easy to say it's impossible because there's no way to stack the stones without it falling over before the keystone can be inserted. But if there was a scaffolding that existed previously, but was later removed, it becomes a very straight-forward process.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
      • igaftr

        "An impossibility! There isn't enough time and there will never be enough time for this to happen"

        Really? Impossible? By all means, show the math, and I will show you where your flaw lies.

        August 4, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        @New-man
        How old do you believe the Earth to be?

        August 4, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • new-man

          DV, as said above- age of universe roughly 13 billion years or 4.3×10^17seconds

          August 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  8. lunchbreaker

    Anybody else here on Quora?

    August 4, 2014 at 11:21 am |
    • igaftr

      No, but apparently I am "on atheism".

      August 4, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Better than being on Gerin Oil

        August 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
  9. bostontola

    Good thing humans are animals.

    American Doctor With Ebola Received Experimental Antibody Serum Before U.S. Arrival

    This treatment likely has given this doctor a chance at life. It was created by infecting an animal that has a better response to the ebola virus than humans, with ebola. The monoclonal antibodies were then harvested from the animal and injected into the human. Because those antibodies are similar to human antibodies (because humans are animals), these antibodies work. Hopefully it will slow the viruses spread enough to allow the individual's own immune system to finish the job.

    August 4, 2014 at 10:54 am |
    • awanderingscot

      Brantly it is being reported received a blood transfusion yesterday from a 14-year-old boy survivor of Ebola that Brantly himself treated.

      August 4, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Blood transfusion?
        STRAIGHT TO HELL FOR HIM!
        Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Acts 15:19

        August 4, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • awanderingscot

          who made you judge and jury?

          August 4, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • SeaVik

          I can't believe you just wrote that. You constantly post idiotic claims against evolution without bothering to engage in actual discussion. You think you are judge and jury on evolution and atheism.

          You are a complete idiot.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • new-man

          we're not under the law.
          you meant Acts 15:20 – there's no drinking of blood... wrong audience...

          August 4, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @new-man
          The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently disagree with you.
          Or are their kilts too short for them to be true Scotsmen?

          August 4, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • awanderingscot

          I can't believe you just wrote that. You constantly post idiotic claims against evolution without bothering to engage in actual discussion. You think you are judge and jury on evolution and atheism.

          You are a complete idiot.

          – you NEVER defend your illogical myth and only engage in adhominen arguments, hanging labels on people like you just did.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • new-man

          DV,
          true, it's what the JW's believe. however, it's not what the Bible says.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • LaBella

          I never understood that...a transfusion isn't eating blood...

          August 4, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • SeaVik

          "– you NEVER defend your illogical myth and only engage in adhominen arguments, hanging labels on people like you just did."

          What does it say to you that the vast majority of the worlds' scientists believe in evolution? Do you think they're all illogical? I don't call you an idiot to be offensive, I call you an idiot because you are one. You think that you possess some special knowledge that negates what people much smarter and qualified than you have concluded.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, Actually there is a lot of evidence for evolution which is pointed out to you each time you post your rants. In fact it is you who does not defend your myth – do you have any evidence for creationism?

          August 4, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "What does it say to you that the vast majority of the worlds' scientists believe in evolution? Do you think they're all illogical? I don't call you an idiot to be offensive, I call you an idiot because you are one."

          – this coming from someone who believes Pavlov's dog is a genius and more human than some humans. LOL

          August 4, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Why don't you try answering the question?

          August 4, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • tallulah131

          scotty's a troll. Stop feeding him and he'll go find a new food source.

          August 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • redzoa

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/health/experimental-ebola-serum/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

        August 4, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • awanderingscot

          http://stixs.in/two-americans-infected-with-ebola-virus-return-to-u-s-for-treatment/

          August 4, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • LaBella

          Is there some reason these Americans shouldn't return to America for treatment?
          Non that I could see.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • redzoa

          http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/only-enough-one-experimental-ebola-serum-used-u-s-patient-n169626

          Doesn't appear the human serum made a difference; i.e. were it effective, there would have been no need for the trivalent mouse monoclonal antibody treatments. The CNN story further indicates the recovery after the experimental treatment, not the human plasma, was the principle source of Brantly's recovery:

          "Knowing his dose was still frozen, Brantly asked if he could have Writebol's now-thawed medication. It was brought to his room and administered through an IV. Within an hour of receiving the medication, Brantly's condition dramatically improved. He began breathing easier; the rash over his trunk faded away. One of his doctors described the events as "miraculous."

