Texas Principal to No Longer Quote Bible Over Intercom Following Atheist Complaint

Bible White pdWHITE OAK, Texas — A Texas principal who quotes Scripture over the intercom during the morning announcements will no longer do so after a prominent atheist activist group sent a letter of complaint about the matter.

As previously reported, according to KETK-TV, an anonymous student at White Oak High School recently contacted atheist blogger Hemant Mehta after recording Principal Dan Noll quoting from the Bible during the announcements. The practice reportedly goes back to the 1970’s according to former alumni.

“He who leads upright along an evil path will fall into his own trap, but the blameless will receive a good inheritance,” Noll read from the book of Proverbs in one of the announcements. “The Lord detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.”

Mehta then contacted the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) about the matter, which in turn sent a letter to the district, asking that it order Noll to cease and desist the practice.

Superintendent Michael Gilbert stated last week that he didn’t believe that FFRF should be given any media attention, and advised that Noll would would not be punished for quoting Scripture during the announcements.

“The residents were offended at the use of Scripture, demanding that it be stopped and calling for disciplinary action against Mr. Noll,” he stated. “I am fully aware of the practice at the high school and will not pursue any action against our high school principal or any other member of our faculty/staff concerning this issue.”

“Let me also be clear that we have not (in my opinion) violated anyone’s rights and/or subjected anyone to undue stress,” Gilbert continued. “Bible studies and Scriptures are allowed in schools. The requirement is that the material be presented in a neutral manner. It is my position that we met that standard with the morning announcements.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But on Saturday, the superintendent advised that Noll will no longer read from the Bible during his “Thought for the Day.”

“We’ll still be doing our thoughts of the day and it will be something that promotes positive thoughts and positive choices,” he told local television station KTRE.

“It will consist of material intended to encourage students to consider positive choices in their daily life and plans for the future,” Gilbert further explained to reporters. “The thought for the day will come from a variety of sources and will not include chapter and verse from Scripture.”

FFRF says that they see the change as a victory for the organization.

“We will obviously look to confirm the change in practice with our student contact within the high school, but for now we consider this a solid victory for state/church separation,” FFRF Attorney Sam Grover told KTRE.

But Gilbert also noted that he had not responded to the atheist organization’s correspondence. It is unlikely that he will do so.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Paul Hiett

    Before anyone complains about Christianity being under attack, keep in mind that this is a public school, run by tax dollars from a wide range of people of many cultures and faiths. No one religion should have any precedence over another in our public schools. I am sure Christian children in a predominantly Jewish area would not want to hear Jewish prayers, or Muslim, etc.

    As crazy as it sounds, our laws work to protect everyone, not just one particular religion or race.

    • Oboehner

      Evolutionism get preferential treatment.

      • Paul Hiett

        How do you figure? Evolution isn’t a religion.

        • bowie1

          Doesn’t matter since it is not a provable hypothesis.

        • Oboehner

          It most certainly is an atheist religion. There is zero proof, everything that is known about human beginnings is bent to fit the evolutionism mold, or discarded entirely if it’s not naturalistic.

          • Paul Hiett

            There is evidence to support evolution…but that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how coy you want to try and be.

          • Crono478

            I’ll include this quote:

            “All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe—in fact, everything—exists now, in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.

            Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system—a religion!”

            I’m sorry but evolution is clearly a religion. You believe in this religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            I see. So what diety is in charge of this new religion you call Evolution? Where is the dogma we need to follow? Where are the texts that outline how we worship, and the laws we need to follow.

            Can you provide these things, because I can’t seem to find them anywhere.

          • Crono478

            Another name for this religion is humanism which the deity of this worldview being man himself.

          • Paul Hiett

            So evolution is now being call humanism? When did this happen.

          • Crono478

            It is for people who trusts in themselves. Since their belief is not based on God’s words, they come up with evolution to explain how things have began in this universe.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s not a religion.

          • Crono478

            It is because of this: Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.

          • Paul Hiett

            Evolution is not a belief system about the past…or rather, just one aspect of our past. It’s a theory, supported by evidence in our fossil records, that suggests how life evolved on this planet. There is no supernatural force, or mythical deity to worship.

            There is no religion on this planet, not one, that has any evidence to support its claim. It’s all faith.

          • Crono478

            We don’t need to provide you evidence to convince you that Bible is true because of the following reasons:

            1) You already have seen invisible attributes of God through the nature.
            2) You have your conscience (Romans 2:15)

            You know that but you don’t believe Him because of your rebellion against Him.

          • Paul Hiett

            Invisible attributes? Might as well claim “it’s magic!” instead. By that reckoning, you could claim the wind blowing is actually God running round.

            Quoting the Bible is not proof of the Bible.

          • Crono478

            “Quoting the Bible is not proof of the Bible.” — This alone demonstrates your rejection of His words. Bible cites the first reason above is reason why you don’t have any excuse to say that He does not exist.

            I don’t need to discuss this with you further as you already have seen the proof of His existence.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            If only you knew how much you sound like Muslims…. “you know Mohammad was God’s true prophet, but you reject him because you are in rebellion!”

          • Crono478

            The difference is, you would be forced to convert to Islam and follow their religion. You wouldn’t know if you do enough to earn your way to Heaven. There is no real assurance.

            In contrast, we can’t force you to repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your Savior. Only you with free will can do this on your own. It is your choice. Only God knows if you truly do this in heart, we don’t know and can’t tell if you do.

            The Bible is still clear on two points that I mentioned above that everyone already know God and we don’t have excuse to say that we don’t know God.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Eh, you know that is completely ridiculous, right? Muslims violence has no bearing on whether their claims are real or not. As for your “two points”-nice circular logic. The bible is true because it says so.

          • Crono478

            People like yourself loves to accuse us of circular reasoning. That is actually why I made this statement in the place that we don’t need to give you evidence of His existence. It is because you already have seen it yourself but you refuse to believe that.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Just like Muslims, you know it but you refuse to believe! It is my own fault (and yours) if we just don’t take their word for it! Also, that it is in Islamic tradition, which it true, because it says so. Sound familiar?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Ha, well if you don’t like getting called out on using circular reasoning, stop using it. You’re not doing yourself any favors with your “the bible is accurate because it says so” line.

          • Crono478

            How do you know that there is no God?

          • DoctorDan118

            I guess it’s much easier to read one book than a bunch of hard ones. This is why Christians always argue about this stuff, they are too stupid to understand it. Have you ever noticed it’s never people with advanced educations that argue against evolution, only uneducated Bible thumpers? If one person reads ten books on a subject, and another person reads only one book, who is going to be more knowledgeable? What Christians fail to understand is that most scientists were raised in Christian homes and have seen that side of things. However, they eventually asked questions and wanted to discover things for themselves, as opposed to Christians who are like an ostrich with his head in the ground who has never seen or tried anything else. No one “invented” evolution to explain things, it was the glaringly obvious and logical conclusion of decades of research by thousands of scientists, dozens of different countries. Just because Christians are too stupid to understand science, and therefore insert magic into anything they fail to grasp, doesn’t mean that scientists do the same.

          • Crono478

            I was raised in a Christian home AND I did not really believe in God at all. I believed in evolution. I believed that everything our scientists are telling us to be fact and truth. I thought Christians are closed minded and behind in time. Yet, I became Christian again when I was convinced of my sins. I came to my repentance and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.

            I can show you one problem with your argument about Christians being too stupid to understand science. I’ll list four out of many creationist scientists.

            Isaac Newton – One of first to come up with physics and calculus
            Blaise Pascal – Invented calculating machines
            James Joule – Came up with Law of Thermodynamics
            Louis Pasteur – Came up with the process of pasteurization
            Raymond Damadian – He invented Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

            Were they too stupid and couldn’t understand science because of their complete trust in Bible?