          By the next morning, Brantly was able to take a shower on his own before getting on a specially designed Gulfstream air ambulance jet to be evacuated to the United States."

          August 4, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Blood transfusion??? Not sure where you got that but that doesn't sound right considering the medical professionals are on the NEWS stating it was a serum he was given that was created by a company called MAPP.
        Just like your fallacious claims about evolution, this blood transfusion claim is also fallacious.
        Do you know what it takes for a blood transfusion to be done??

        August 4, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • bostontola

          This was claimed earlier. The latest report is that Dr. Brantly did receive the serum.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Thank you for clarifying that.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
  10. awanderingscot

    Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility. – Richard Dawkins

    – Mr Dawkins narrow-mindedly forgets that humans are needed to program computers. He also narrow-mindedly forgets that God is needed to create humans with the intelligence to program computers.
    – Evolution is a completely delusional myth lacking in any kind of real evidence.

    August 4, 2014 at 10:14 am |
    • SeaVik

      You continue to forget that you have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence to support your bogus views.

      August 4, 2014 at 10:23 am |
      • awanderingscot

        – Absolutely no evidence for evolution, no transitional forms have been found nor will they ever.
        – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense believed only by brainwashed atheists and faithless deists.

        August 4, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • SeaVik

          Oh, I see, so you're just not aware that there is endless evidence in support of evolution. You're on the internet. Here's what you need to do to see all the evidence:

          1) Go to the top part of your web browser where you see a web address (it will start with http://religion.blogs.cnn.....)
          2) In that space, type "google.com"
          3) Push the "Enter" button on your keyboard
          4) Type "evidence for evolution" and push the "Enter" button again
          5) You will see 50 million links (a link is something you click on that will take you to more information)
          6) If you click on these links, you will see all of the evidence that supports evolution

          Hopefully, this will help you avoid making a complete fool of yourself in the future. Good luck!

          August 4, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Denying the literal mountains of evidence, the DNA evidence, and the nyriad other supporting evidence does not make it go away.
          All fossils are transitional, and you have been given examples countless times of what you should consider "transitional;" by the definition you likely use.

          You continue to provide no evidence...just saying the evidence we have does not exist, is just plain silly. You carry the evidence around with you every day, in your DNA.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • awanderingscot

          The fact that so many of the founders of modern biology, those who discovered all the basic facts of comparative morphology upon which modern evolutionary biology is based, held nature to be fundamentally a discontinuum of isolated and unique types unbridged by transitional varieties, a position absolutely at odds with evolutionary ideas, is obviously very difficult to reconcile with the popular notion that all the facts of biology irrefutably support an evolutionary interpretation – Michael Denton

          – Evolution's premier scientist concedes that transitional forms have not been found.
          – atheists and faithless deists are delusional.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • redzoa

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

          August 4, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • LaBella

          You think Denton is the premier evolutionary biologist? He is a current Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is not exactly unbiased.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Studies of microplankton fossils extracted from deep sea bed core samples have yielded fantastically preserved and complete fossil records revealing the details of phyletic transitions between species.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Center for Science and Culture (sponsored by the Discovery Inst.itute) openly admit that their goal isn't to teach what they think is fact. An internal doc.ument leaked in 1999 described the Discovery group's objective in pushing for creationism to be taught in schools as "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies". They want to use Intelligent Design as a "wedge" to separate science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".
          In other words, they fear that teaching FACTS to children will drive them away from religion.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • igaftr

          scot

          "Evolution's premier scientist concedes that transitional forms have not been found"

          So? That does not disprove evolution in the slightest.

          Throwing more smoke scot...is that all you have.

          Rather than trying to tear down KNOWN FACTS...how about you show us the evidence for "creation".

          oh that's right, you already have shown us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, which is the sum total of all evidence for any gods, or of "creation".

          August 4, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And who exactly is "Evolution's premier scientist"?

          August 4, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          I'm sure as an evolutionary biologist he knows quite alot more than you or I about the subject Akira.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Doc Vestibule

          Studies of microplankton fossils extracted from deep sea bed core samples have yielded fantastically preserved and complete fossil records revealing the details of phyletic transitions between species.

          – source ?

          August 4, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Doc Vestibule

          The Center for Science and Culture (sponsored by the Discovery Inst.itute) openly admit that their goal isn't to teach what they think is fact. An internal doc.ument leaked in 1999

          – "openly" ? and "leaked" ? you're kidding right? this is a hit piece from evolution mythologists pure and simple.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          "I'm sure as an evolutionary biologist he knows quite alot more than you or I about the subject Akira."

          I believe his background is biochem, not evolutionary biology per se (although, we know that any study of biology is by necessity a study of evolutionary processes).

          August 4, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          "– "openly" ? and "leaked" ? you're kidding right? this is a hit piece from evolution mythologists pure and simple."

          The Wedge Doc-ument was to be an internal guide, i.e. it was openly professed within the group, but shielded from the general public until it was leaked. Johnson's writing is available online and played a significant role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Bd trial in which ID was held to be the ugly daughter of creationism and that neither are remotely scientific propositions; rather, both are just a litany of negative arguments of incredulity based in ignorance and/or misrepresentation (i.e. what you do here every time you post on these topics that demonstrably know nothing about) . . .

          August 4, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • LaBella

          "I'm sure as an evolutionary biologist he knows quite alot more than you or I about the subject Akira."
          That in no way addresses what I posted, Scot.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • LaBella

          Redcoats,
          Yes, I erred when I said Denton is an evolutionary biologist. He is not.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • LaBella

          Redzoa,
          Yes, I erred when I said Denton is an evolutionary biologist. He is not.

          August 4, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, Do you have any evidence to support creationism?

          August 4, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          When it comes to evolutionary biologists the world over, 83.89% are irreligious; 87.92% reject life after death; and 77.85% affirm philosophical naturalism as their world-view. Only 1.3% of the participants have a traditionally theistic world-view; an additional 3.3% blend theism with naturalism, resulting in the lowest frequency of theistic belief ever reported among a group of scientists, 4.6%.

          (Monism, atheism, and the naturalist worldview: Perspectives from evolutionary biology, Dr. Greg Graffin

          August 4, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Scotty is a troll. Why do you insist on feeding him?

        August 4, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
    • igaftr

      scot
      Major logic fail.

      If something required a programmer for something like "creation", then by the same logic, your programmer, would then need a programmer, and that programmer would need a programmer..

      So how did your god get programmed...and that programmer, what programmed it?

      See scot, your argument is non logic...it makes no sense.

      August 4, 2014 at 10:33 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Do you prefer the incest story of the bible? Does incest make you happy?
      Maybe you should attempt to register for grade 3 again since the first 30 or so times didn't help!

      August 4, 2014 at 10:34 am |
    • LaBella

      I like BrainyQuote, also.
      Here's a favorite of mine:

      "I believe time wounds all heels."
      ~ John Lennon

      August 4, 2014 at 10:40 am |
      • awanderingscot

        Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come,
        scoffing and following their own evil desires. – 2 Peter 3:3

        They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” – Jude 1:18

        August 4, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • igaftr

          Gosh scot, your bible "predicts" scoffers. There have been and always will be scoffers.
          Since there is no evidence that any supernatural, it is amazing that any people actually believe that nonsense.

          So according to your bible, it has always been the end times, and always will be,

          Thank you for once again pointing out one of the many places the bible is obviously wrong.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
          —1 John 2:18

          Yep – the last hour.
          Give or take 17.5 million hours.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • LaBella

          That quote by Lennon wasn't scoffing at God, so....
          Proverbs 12:15
          The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
          but a wise man listens to advice.

          August 4, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          The last days have been upon us for 2000 odd years now, I think on this one I'll place my trust in the scientists who actually study what could be the end to our species/planet/solar system. While scientists may not have all the answers, at least they are keeping open-minds and not pointing to a unproven god for everything they have yet to explain.

          August 4, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • tallulah131

          It could be the end of days for scotty, if people would stop feeding the troll!

          August 4, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Your word, Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. – Psalm 119:89, NKJV

      – God is eternal and therefore does not require a cause.
      – Dawkins like you does not understand that computers do not inherently possess intelligence.
      – Intelligence is programmed by God into DNA and cells are able to carry out the instructions.
      – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

      August 4, 2014 at 10:46 am |
      • SeaVik

        Oh, ok, we're not using actual logic here? Fine. In that case:
        – Evolution is eternal and doesn't require a cause
        – Other Christians, like you, do not understand that gods do not inherently exist.
        – Intelligence is not programmed by God into DNA
        – Religion is complete and utter nonsense.