            I would challenge you this question: Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Computers were invented by Alan Touring, a homosexual atheist.

          • Crono478

            No, Alan Turing didn’t invent computers. He invented Turing machine which is the precursor to modern computers. Yes, even homosexuals and atheists can come up with something like Alan did.

            No, there are more of creationist scientists than just Damadian. Yes, time is changing that more people are no longer Christians. The point is, the notion that Christians are either anti-science or don’t understand them at all is completely false.

          • William T. Robbins

            Hate to tell you this but the largest christian church on the planet accepts evolution. That is two out of three christians on the earth. Now you could claim that Catholics aren’t christian… But then you would be saying that christianity is the forth largest religion in the world and constitutes less than half of the United States. So to the original topic why would bible readings be appropriate in a country where the majority are not christian?

          • Crono478

            Do you believe that every word in Bible to be the word of God?

          • William T. Robbins

            No why?

          • Crono478

            “For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. ”

            I just copied that from Catholic’s site. It basically says that whole Bible is written under inspiration of the divine Spirit. In other words, every word in Bible is God’s word. Yet, you don’t believe that every word in Bible is His word?

          • William T. Robbins

            No I don’t. Why should I care what claims Catholics make? I merely stated the church accepts evolution. It does.

          • Crono478

            Many churches did not support evolution in the past. That included Catholics too. Both evolution and Bible is completely contrary to each other. If any church believes in evolution, then it means they don’t view Bible to be the authoritative and inerrant. That is the definition of apostasy. We will see more churches abandoning their beliefs in Bible. Not only that but also there are already 21% of whole USA population that are atheists now (Link: http://goo.gl/2RA6xv). It will continue to grow. This trend is noticeable worldwide as well which is actually prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            By all means, if you have a better theory than evolution, and your theory doesn’t involve a magic fruit tree, a talking snake, and lots and lots of incest (along with the willful denial of radiometric dating which puts Earth at billions of years old) then tell us!

          • Oboehner

            …or “evolving” from a rock, or billions of years of random chance, or exploding dots, or apes magically transforming to man, or…

          • Crono478
          • Oboehner

            LOL.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            The VAST majority of scientists agree that evolution is a fact and the creationism is junk science. You can find dated or biased sources that might be able to nitpick at the details of evolution, but even if you were able to disprove it completely, the answer would still not be creationism. We should teach science, not magic.

          • Crono478
          • MattFCharlestonSC

            That cartoon is in no way cogent to the argument.

          • Crono478

            It does and the fact that you are still holding fast to your belief in words of scientists and evolution despite this odd.

            Yes, there is something better than the belief in evolution and that is Bible. God recorded everything what happened in the beginning and He cannot lie. Scientists were not there in the first place to witness that. There are already a lot of problems with facts that scientists come up regarding our origins. Yes, even there are problems with radiometric dating as well.

            The fact that you make Bible out to be a magical fairy tale already shows that you have your bias. Even if events did turn out to be true in Bible and that Jesus did die on the Cross for our sins, your bias is preventing you believing in that.

          • Paul Hiett

            So just to be clear…you believe that all of the animals today, all of the races of humanity around the world…all came from a small family that landed a boat on the top of a mountain in Turkey a few thousand years ago?

          • Crono478

            Yes to your question. I know you and your other friends in this discussion forum don’t believe in that. You believe that we are evolved from our ape-like common ancestor.

          • Paul Hiett

            Have you really given it much thought, though? The idea that every animal and human you see on the planet today…from the Aboriginals of Australia to the Pygmies of Africa to the white skinned Europeans…all just managed to appear within the last 3-4 thousand years? Have you really stopped and thought about this?

          • Crono478

            Yes, they spread all over the world after the global flood and Babel Tower.

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/living/feat-black-white-twins/ – This shows that it is entirely possible. Yes, all of us came all the way from Noah’s family.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, “the VAST majority” There’s proof – NOT!
            Sooooo… An exploding dot isn’t magic? Life spontaneously popping up out of ooze isn’t magic? bossie to blowhole isn’t magic?…

            “…the answer would still not be creationism.” Excluding possibilities based on a religious belief is not science.

          • MisterPine

            Your entire life is kind of one huge fail, isn’t it?

          • DoctorDan118

            …says the man who believes in talking snakes and magic apples. Hilarious!!! And yes, moron, there is a TON of scientific evidence supporting evolution. Of course, the only people who think it’s a “belief” are people who have never taken courses in evolutionary or molecular biology and have absolutely zero perspective because they are scared to death that a magical sky daddy will punish them if they dare to use their own brain. Hmmmm….so you trust your life with the medications that microbiologists invent and produce, but you completely disregard it when these exact same scientists agree with overwhelming consensus that evolution is true….all because of a book written thousands of years ago by uneducated goatherders who didn’t know where the sun went at night. You’re not the brightest crayon in the box, are you skippy??

          • MisterPine

            I’ve been arguing for weeks with this bottom feeder about this same issue on another story, but your words were a lot more effective than mine. Thanks.

          • Richard

            “And yes, moron, there is a TON of scientific evidence supporting evolution. ”

            Only microevolution, not macroevolution. Macroevolution is dying a deserving death.

          • Oboehner

            Typical evolutionist response, attacking another’s belief system doesn’t prove your religion, ad hominem attacks don’t prove your religion, claiming someone doesn’t understand evolutionism doesn’t prove your religion. Those things along with appeal to authority arguments are the only “tons” of anything you people ever come up with.

            “so you trust your life with the medications that microbiologists invent and produce, but you completely disregard it when these exact same scientists agree with overwhelming consensus that evolution is true….” A persons religious belief is irrelevant if they follow proper scientific protocol, but why don’t you hop on over to 1-800-bad-drug, and tell them your appeal to authority argument.
            Keep on evolving!

          • William T. Robbins

            Those seem like rather silly things to believe. If you don’t believe in those I recommend you study the theory of evolution by natural selection.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, he already believes a magic man in the sky snapped his fingers and did everything…

          • Oboehner

            I have already read that religious belief, ” oh look, a finch has a minor adaptation, *SHAZZAAMM* it can turn into an elephant!

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Nice straw man.

          • Oboehner

            No just an example.

          • MisterPine

            Nope, time you started to accept responsibility for your bizarre statements. It’s a strawman. Finches don’t turn into elephants. No one who understands evolution would make that claim. Don’t you think maybe it’s time you admitted you don’t have the faintest grasp of evolution or how it works? Or do you want to keep misrepresenting the people who DO understand it?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Which you made up.

          • Oboehner

            Same principle as your religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You’ve got short memory: I don’t have a religion.

          • MisterPine

            He’s playing semantics games with you. He is trying to make evolution (which he calls evolutionism) out to be a religion, even though he’s about 75 million shades of wrong.

          • William T. Robbins

            No such claim is made. Have you ever asked yourself why you must lie to argue against it? It is were really as easy to disprove as you claim you wouldn’t have to mischaractize it, would you?

          • Oboehner

            It sinks itself.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            As opposed to an all-powerful deity suddenly *poffing* into existence from nothing, using magic to create the universe on a whim and then making a man from dust and a woman from his man’s rib. LOL 🙂

            PS – If you imagine evolutionary theory requires belief that something came from nothing (which is the failure of your very belief system) then you clearly do not understand it at all.

          • Oboehner

            Again the old “you really don’t understand it at all” shtick. No, I just don’t have faith in it, you can have your rock though if you really want it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’m sure no one thinks you evolved, Oboehner.

          • Oboehner

            I didn’t, I was created.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I didn’t”

            Clearly.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            “or “evolving” from a rock, or billions of years of random chance, or exploding dots, or apes magically transforming to man, or..”

            Not a single thing you’ve written is claimed by evolutionary theory. You haven’t got a clue about the topic you imagine you’re debating and are, in fact, arguing with no one. Go to school . . learn something. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

          • Oboehner

            So how did it all begin, do enlighten.