        August 4, 2014 at 10:51 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Have you managed to falsify any of Darwin's 5 laws yet?
      Once again, you'd be the first person in over a century and a half do so. Such a revelation would undoubtedly win you a Nobel prize, not to mention cause a complete re-evaluation of biological science.
      Last time I asked, you responded with "variation or adaption is not the same as evolution" and when confronted wtih the fact that variation isn't one of the laws, you went on a rant about "micro" and "macro" evolution.
      You spoke of the eye and claimed that it was found "fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."
      I responded that the evolutionary development of the eye is observable even today becuase its various stages are still there in extant species with each stage fulfilling the organism's needs in their respective environmental niches.
      Some very simple animals have nothing more than light sensitive spots that enable them to differentiate light and dark.
      If a patch of such spots developed even the slightest of pits, it would cast a shadow and thereby show the direction of light. If the pit got deeper and started to close,then light would form a blurred image. Mucous secreted by the cells would bend the light and focus it. If this mucous hardened, it would form a lens and transmit a better image.
      All these different fully functional stages at different levels of complexity are found in living animals today.
      You then abandoned the thread.

      So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
      If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

      August 4, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        And Scot continues to ignore this simple question.

        August 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
  11. jhg45

    c'mon we're done here, let's move on to the lifestyles of the rich and pious

    August 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
  12. transformermam

    HALLO

    I THINK WE SHOULD NOT MAKE COMEDIES ABOUT FAITH MATTERS. FAITH MATTERS ARE SIMPLY TOO SERIOS.OUR ETERNAL DESTINY DEPENDS ON OUR FAITH. IT IS A PITY THAT SOME OF US ASSUME CHRISTIANITY COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN REAL LIFE, AND THEY THINK THE REASON WOULD BE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS MEANINGLESS,EVEN RIDICULOUS,IN ITSELF.THEY REGARD THE STORY OF JESUS AS A MYTH HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

    HOWEVER, CHRISTIANITY IS GOOD IN ITSELF, EVEN VERY GOOD. THIS ISSUE TODAY IS THAT OUR POLITICAL LEADERS MORE AND MORE BECOME GODLESS, AND LESS AND LESS PROTECT AND PROMOTE CHRISTIANITY.AS THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE MORE AND MORE TURNS APOSTATE FROM THE FAITH IN JESUS,IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT FOR THE SINGLE, ORDINARY MAN TO LIVE AS A SERIOUS CHRISTIAN.
    THE MOTTO OF TODAY IS SIMPLY SUCCESS AT ALL COSTS. YOU ARE SUCCESFUL,YOU ARE RIGHTEOUS.SUCCESS JUSTFIES EVERTHING,EVEN BAD MEANS YOU USE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS.
    BUT ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU USE NO BAD MEANS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS.
    ALSO SUCCESS SHOULD NOT BE OUR GOD.

    BYE

    August 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
    • igaftr

      If you think Christianity is good in itself, you do not know the history of Christianity.

      August 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Anything that claims authority without actually providing evidence of authority should be mocked and mocked severely. It should be doubted and questioned and if no compelling argument can be made for it's continuation, it should be set aside and allowed to gather dust. But not forgotten; We should always learn from our mistakes.

      August 3, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. – Richard Dawkins

        – indeed the myth of evolution is a delusion since there is absolutely no evidence of it.

        August 4, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • hal 9001

          awanderingscot: "evolution is a delusion"

          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 depleted our supply of them long ago.

          August 4, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Denying the literal mountains of evidence, the DNA evieence, and the myriad other data is foolish

          You are an evolution denier...and that is just silly. The evidence is not going to disappear simply because you don't accept it.

          August 4, 2014 at 9:15 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Showing the world how intellectually dishonest you are...silly child! Just because you don't understand it and refuse to accept the VAST amounts of evidence for it, doesn't mean it is wrong.
          Tell us, did an Ape or one of our other relatives bite you or do you like incest that much that anything that might debunk the incestuous beginnings of the bible hurts your feelings?

          August 4, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • LaBella

          Full quote:
          "A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the “imaginary friend” and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word “delusion” also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those."

          August 4, 2014 at 11:22 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      The politicians are not required to protect one belief system over the other in a SECULAR country. They are required to uphold the Constitution that respects freedom of and freedom from religion.
      Read your bible, look around you at how Christians treat others and you'll soon realize it isn't such a terrific system of belief.

      August 4, 2014 at 5:31 am |
    • SeaVik

      GOD, IF YOU EXIST, WHY WON'T YOU HELP ME FIND MY CAPS LOCK KEY?

      August 4, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Journal of Religion & Society published a study on religious belief and social well-being, comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand.
      #1 on the list in both atheism and good behaviour is Ja.pan. It is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. Over eighty percent of the population accept evolution.
      Last on the list is the U.S. It has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Ja.pan.
      Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious.

      August 4, 2014 at 11:10 am |
  13. 19covenant19

    The Words of Jesus Christ has been proven TRUE

    –Scientifically & Mathematically–

    for all Nations on earth now.

    See it with your own eyes to believe it.

    19covenant19.com
    BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES -3-

    August 3, 2014 at 6:28 am |
    • Reality

      Miracles do not happen except through a mental desire or faith to be cured since miracles violate natural law. If God were involved in our daily lives, cures would not be needed. You cannot have it both ways.

      August 3, 2014 at 7:09 am |
    • igaftr

      The "words of Jesus Christ" can't even be shown to have been spoken by Jesus...there is only the hearsay iin your man made book.

      August 3, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • kudlak

      "BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES"

      Hmm... Sounds like Bill and Ted must have made a trip back to Bible times. Is it on Netflix?

      August 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
  14. MidwestKen

    What the heck is wrong with the word "mere"?

    August 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      I think the character filter is freaking out. Just a second ago it wouldn't take mere, now it's fine. hmm.

      August 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • tallulah131

        It's really wonky right now.

        August 3, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
  15. Tucker Hunt

    "Some people believe that their skin color makes them special."

    That's not always the case, people feel special about themselves for many different reasons. Skin color happens to be one of them.

    August 2, 2014 at 9:33 am |
    • Tucker Hunt

      That statement is also not valid for the following reason: For a person that is born blind skin color is moot, it's probably the smell or voice that might be a turn-on or turn-off.

      August 2, 2014 at 9:35 am |
    • Richq

      Just because a person feels special does not make them special.

      The fact that some people walk around feeling entitled because of their skin color or whatever does not make it so.

      Read 1 Samuel 16:7

      August 2, 2014 at 10:02 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        What exactly will reading that prove? Not everyone agrees with or believes in the bible, so posting scripture is a moot point. Everyone is special in their own way and it is very sad that you fail to see that using scripture to justify your reasons.

        August 3, 2014 at 5:23 am |
    • MidwestKen

      Green skin... now that would be special.

      August 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • tallulah131

        No more Star Trek for you, young man.

        August 3, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          lol, yeah, I almost said blue skin just to avoid that connotation, but not breathing has a tendency to turn people a bluish color.

          Besides, if we could add a bit of chlorophyll to our skin that would really be special. It'd probably never be enough to eliminate the need to eat, but the caloric assist would do wonders in some areas of the world.

          August 3, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
  16. TruthPrevails1

    believerfred: You claim not to be attacking my family...so lets go back over this:
    You initially stated: "Yep a couple of billion people believe the Bible
    Few are actual atheist and when penned in a corner all but the militant ones recognize there is in fact a knowledge that science does not understand.
    July 31, 2014 at 6:52 pm "
    To which I replied: "First off, your number is way of base...it is 2.1 billion (with 7 billion on the planet, you are hardly a majority). Second, mass belief doesn't make the belief true.
    August 1, 2014 at 3:24 am"
    You then came back with: "You need to fine tune your thought process. There is no doubt the belief is real. You question the object of belief. Your belief is real as well but your object of belief is of this world which is physical and which no one doubts will pass away just as the Bible says. I understand your need to cling onto Atheist Steve even to the extent that you would tether your soul to death even though any other possible alternative offers hope. I question subjecting your own children to the certainty of hopelessness.
    August 1, 2014 at 1:47 pm"