          • MisterPine

            Strawman, strawman, strawman, and strawman. You never learn.

          • DoctorDan118

            Paul, as much as I admire your cause, your attempts with these people is futile. Arguing with Christian fundamentalists is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. You can outplay them a thousand times in a row using the rules of logic, and they’ll just knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around like they are victorious.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok, I laughed…

          • Oboehner

            No proof of evolutionism exists, it is a belief system – a religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Mirriam Webster defines religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

            : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

            Unless you want to start attributing divine qualities to Charles Darwin, you don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument.

            Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s the Christian mantra to try and equate Evolution with being a religion, but without a deity to worship, it just doesn’t qualify.

          • Oboehner

            Merriam-Webster defines religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

          • Paul Hiett

            Which evolution still doesn’t qualify under. Unless you’re going extremely broad, in which case that very “definition” can also be applied to love of sport, or a certain hobby, etc.

            Evolution is not some nonsensical idea involving the supernatural with no supporting proof. On the contrary, there is much evidence to support the theory. Is it definitively proof? No, but there’s more than enough proof to give it valid standing.

            No such proof exists for any religion. All religions rely on blind faith, otherwise we’d have determined which religion is “right” a long time ago.

          • Oboehner

            The definition I posted said nothing about involving the supernatural. Evolutionism is a nonsensical idea involving ardor and faith with no supporting proof. There is no exclusionary evidence, there is no proof that any fossils are transitory, there is no proof of speciation, it’s all taken on blind faith. Is it definitively proven? No, the truly sad part is that it is propagated as fact when it is not, the vast majority of our media refers to it as fact when it is not – it is only the current most popular religion. Any “evidence” I’ve ever seen or have been shown could also be evidence for creation, or intelligent design or… It takes faith to think it only fits evolutionism.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Except for the fact that, without evolution, there is no explanation for humans being white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. Or, of course, the fact that the flu vaccine needs to be revised every year. Or, of course the fact that the fossil record clearly demonstrates that humanoids have changed over the past million years.

            Discount that, as well as the fact that all scientific data converges on the explanation of evolution, and you MIGHT have had a point! but, since you’re wrong, your attempt at a point is moot. Sorry 🙂

          • Oboehner

            There is no proof that the flu vaccine even works, bacteria adapting doesn’t mean that somewhere down the line that bacteria will eventually be a human or whatever. Weak religious argument that doesn’t hold water.

            “fossil record clearly demonstrates that humanoids have changed over the past million years.” Oh does it now? Would that be the fraud, or the magic pigs tooth, or the bone fragment pile scattered over a large area that somehow makes a “human” with an addition of 40% imagination? Or perhaps that special jawbone that nobody know for sure if it is even human?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent
          • Oboehner

            So where’s the part in which the bacteria turns into a higher life form, or do I have to take that on faith? Adaptation is part of nature, speciation is a myth.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            So you’ve agreed that bacteria make entire enzyme systems from scratch? That’s progress.

          • Oboehner

            Not from scratch, but from a system that we haven’t discovered yet, but that still doesn’t show speciation – I guess I have to take that on faith then.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Lol we haven’t discovered yet! Look they still have the original samples, it didn’t have the enzyme, it still doesn’t, OK? The organism without an enzyme system EVOLVED it under purely natural circumstance that favored it.

          • Oboehner

            You’re saying we’ve discovered ALL of the complexities of life and we can start laying “scientists” off?
            No we haven’t, therefore nobody can say with any certainty that the bacteria don’t have the already built in ability to adapt in that way. Evolution? that’s a stretch, just because you really want it to be true…

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yeah, because through selection pressure an organism builds a whole new system out of scratch, and we still have samples of its ancestors, we know at exactly what point mutations happened, and when the tipping point reached making the subspecies with those mutations the dominant type…no evolution? That’s a stretch, just because you really don’t want it to be true…

          • Oboehner

            “and we still have samples of its ancestors” Sure you do, your faith is strong.
            Tell me is that bacteria still bacteria or is it a giraffe now?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Tell me, when Spanish evolved from Latin, did it become Chinese?

          • Oboehner

            Analogy fail. Spanish didn’t “evolve” into a ham sandwich.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Analogy succeed. Latin evolved into Spanish.

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, not even close – Spanish is not biological. Analogy fail.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Why? Who said evolution had to be limited to biological systems?

          • Oboehner

            Maybe because that’s the topic here.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Linguistic/cultural evolution follows the exact same pattern as biological evolution. http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/11/evolution-little-red-riding-hood

          • Oboehner

            Not even a laughable comparison, how about I compare auto manufacturing to creation, then claim scientific fact?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No not laughable at all, you got that right.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Incidentally, since when having frozen bacterial sample taken at different times become a matter of faith?

          • Oboehner

            Tell me is that bacteria still bacteria or is it a giraffe now?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Tell me, can purely natural forces enable an organism to make an enzyme it didn’t have out of scratch, or does Jesus need to be involved?

          • Oboehner

            Sure, purely created natural forces, or does it have to turn into that ham sandwich first?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Straw man. Answer the question.

          • Oboehner

            “Sure, purely created natural forces” Your answer if you can read it. Just because “science” doesn’t understand something doesn’t automatically mean it’s some kind of proof of evolutionism.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Science actually does understand it. We have samples of old bacteria in the fridge. We know that mututations accumulated with time. We know exactly at what time the species with the new enzyme appeared; it became dominant immediately because the substrate was there all along but they couldn’t use it. We know all of this not because of faith but meticulous record keeping. Which you would have known if you actually read the article rather than attacking it with the “did it become a giraffe” straw man.

          • Oboehner

            Whatever you have in your fridge is, has always been and will always be… *drumroll* bacteria!! It never has been, nor will it ever become, anything else.
            If anyone claims “science” knows all, is a fool.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Straw man again. Enzyme made by purely natural forces, and you still haven’t answered my question of ever building a new enzyme without anything supernatural is possible or not.

          • Oboehner

            Sure, if created that way.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Except that the bacteria prove it wasn’t CREATED that way. Let me guess:/next question: why didn’t it become a giraffe? Lol.

          • Oboehner

            “Except that the bacteria prove it wasn’t CREATED that way.” LOL, you know everything about everything? No one does, not even your “scientists”, all they have is speculation and faith on what little they can see.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Not about everything, but I do know how that enzyme came to be, and so would you, if you read the material, instead of hearkening back to the “did it become a giraffe” fallacy.

          • Oboehner

            You don’t know how it came to be so don’t bore me with your religious interpretation of it.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yawn. Let me know when you read the article. I’ve already explained how we know what we know more than once.

          • Oboehner

            I read it, (spoiler alert) the bacteria is still bacteria! It didn’t “evolve” into anything else. Again, do you or your “scientists” know everything about everything?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Your straw man again… the point of the study was not bacteria becoming something else but building a new system through natural phenomena.
            Scientists obviously know a lot more than you think, because they invented the internet for your trolling pleasure.

          • Oboehner

            Yet somehow that proves we “evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
            Meaning the internet was created, it didn’t evolve from a dead battery.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yet evolutionary biology is part and parcel of the fabric of science, the same science that invented the internet.

          • Oboehner

            Like Al Gore.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Or, like the US Department of Defense.

          • Oboehner

            Or like still no proof of evolutionism, finding out where life existed doesn’t mean it “evolved”, sorry.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You can trash evolution all you want, but as the techniques of prospecting for rare metals used by the Defense Department show, our understanding of evolution is crucial for mining the very same materials used in the computer you need to trash evolution. You know this guy named Jesus, he didn’t have kind words for hypocrites like you.

          • Oboehner

            You can try and show how mapping something on earth somehow shows evolutionism all you want, it doesn’t hold a drop of water. That is no better than saying, “we exist, that’s proof of evolutionism!” A stretch that doesn’t make it on anything other than blind faith.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Nope, changing subject again. Evolution is part of the knowledge we need to find rare earth minerals. Long as you are using those minerals (as in, using a computer to troll against evolution), you’re a hypocrite.

          • Oboehner

            “Evolution is part of the knowledge we need to find rare earth minerals.” Beyond a stretch, just plain BS.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Read the DoD post!

          • MisterPine

            An anti-vaxxer too. I might have guessed.

          • Oboehner

            Slap a label and walk away saying “I showed them the facts” like you always do.

          • MisterPine

            Two words: measles outbreak.

          • Oboehner

            Those childhood injections worked so well didn’t they?

          • MisterPine

            They did for me and everyone I know.

          • Oboehner

            Then how was there an outbreak and why should we care?

          • MisterPine

            Because a bunch of faith-healing Christians decided you didn’t want to resort to scientific witchcraft anymore and stopped vaccinating, and the disease returned. Duh.

          • Oboehner

            Prove that. Also explain why anyone else who did get injected with the toxic waste dump of ineffectiveness should worry about those who choose not to.

          • MisterPine

            Nope. Played that game with you enough. You are impervious to proof, evidence, logic, and all those other things not found in your KJV Bible.

          • Oboehner

            In other words, you have nothing but more blind faith.

          • MisterPine

            All I have are facts, which all sail completely over your head each time.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz, more boring “facts” stories – fiction science.

          • MisterPine

            LOL, yes. Which the scientific community utilizes every single day.

          • Oboehner

            Praises be, too bad you don’t have any.

          • MisterPine

            Just all the ones people here have been walloping you in the face with. Established, reliable science. All of it.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzzz…. more unsubstantiated claims.

          • MisterPine

            Still hiding from truth, facts, science and the real world. Very sad and pathetic. Have you ever been to a museum? A real one, not Ken Ham’s laughingstock.

          • MisterPine

            Still calling it “evolutionism” even after having your butt handed to you by other thinking human beings? Really?

          • Richard
          • MisterPine

            I know precisely how he intends it, this has been going on for ages in another post. He disbelieves the evidence given to prove evolution and stubbornly calls it a “religion”, even though it is taught in science classes in schools. He refuses to simply say “evolution,” he has to call it “evolutionism” as a way of digging his heels in against reality.

          • namelessghost

            There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils that you can see with your own eyes if you choose to open them.

          • Oboehner

            Can you prove any fossil is nothing more than an extinct species? Can you prove that any fossil actually procreated? Can you prove that any of them actually evolved, or do I have to take it on faith?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Let’s start right there, do you think it is merely coincidental that out of tens of thousands of fossils discovered, not a single one has been in the “wrong” strata, like a bird before earliest dinosaurs or a mammal before the first fishes? Good deal of precision if they were completely random, don’t you think?

          • Oboehner

            How do we know how old the fossil is? By what layer it’s in. How do we know how old the layer is? By what fossils are in it. So how does that work when the strata is folded?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Look you really look stupid if you stay with that line . I know you have no clue about geology but these things aren’t so hard to look up. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition

          • Oboehner

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
            Layers rapidly deposited, like say as a result of a flood.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Incidentally, what kid of a flash flood buries bodies deep inside rocks, to the point that it look like the rock was formed with the body already in it? Because that is what ancient rocks looks like-and none of the more advanced species (say, land vertbrates) are buried deeper than earliest primitive ones (like jawless fishes). You know how easy it would to disprove evolution if it weren’t fact? All you had to do would be to find “a fossilized rabbit in the Precambrian”. God surely arranged the fossils so meticulously to be sure we never doubt evolution happened!

          • Oboehner

            Or trees going through multiple layers…
            “Because that is what ancient rocks looks like…” Your religious belief again.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Ha. So there is something religious about tree rings? I didn’t know you were an animinist.

          • MisterPine
          • Oboehner

            Read carefully, trees going through multiple layers, not tree rings.
            “Because that is what ancient rocks looks like…” Your religious belief again.

          • MisterPine

            Oh, no, correction – that isn’t religion, it’s science. He’s quite correct about ancient rocks. You see, they would not teach this in SCIENCE class at school if it were a religion. Somehow I think you know this though.

          • Oboehner

            So he was there when the rocks were formed?

          • MisterPine

            No, but that is irrelevant.

          • Oboehner

            So we just take it on faith then.

          • MisterPine

            We take it on assorted scientific methods.

          • Oboehner

            Based on faith.

          • MisterPine

            No, based on facts. Ever visited a museum?

          • namelessghost

            Transitional fossils have been found. Speciation has been observed. DNA sequences found in an animal’s genome do not disappear and will point to its evolutionary origins.

            Evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming.

            I don’t know why evidence would need to be taken on faith; it’s right there for all to see.

          • Oboehner

            Transitional (not proven) fossils have been found. Speciation has (never) been observed. DNA sequences found in an animal’s genome do not disappear and will point to its evolutionary origins (speculation and assumption nothing more).
            Evolution never occurs. The BS is overwhelming.

          • namelessghost

            You don’t even believe the DNA evidence? DNA evidence is nothing more than speculation and assumption? Does that mean you think we
            should free all the prisoners who were convicted based on DNA evidence?

            Speciation has absolutely been observed. Look up Galapagos finches, Blackcap, Madeira house mouse, orcas, Heliconius butterflies, and polar bears for starters. There are many other examples.

            Judging by your questions, you seem to have a huge misunderstanding about what the theory of evolution actually is. Do yourself a favor and learn the truth about it instead of clinging to your false beliefs.

          • Oboehner

            DNA evidence can cover multiple theories including creation, it is not exclusive to evolutionism.
            they’ve always been finches, Blackcap, mice, orcas, butterflies, and bears, they were never anything else.
            Do yourself a favor and learn the truth about it instead of clinging to your false beliefs.

          • MisterPine

            Part of the problem at work here, I think, is the chowderheaded idea that animals turn into other animals. Excellent strawman, sir.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is a “chowderheaded” idea, I agree.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t think you’re qualified to make a statement like that if you don’t understand it, which you clearly don’t if you think it means animals mutate into other animals.

          • Oboehner

            You can’t defend it so by default you claim I don’t understand it, typical.

          • MisterPine

            Nice little anti-logic bubble you’ve sealed yourself in. Don’t understand explanations so won’t accept evidence, running away with fingers in ears going laaa laaa laaa. Meanwhile the world just laughs and shakes it’s head at you.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz.

          • MisterPine

            Check. Blinders on tight.

          • namelessghost

            Do you have any idea how many different finch species there are? “Finch” isn’t a species; it’s a Family. You clearly have no understanding of scientific taxonomy.

            I’m not even going to bother addressing your misunderstanding of DNA and genetics. Your use of the word “evolutionism” betrays your intent. You are free to choose to remain mired in ignorance, but you’ll be doing yourself a grave disservice.

          • Oboehner

            You can’t explain it so therefore I have a “misunderstanding”, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that crap before.

          • namelessghost

            Yeah, you’d probably have a whole bunch of nickels, considering you misunderstand pretty much all of it.

          • MisterPine
          • namelessghost

            LOL I especially like the reply from Mister Spak:

            “Do you still have cravings to eat dirt or has that been created out of you? I’m just curious because if the bible is true why is there still dirt”

          • Oboehner

            The evolutionist cop-out: I have nothing, but if I say “you don’t understand” maybe I’ll be off the hook”.

          • namelessghost

            The creationist cop-out: I refuse to learn the truth about the theory of evolution, so I perpetuate misconceptions and say “you have nothing” in an attempt to validate my belief that all humans came from the interbreeding of a family generated from a rib bone.