    My response to you didn't touch on you as a person or involve your family in any way. Your response to me touched on my FAMILY. I understand that you have issues with Steve but those issues are between you and him, not me and they have nothing to do with your initial comment or my response to you. Steve and I may be in a relationship but we are still individuals with our own thoughts. He is my equal, I am not below him as you have implied by suggesting I cling to him.
    Now I'm not certain how it is in your home but my husband has little control on me.
    It disgusts me that you think you are better than us when the only thing according to your VERY divisive religion we have against us is our skepticism of your god.
    No matter how you spin it, what you said was wrong. We don't fear that which we don't see evidence for, that is what your religion does to you and I'm not going to live in fear like you do, that to me is a waste of the only life you are guaranteed of. So while you continue judging people based on belief, we will continue living and supporting those you hate and stand against. It's not your concern how we live when we are not causing harm to anyone in this world and we do good without a book like the bible to guide us!
    Next time you wish to bring someone's family in to a conversation without knowing a thing about them (you hate Steve...I get that but you don't know him), be prepared to have it come back at you. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you!

    August 2, 2014 at 9:08 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      fred has to argue semantics...that is his whole speil about "concept and form"...same with the whole "object of belief" cr@p.

      August 2, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
    • believerfred

      TruthPrevails1
      First of all I do not hate Steve or anyone for that matter as to hate is a sin just as murder would be. Steve has excellent points, knowledge, logic and reason. I have never had a negative exchange with him as far as I can remember.

      Second, my reference to Atheist Steve was not negative. Atheist Steve is his handle on this blog. Now, go read the post again as was referring to object of belief verses believe as this was our subject. Atheist Steve is physical organic matter as far as materialists or those whose belief is philosophical naturalism. I was referring to the organic blob you cling onto not Atheist Steve (who is a great guy). Your cat is an organic blob and your science is rooted in the physical as is everything in your world. These physical properties experience death as we see it when they move from organic to inorganic (living / animate transformation into non-living / inanimate in a multidisciplinary context). You CLING to this belief just as I CLING to Christ.

      Third, clinging to your belief (NOT Steve) tethers your cumulative emotive essence (soul) to that which is death. It is a hopeless result yet observed as the natural consequence of life itself. Thus you cling to death and hopelessness, tethering your soul to the possibility, however remote, of an eternal hopelessness in death.

      Lastly, you cause little ones the children of God to stumble with your anti theism. I don't know how you raised your children but, it is impossible to think ones materialistic belief would not set a hopeless example.

      August 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Give it a rest and stop trying to make this look like you are innocent. You brought up Steve without just cause. You brought my child into this without just cause. I know what my husbands alias is on this blog, you are not needed to reiterate that.
        Your claims about our souls is moot given that outside of YOUR belief system a soul can't be sown to exist. I'm done discussing this with you. If you are too ignorant to acknowledge that you were out-of-line in bringing my family up, then I'm afraid there is no hope for you and thus you're too ignorant to be associated with it...people like you are blemishes on humanity!!

        August 4, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • believerfred

          TruthPrevails1
          I noticed you skipped my post in your thread above:
          "believerfred
          TruthPrevails1
          You were talking about belief and I addressed that. I said nothing negative about your relationship. There is nothing negative or derogatory with me clinging onto Jesus, it is a common expression for me. Please accept my apologies if I offended either of you.
          As to the affect of atheism in your life I could not help but warn you about the potential loss associated with tethering your soul to anything that is bound by the physical.
          As to belief one cannot argue that belief is not real (yours or mine) but we can argue about veracity of that belief.

          August 1, 2014 at 5:19 pm |"

          August 4, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          fred: You ignorant dolt...are you seriously that stupid that you don't see the issue with what you did??? Drop the excuses. What you did was wrong!! You have no right to bring my husband or child up!! I don't give a damn if you cling to your god, just don't push it on me or say I am wrong-that is not your place!!
          You're too much of a coward, hiding behind the guise of your religion to see how wrong It was for you to even bring those two people up. Grow up and drop the Holier Than Thou crap. I've missed nothing you said, I merely see no reason to respect it, not when you're not acting like an adult and being respectful yourself!! This is over and I see no reason to continue this when you are too blind to accept responsibility for your out-of-line actions.

          August 4, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        And lastly, how one raises their child is not your business...you don't pay my way or that of anyone else...so keep your nose out it...you're breaking the Golden Rule!!