          • Oboehner

            I know the truth about evolutionism, it’s a religion. Hacking on the beliefs of others doesn’t prove yours, never has, never will. I guess it’s much easier to believe in an exploding dot, miraculous life out of nothing, belief that all humans came from the interbreeding of apes or whatever…

          • namelessghost

            You’re saying that you don’t believe that all humans came from the interbreeding of a family generated from dirt and a rib bone?

            I certainly don’t believe that that all humans came from the interbreeding of apes or whatever… Nor do I believe in an exploding dot or miraculous life out of nothing, neither of which has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution, by the way. So if that’s what you “know” about evolution, then it’s absolutely correct to say that you don’t understand it.

            The Theory of Evolution is science — not religion. There’s plenty of
            scientific evidence for evolution and I don’t need to hack on anyone’s
            beliefs to prove it.

          • Oboehner

            *YAWN* sure plenty of evidence, why not post some. One topic at a time, not links, and no rambling cut and pastes. I won’t hold my breath.

          • namelessghost

            You haven’t answered any of my questions yet but you want me to jump through hoops for you?

            Why don’t you start by explaining to me how evolution is a religion. Then you can move on to how you’re able to justify hacking on what you consider to be my religious beliefs in order to prove your own. Because if you truly believe that evolution is a religion that’s exactly what you’re doing. And if not, then you’re just being disingenuous.

          • Oboehner

            Jump through hoops? To explain something you are claiming “mountains of evidence” for? How sad, you must just take it on faith then – that’s how evolutionism is a religion.

          • namelessghost

            Yeah, trying to explain a complex subject to you — a subject that you dishonestly say you want me to explain but you really don’t want to learn about anyway and have completely closed your mind to — I call that jumping through hoops.

            Interesting that you think religious faith is sad, though.

          • Oboehner

            I’m not asking for the whole religion to be posted, just one piece of proof, too much for you?
            Not all religious faith is sad, just those in denial of it.

          • namelessghost

            What’s sad is denying scientific evidence because you think it interferes with your religious beliefs. All the evidence supports the theory of evolution — and none contradicts it. In fact, nothing about living organisms is inconsistent with evolution. There is no alternate explanation that can survive the same rigorous testing that the existing theory has survived.

            I’m not posting anything about religion. And I’ve already given you some evidence that supports evolution, but I’ll post one more thing and then if you’re sincere you can do some research for yourself.

            Transitional fossil evidence: Tiktaalik roseae had gills, scales and fins, but also a skull, a mobile neck, a ribcage, primitive lungs, shoulders, elbows and partial wrists, which allowed it to support itself on ground. It is a compelling example of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition.

          • Oboehner

            I keep asking for some proof and I never gat any, just accusations I denying some “science I never see.
            Transitional fossil evidence: You can’t prove that any one of the extinct creatures you mention ever even had offspring let alone “evolved” into anything else – you just have faith that they did. All you can say with any certainty is that they existed once (if the fossil was even complete and not partially embellished upon), that’s not science, that’s religion.

          • namelessghost

            So, you think these extinct creatures were just one-offs? lol Tell me, do you believe that dinosaurs existed and had offspring? If so, why? Or is paleontology a religion, too?

            You so easily deny the fossil evidence, yet you have no problem believing a collection of incredible stories that were written thousands of years ago. Why is that? Is science such a threat to your religious beliefs?

          • Oboehner

            Can you prove those creatures had offspring or do I have to take it on faith? Can you prove their offspring “evolved”? No on both, you are just SPECULATING based on your faith.

            Yes I can easily deny fossil evidence has anything to do with your religion – a collection of incredible stories that supposedly happened billions of years ago, that no one observed, no one can duplicate, and no one can test, based on assumptions.

            Why is that? Is my belief such a threat to your religious beliefs?

          • namelessghost

            So that’s a ‘yes’ then — you do think all of those extinct creatures were just one-offs. Even dinosaurs.

            By the way, I have no religious beliefs but that isn’t the reason I believe the theory of evolution. There need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution. Science and religion deal with two completely different realms and you don’t have to choose between the two.

          • Oboehner

            So do you think all of those extinct creatures evolved? There is just as much proof of that as there is they were “one-offs”, anything else has to be taken on faith (religion).
            “Science and religion deal with two completely different realms…” True science is one thing, however evolutionism is a religion therefore a contradiction between two belief systems.

          • namelessghost

            Yeah, somehow there were only one creature of each kind and they all died without ever having reproduced, then they all became part of the fossil record just to trick people into believing evolution. Makes perfect sense.

            Of course all of those extinct creatures evolved — all life evolves. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over millions of years.

            The theory of evolution is true science. It’s not a belief system. It is no more a religion than atomic theory or Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

          • Oboehner

            Yeah, somehow each extinct creature magically turned into something else using a process that cannot be observed, repeated, or tested. Yet somehow we know (through faith) that it happened. Makes perfect sense.

            “Of course all of those extinct creatures evolved — all life evolves.” Prove it.

            “The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over millions of years.” The mystical geologic column I presume? “How do we know the age of the fossils? By the layer they’re in. How do we know the age of the layer? Duh, by which fossils are in it.”
            Evolutionism is a religion, not science which can be tested, observed, and repeated.

          • namelessghost

            Your latest comment shows us just one of the numerous reasons everyone keeps telling you that you don’t understand the scientific theory of evolution.

            It’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who fights so determinedly for their ignorance. If you put even half this effort into doing some real research on the subject, there would be some hope that you might begin to increase your knowledge. Until then…

            …this concludes our conversation. Thank you, you’re dismissed.

          • Oboehner

            Cop out.

          • iLLuSioNaTi

            Here’s the answer for people like namelessghost, a Scientific Theory attempts to explain something based on the Laws of Science. The “Theory of Evolution” is nothing more than a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence. In other words, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis. It is pseudoScience at best! He’s just a troll, don’t let him get to you.

          • Oboehner

            Based on a belief system, an all powerful creator just can’t exist so everything must somehow be explained without it – no matter what.

          • MisterPine

            Your fan club from fstdt.com speaks:

            “Wow, Oboehner, this is the third time I’ve read your stuff, and all three times you were so full of s__t, you’re eyes are brown. Really. Evolution is no more a religion than gravity, optics, plasma, medicine, anatomy, relativity or any other matter of scientific concern. That we tend to be pissy about you God botherers about it is because you want to take every opportunity to enforce your religious prejudices in law. Read a book, you moron; in your case, the Scopes Trial or Dover.”

            “Not that Oboehner is ever gonna read this, but I’d still love an answer to my question: is there ANY evidence he’d be willing to accept that his special 7-day creation didn’t actually happen? If so, what would it be? ”

            “”Hacking on the beliefs of others doesn’t prove yours, never has, never will.”…I don’t even have any words for this. It’s just sad they don’t even see the sheer, ungodly irony in this.

          • Oboehner

            “is there ANY evidence he’d be willing to accept that his special 7-day creation didn’t actually happen? If so, what would it be?” How about something not based on an assumption?
            Evolutionism is every bit as much a religion as any faith.

          • MisterPine

            Probably, since evolutionism is a word you made up. But evolution occurs and is observed, no matter how much you stamp your little fundie feet.

          • Oboehner

            Show me some video of speciation if we can observe it.

          • MisterPine

            That you would even ask such a question is proof positive that you do not understand it.

          • Oboehner

            No fear of that – no proof exists.

          • MisterPine

            You just keep telling yourself that and keep the blinders on and your head in the sand, fundie parrot. It will keep reality away.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            And you have written a nice piece of rhetoric, except it is just you personal views, and you expect other to believe them because you say so?

          • Oboehner

            You expect people to believe your religion without proof then?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, I don’t have a religion.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is a religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Lol! Just like periodic table-ism!

          • Oboehner

            Ahh, not even close.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Good, I got the ultimate authority, YOU, to tell me!

          • Oboehner

            You got religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I got evidence.

          • Oboehner

            You got faith.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You’re such a predictable parrot!

          • Oboehner

            Back atcha.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I was right!!

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I know, long past your bedtime.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Ignoring the evidence in every scientific article about evolution does not equate to the evidence not existing.

          • Oboehner

            There is no proof to ignore, claiming evidence of evolutionism does not equate with proof of any sort.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            I made no claim of proof, only evidence. Those words are not interchangeable. There is no proof of gravity, either. But there is a lot of evidence. There is no proof of God’s existence. Nor is there any evidence.

          • Oboehner

            “I made no claim of proof, only evidence.” Meaning the rest has to be taken on faith.

            “There is no proof of gravity, either.” That is observable, if I drop something directly over your head, it will hit you, guaranteed. There is no such certainty with evolutionism – none.

            “There is no proof of God’s existence. Nor is there any evidence.” There is every bit as much evidence (probably more so) that there is indeed a God.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Reaching a conclusion based on evidence is not the same as taking things on faith.

            Gravity is observable but it is not (and can not be) proven to be true under all conditions and circumstances. That is why it is a theory.

            What is this evidence of God you speak of?

          • Oboehner

            Believing the “evidence” only points in one direction or is in any way conclusive IS faith.
            I’m not claiming science or having my beliefs taught in government schools at taxpayer expense – burden of proof is on you and your “evidence” wherever that is.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Right, so no evidence of God then. Okay.

          • Oboehner

            I’ve got faith just like you.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Still waiting on that evidence of God.

          • Oboehner

            Again, I’m not claiming science and teaching my religion in government schools at taxpayer expense. Burden of proof is on you.

            “Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.” – Richard Dawkins

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Having to take a quote out of context in order to support your contention kind of calls your entire claim into doubt, wouldn’t you say, Oboehner?

            The full Dawkins quote is “If, on the other hand, there are no traces of God’s involvement in the universe; if God did indeed set things up so that life would evolve, but covered His tracks so brilliantly that no clues remain; if He made the universe look exactly as it would be expected to look if He did not exist, then what we have is not an argument from design at all. There can be no argument from design if the universe is expertly designed to look undesigned. All we are left with, in this case, is the feeble, though strictly valid, argument that just because we can’t find any evidence for a God, this doesn’t prove that there isn’t one. Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.but, as has been said sufficiently often before, exactly the same can be said of fairies and Father Christmas.”

            That evidence of God you claim exists… did I miss it in this thread? I’m usually a pretty careful reader. Could you please repost it if so? Thanks.

          • Oboehner

            Again, I’m not claiming science and teaching my religion in government schools at taxpayer expense. Burden of proof is on you.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Five days ago, you wrote, “There is every bit as much evidence (probably more so) that there is indeed a God.” Since then, I have been asking for that evidence. Unless “Oboehner’s attempts to change the subject” count as evidence, I still haven’t seen any.

          • Oboehner

            “Unless ‘Oboehner’s attempts to change the subject'”

            Before I posted that, You made these statements: “I made no claim of proof, only evidence. But there is a lot of evidence.” So perhaps since you first made that claim, you should be the first to post your evidence, unless you wish to continue to weasel out of it by trying to shift the focus.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Right. So no evidence of God then. That’s okay, Troll.

          • Oboehner

            Right. So no evidence of evolutionmism then. That’s okay, Troll.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Here are 29 pieces of evidence of macroevolution.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

            I look forward to your evidence. Please be sure to find sources that do not assume the existence of God a priori. The proper way to test evidence is to make predictions based on the evidence, then test those predictions.

          • Oboehner

            If you want me to discus your “evidence” I want one topic at a time, no lengthy cut and paste, and no websites.
            Common descent is just as much an evidence of a creator (God) or common designer, it’s merely claimed it only evidences evolutionism, and is just as lame as saying “we exist, that’s evidence!”
            BTW that little fictional chart is a fine example of assumption, speculation, and just plain faith.

          • John Munro

            it was deemed by the Government along time ago as a religion if you do not believe why the fuss?

          • Paul Hiett

            When did the US Government declare evolution a religion?

          • John Munro

            you spend your time doing the research I got better things to do

          • Paul Hiett

            I did, which is why I was asking you. No such declaration was ever made.

          • John Munro

            liar

          • Richard

            Christians have the most evidence of any belief. Being Christian requires little faith.

            Atheists, however, have no evidence to support their belief that God doesn’t exist. That is blind faith in an unproven opinion.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Absurd. You are a nit-wit. You are making an affirmative claim and three score have the burden of presenting evidence of what you claim to be true. Atheists have no ‘belief.’ On the contrary, we consider the total lack of evidence that an invisible man lives in the sky as reason to doubt the claim that such a being exists. The same way you would require evidence of unicorns, gnomes or elves in order to think they exist.

            God exists inside your imagination. In order to prove that a being whose existence you accept on faith is real, you must present proof of it. Sorry 🙂

          • Richard

            You are missing the point. You believe God doesn’t exist. That is a belief. To believe that, you should have some evidence to support that belief. Do you have any?

            “you must present proof of it.”

            The historical record is proof. The problem with atheists is that they either haven’t looked at the evidence, or you are dismissing them without critical thinking. Dismissing the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            No, YOU are missing the point. According to your nonsensical claim, YOU affirmatively believe that Santa doesn’t exist and therefore must prove that you are right.

            I do not ‘believe’ that a deity in space does not exist. I remain unconvinced, based upon the total lack of evidence, that such a being does exist. Not the same thing. If you present evidence for a god, then I will consider it and, if your proof passes muster, then I would accept such proof and alter my thinking

            Your argument fails because the bible is not a historical record. No one was alive at the time ‘Genesis’ was alleged to have happened and, therefore, no one was able to make an account of the ‘events.’ Likewise, none of the gospel scribes were alive at the time this ‘Jesus’ was alleged to have lived and, therefore, nothing they wrote was a first-hand account. If you knew anything about the history of the bible, you’d know that it is simply transcribed oral tradition. None of it is historically accurate or, for the most part, remotely possible.

            Sorry 🙂

          • ReasonableVoice101

            The lack of evidence of a God is the reason not to believe in a God. You believe there is a God. What evidence drew you to that conclusion?

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Chrstians don’t have any more or less evidence for their faith than any other religion. Your opinion isn’t exactly unbiased. Members of every other faith are just as positive that their beliefs are the ones most solidly supported by evidence. That’s self-explanatory.

            Not believing in something for which there isn’t any evidence is the exact opposite of blind faith. Do you feel obligated to provide evidence for things you don’t believe in? Of course not, proving a negative is impossible.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Gee, wow! Maybe Jesus was right after all when he yelled(?) “you of little faith”! Why did he get upset if his followers didn’t even need any, as you claim?

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Can you provide some of that evidence?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            “and faith.” Exactly. You lose 🙂

          • Oboehner

            Yup, and faith.

          • thoughtsfromflorida
          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Sorry Charlie 🙂 The fact that your brain cannot comprehend the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution is wholly irrelevant to your lack of evidence for a man in the clouds.

            Let’s pretend, for a moment, that you actually had a clue as to what you were talking about and there actually was ‘no evidence’ for evolution. That still wouldn’t (1) make evolution a religion OR (2) support your hypothesis that a space wizard created the universe.

            Evolution is based is the result of examination of the evidence. it was a conclusion reached due to the convergence of all observable data and scientific investigation. Further, let’s pretend that, one day, new quantifiable information is discovered that affirmatively proves evolution is unlikely. Because it is a science, we will simply incorporate that new information into our understanding of the universe. Simple.