        August 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
  17. Reality

    The stars are there and you are made from their dust. Your god is a figment of your imagination and typically said imagination is fueled by the Jesus/ Christian and Islamic con artists aka popes, priests, ayatollahs and imams.

    August 2, 2014 at 8:31 am |
  18. Richq

    Some people believe that their skin color makes them special.

    August 2, 2014 at 8:18 am |
  19. haime52

    Don't have time to read all the comments, so I may be repeating someone else's comment, if so I'm sorry.

    It sounds a bit, to me, like we are a bit fearful of picking on the big bully(i.e. extreme Islamists) but are not afraid and perhaps a bit too gleefully picking on a group who we are certain will not fight back. Is that not the very definition a bullying? Yet we claim intolerance of bullying. Of course, those who do it don't consider it to be that, unless they are on the receiving end. As I have not and probably will not see this parody, I cannot fully judge it, so I will refrain form such. However, I do wonder if there has been any satire done on atheism, or are they not to be trifled with either?

    August 1, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Maybe you should read the comments because this article has NOTHING to do with Islam!

      August 2, 2014 at 7:19 am |
      • haime52

        Perhaps you should reread the article, as it does mention the author's thought that Mohammed should not be mocked. Because of the possible violent reaction by Muslims. So, I believe, the comment holds.

        August 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I have read the article and Islam has little to do with it, so please learn some manners or ask Mommy to finally teach you some!!

          August 4, 2014 at 5:19 am |
    • LaBella

      Well, this article is not "picking" on Christians, either, so there is that.

      August 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
    • kudlak

      haime52
      Christians satirize atheism every time they claim that we are all just "angry". Some atheists appear to mostly be angry, but a lot of us are just interested in discussing the topic of belief, which is why we are here on the "Belief Blog".

      August 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  20. LaBella

    Fred,
    I said that Jesus wouldn't condone such personal attacks on a oerson's family such as " I understand your need to cling onto Atheist Steve even to the extent that you would tether your soul to death even though any other possible alternative offers hope. I question subjecting your own children to the certainty of hopelessness."
    Please show me the verse where he says exactly that.

    August 1, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
    • austin929

      Hebrews 2:14 ►

      Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil–
      Eph 2
      4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—

      12“Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’ 13If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done. 14And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right— 15if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil—that person will surely live; they will not die. 16None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.

      17“Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ But it is their way that is not just. 18If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, they will die for it. 19And if a wicked person turns away from their wickedness and does what is just and right, they will live by doing so. 20Yet you Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ But I will judge each of you according to your own ways.”

      August 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • LaBella

        With all due respect, Austin, what is your point?

        August 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Austin is just an average human being who wants to be special but isn't willing to put in the effort that it costs to be special. So instead he found a religion which tells him he's better than non-believers, encourages him to judge, and allows him to pretend he has magical powers - and it costs him nothing. His superiority exists only in his own sad, lazy mind.

          August 3, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • LaBella

          Hope that comforts him when someone talks smack about his spouse and child inappropriately.

          August 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • believerfred

          LaBella
          What are you going on about? What is with your negativity?

          August 3, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
        • LaBella

          Negativity? Me? Nope.

          August 3, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Had you actually done your homework, fred, you would understand the context of LaBella's comments. All you had to do was read up. But in your ignorance, you chose to be confrontational. Is this a virtue that you learned in your church?

          August 3, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          fred: Where is the negativity in the comment you are replying to? Or did you perhaps mean to respond to her original comment directed at you? If the latter is the case, could you please attempt to use some common sense here?
          You involved my family in response to my comment to you that involved the number of Christians in the world and how mass belief didn't equate to fact. I'm still trying to figure out who you think you are to judge anyone.

          August 4, 2014 at 9:46 am |
      • kudlak

        Austin
        We all do "wicked" things, and most of us feel regret for the wicked things we do, but that's not what these verses are talking about, right? Entry into heaven is only for the elite, those with the gnostic "knowledge" that Jesus was the Christ, God, God, and that his death somehow redeems our sins, whatever that means. So, in reality Christianity has nothing really to do with living a moral life, especially when you know that you can make a deathbed conversion and still qualify for full admittance no matter what you did in life. Sorry, but any system that forgives murderers, but doesn't forgive the "sin" of being skeptical simply isn't just, and therefore doesn't deserve my consideration.

        August 4, 2014 at 1:47 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.