            Religious zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system; and that is why creationism is a religion. When confronted by affirmative evidence that everything your ancient book of fables is verifiably untrue, you do not incorporate that information, Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true,

            Sorry :-).

          • Oboehner

            “…overwhelming evidence supporting evolution…” *cough, cough, choke* Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any.

            Zealots, such as yourself, simply cannot incorporate new data into your belief system unless it conforms to your pre-conceived “theory”; and that is why evolutionism is a religion. When confronted by affirmative evidence that everything in your Darwinian book of fables is verifiably untrue (gill slits), you do not incorporate that information, Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little evolutionism box. It’s really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.
            Sorry :-).

          • MisterPine

            “No one has ever been able to show me any”

            That is some BS right there, I have thrown more info at you than should be necessary for any reasonable person and you sneer at it and throw it away while showing no sense of having understood it at all. Or you comb it for all the words suggesting vagueness like “possibly” and “might” and go AHA! As though you’ve poked a hole in the evidence.

          • Oboehner

            You have shown me more assumption, speculation, and religious belief – nothing more. Like I said, “No one has ever been able to show me any”.

          • MisterPine

            It’s all been fact, but you don’t want to hear it. You are a science denier. Ignore it, close your ears to it, and it will all go away leaving you in the warm amniotic fluid of your fundie bubble.

          • Oboehner

            No science to deny, you’re just a religion denier.

          • MisterPine

            True. I deny all religions. Too bad evolution isn’t a religion – as you’ve been told from practically everybody now.

          • John Munro

            do you have any half evolved people near you? bugs adapting is not the same as people evolving right. birds adapting does not fit

          • Paul Hiett

            We’re all animals, John.

          • Kara Connor

            Explain human chromosome 2.

          • John Munro

            if you can not show me a person who evolved from and animal the conversation is pointless. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

          • Kara Connor

            Look in the mirror. You and I are great apes. We evolved from a common ancestor.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            I think John is asking for a being that was born one species, and became another species in its lifetime. This is what we’re up against in this country, and why we’re lagging in science. As another Creationist said to me a while back “I’ve never seen a monkey turn into a man!”.

            It’s similar to a problem I saw in another cultist recently, one from the climate change denier sect. He kept asking for “proof” of AGW, from me and other posters. But he dismissed the information in every link he was given, because it didn’t meet his undefined, but presumably very child-like, definition of “proof”.

          • Kara Connor

            Thanks for clarifying his question. If that’s his understanding of evolution it’s no surprise he doesn’t believe it.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            The typical conservative has a hard time understanding things like math and science even when they put their mind to it, so add in the religion and willful obstinance, and it’s not likely they’re going to understand anything.

            I’ve tried to have conversations in the past on the topic, using analogies like asking them to picture a lemon seed and a lemon tree, two stages of a single organism during one lifetime, that are much less similar than a man and a chimp. But they still want to see an ape swing down out of a tree and into a three-piece suit , with a briefcase in hand.

            Have you ever seen that Ben Stein movie Expelled, a “documentary” that allows Creationists to play the victim and imagine they’re persecuted? As a scientist, I’m not sure if it would be great comedy to you, or make you lose faith in humanity.

            My favorite part is an animated segment trying to prove how unlikely life coming about randomly is. There’s a little guy standing at a slot machine. He pulls the lever, and gets a combination of cherries or something, meant to represent the string of proteins in sequence needed for life as we know it.

            The narrator then explains that the cartoon man would need to get the same sequence so many hundreds of times in a row to duplicate the origin of life.

            This is how it’s dumbed down, the infinite universe, countless planets and stars over billions of years, billions of meetings of chemicals and minerals and electricity and gases, all illustrated with a little man pulling the handle of a one-armed bandit.

            To a person with a weak grasp of large numbers and time frames, that kind of pablum is convincing.

          • Kara Connor

            Natural selection appears to be the key missing part of his slot machine analogy, along with slot machines which produced “winning combinations” being able to pass that on. Other than those vital bits…

          • Andy_Kreiss

            It was jaw-dropping stoopid, but funny ( to me at least, I have sort of a weird sense of humor). There’s an audience for it, comfortable with the vastness of the universe being boiled down to simple, child-like levels.

            I don’t know if Stein is really that dumb, or was just cashing in, pandering to the low-information types, but the scene was incredible.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            http://youtu.be/e2wBKRWlRwg

            The “Casino of Life” bit is a little more than six minutes in to this response to the movie. Pretty funny, or sad.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            If you cannot show me a language becoming another one, the discussion about Latin roots of Spanish, French, and Italian is pointless. And go look up Ezekiel 23:20!

          • William T. Robbins

            Evolutionism? That sounds like a made up word to me.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            OK, so you are obviously an ill-informed bible-thumper who believes that a deity in space used magic to create a man and woman (who procreated incestuously for the next sveral thousand years). Let’s pretend that your absurd statement is even remotely true (as anyone who graduated high-school knows that evolution is a proven fact); please explain the existence of black, white, Hispanic and Asian people – without evolution?

          • Richard

            What evidence do you have to support your belief that God doesn’t exist? Any?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            That has to be the dumbest remark I’ve ever read! That’s like asking me to provide evidence that invisible unicorns don’t inhabit Neptune, or arguing that Bigfoot exists because no one has ever found evidence definitively proving that he doesn’t. Perhaps you don’t understand how his works, but I am not asserting a hypothesis; simply noting that you have no evidence to support yours.

            When someone is making a positive assertion, in your case you are claiming that a deity exists, it’s your responsibility to present evidence in support of your claim. You’re failure to do so means there is no reason to think your claim is true. I don’t have any responsibility to present evidence because there IS NO way to present affirmative evidence to disprove the existence of a being who resides in your imagination

            Sorry 🙂

          • Richard

            It might seem dumb to you because you don’t understand the illogical nature of what you believe. The fact that you couldn’t answer my question demonstrates that.

            Do you have any evidence to support your faith?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            See . . . you just keep proving my point. You are a nit-wit and imagine that simply calling something ‘a faith’ that you can magically make it so.

            The fact that, to your delusional mind, anyone who requires evidence of a hypothesis BEFORE accepting the validity of the hypothesis is ‘illogical’ simply evinces the extent a zealot will contort reality to cling to his superstitions 🙂

            Again (for those of you with an IQ under 50), I am not making any affirmative claims. I am arguing no point and asserting no facts. On the contrary, you are suggesting that an invisible man lives in space and made the universe with magic. I have no reason to accept your statement as true and have asked you to present evidence to support your hypothesis. However, you are totally unable to do so. Accordingly, you instead continually move the ball and toss-out nonsensical and pointless inquiries in the desperate hope that doing so will hide the fact that you’ve failed to meet you burden of proof, I therefore have absolutely no reason to accept your claim as anything but the delusional ramblings of a brain-washed zombie.

            Try again 🙂

          • Richard

            The error you are making is that God isn’t a hypothesis. God is already a matter of the historical record. Unless you can disprove it. Can you?

            And you are making an affirmative claim. You just don’t realize it. I’ll give you some time to figure that out. When you do, we can continue.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            LOLOLOLOL!!!! What ‘historical’ record is there that PROVES that an invisible man in space popped into existence out of no-where and then made the universe with magic? If you claim ‘the bible’ then I am going to fall of this chair in hysterics. 3000 years ago, Middle Eastern desert nomads claimed that voices in their heads were telepathic messages from a deity in space. If this is all the ‘evidence’ you need to believe in an omnipotent space being, then I have a bridge on Mars to sell you.

            And, no, I am NOT making an affirmative claim. You religious nutters must all go to the same 2-year college. YOU are claiming god exists – that is affirmative. I am simply asking you for evidence to support your belief. The fact that you cannot do that is your problem Sorry 🙂

            Tell you what; you prove to me that ethereal gnomes don’t inhabit the center or Neptune and I will prove to you that the imaginary man who lives inside your mind isn’t real 🙂

          • Richard

            You don’t have it figured out yet. Try again. When you get it, we can proceed.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Are you back on drugs? Obviously I’ve already figured out that you haven’t got a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis that a man in space created the universe. If you did, you’d have already presented it. You’d have been the first man to ever do so. You’d have been published because your discovery would’ve changed the world; you’d have allowed religion to stop hiding under the protection of ‘faith’ and move into the realm of ‘supported by evidence.’

            You constant whining and moaning isn’t going to fix that pretty big flaw in your assertion 🙂

          • Richard

            Lots of opinion, but no actual evidence. Still haven’t figured out why your position is illogical. Sleep on it. It might come to you at some point.

          • Oboehner

            OK, so you are obviously an ill-informed self described ape descendant who believes that a dot in space exploded then magic created an amoeba (who magically found a way to turn into two different sexes of the same species for the next several million years and actually find each other and procreate without incest). Let’s pretend that your absurd statement is even remotely true (as anyone who graduated high-school was brain-washed into believing that evolutionism is a proven fact);

            “please explain the existence of black, white, Hispanic and Asian people – without evolution?”
            – They were created that way, the Bible doesn’t record every action of God in every moment of every day. Simply variations of the same species, or were you trying to say one “race” is more “evolved” than another? Hitler believed that, Darwin’s full title for his book was: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Think about that next time you’re out burning crosses.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh yeah? What was discarded?

          • Oboehner

            Ever watch “Expelled”?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            The movie that lies to scientists to get interviews? Indeed that’s a metaphor for the movie itself.

          • Oboehner

            Riiight.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I know, the truth hurts.

          • Oboehner

            Got any?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Darwin got it all! OK, he made some errors too, he should have knows about Mendel.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…..

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I know, way above your head. It’s OK. You’ll learn when you grow up.

          • Oboehner

            Ahhh. no.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Fine, so you’ll never learn. OK by me.

          • MisterPine

            Notice, the list of submissions has grown. Oboehner grows more and more famous for his insights.
            http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=Oboehner

          • Jazzidiot

            Atheism is a religion the same way baldness is a hair color. Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. You’re an atheist regarding hundreds of faiths, all myths. You just have 1 more to go!

          • Richard

            There is only one God. If you don’t believe God is real, you must have some evidence to support your belief. Do you?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, there is a whole Pantheon of gods. If you don’t believe that Pantheon is real, you must have some evidence to support your belief. Do you?

          • Oboehner

            The Courts ruled that it is a belief system (held to with ardor and faith).

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            So you believe that because courts? Great! Do you believe gays should be allowed to get married? Courts have ruled that too!

          • Oboehner

            It would be interesting if you could stay on the same subject. It is irrelevant what I think of the courts, the point is you believe them.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You said atheism is a religion because courts say so. Hence, it is your opinion of validity of court system that is the issue here, not mine.

          • Oboehner

            YOU said atheism is not a religion, YOU believe whatever the courts toss out, and they said atheism is a religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Nope, I positively DON’T believe whatever courts toss out , you’re making that up again.

          • Oboehner

            Tell me you don’t blindly follow “authority” figures *cough* evolutionism *cough, cough*.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You mean, mendelievism, periodic table-ism?

          • Oboehner

            Attempting to link evolutionism with something actually observable fail.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            So do you consider forensic science science? You know forensic experts put events together that happened in the past with no witnesses.

          • Oboehner

            Analogy fail, they don’t rely on assumptions and speculation for things supposedly a bazillion years ago, it wouldn’t hold up in court.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Actually part of forensic science comes directly from evolutionary biology, DNA analysis techniques, theories and models are based entirely off of evolution. FYI.

          • Oboehner

            Sure thing, DNA analysis doesn’t revolve around assumptions.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Sure thing, you have no clue how DNA analysis works.

          • Oboehner

            The old “you have no clue” cop-out.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Your “DNA analysis doesn’t make assumptions” shows clearly that you don’t. It makes plenty.

          • Oboehner

            “It makes plenty.”
            Then it is not scientific fact but a faith based belief system.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            But you know on that basis we put people on death row, correct? That is how confident we are in principles of evolution, which is not only accepted by court system but used by it all the time.

          • Oboehner

            Show me an example of evolutionism putting someone on death row, not just something you slap the evolutionism label on, but actual speciation.
            What you’re claiming now is nothing more than: “hey we exist, that’s proof of evolutionism”. That doesn’t cut it.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            READ the article!

          • Oboehner

            I did – it ain’t there!

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            READ!

          • NoCrossNoCrescent
          • NoCrossNoCrescent
          • Oboehner
          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Does ICR have any info on how genetic testing is done?

          • Oboehner

            Yup.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            In your imagination.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Incidentally, God must be trying to prove you wrong. In the middle of your silly claims that Neanderthals are misidentified humans (whereas they have distinct ribs, skulls, etc), now we learn the distinction extends literally to the smallest bone of the body. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150327091845.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ffossils_ruins%2Fhuman_evolution+%28Human+Evolution+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

          • Oboehner

            “they coincided with Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and became extinct for reasons that are still being challenged.” They dug up a pigmy and claim it is some kind of link when in fact they existed at the same time as other humans, ah… yeah. Or maybe it was just a pig’s tooth.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Well, some Christians claim today that dinosaurs never existed, so no matter how delusional you are, others beat you too stupidity.

          • Oboehner

            The book of Job makes mention of them, anyone who knows the Bible would not dismiss dinosaurs.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Lol, so you dismiss Christians Against Dinosaurs, because you know better than they do! On the other hand you disbelieve in Neanderthals, see, you proved my point. You can be crazy as you want, some will be crazies than you.

          • Oboehner

            I also disbelieve in Piltdown Man, I do however know that if some evolutionist would have dug up the elephant man, they would have created an entire race of them in their desperation to somehow prove their religion. Talk about crazy.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            How do you know that? Where you there?

          • Oboehner

            Don’t you read the crap you post? In your world you don’t have to be there, you just believe.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            So, you don’t have to have been there to believe George Washington existed?

          • Oboehner

            Many people observed George Washington and recorded him as well as he himself recorded his existence. Do share your recorded history, or do I take it on faith?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Evolution is recorded in rocks and in every single one of our cells. Physical records, just like written records, enable you to know about something you haven’t seen yourself.

          • Oboehner

            The only rocks it’s recorded in are the rocks in your head. There is NO proof that any fossil is anything more than some extinct species.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Lol! Also I guess in the head of geologists who find desposits of-ahem-“fossil” fuels for you to burn. Because evolutionary biology is the bedrock of geology, you know that, right?

          • Oboehner

            Are you talking about abiotic oil?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Well see. The rocks that testify to evolution are not in my head. They are on the mountains of Afghanistan, being prospected for mining by the US Dept of Defense.
            How does the DoD know where to look for rare earth minerals? Based on the ideas of Darwin and Wallace, codiscoverers of evolution.

            “Wallace came to much the same conclusion that Darwin published in the Origin of Species: biogeography was simply a record of inheritance. As species colonized new habitats and their old ranges were divided by mountain ranges or other barriers, they took on the distributions they have today.
            allace came to much the same conclusion that Darwin published in the Origin of Species: biogeography was simply a record of inheritance. As species colonized new habitats and their old ranges were divided by mountain ranges or other barriers, they took on the distributions they have today.”
            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16

          • Oboehner

            More shoving everything in the evolutionism box while ignoring any other conclusions. “Wallace had already accepted evolution when he began his travels in 1848 through the Amazon and Southeast Asia. On his journeys, he sought to demonstrate that evolution did indeed take place…” He had his pre-conceived idea, somehow mapping locations of animal habitats proves evolutionism? Could it also show they were put there and didn’t migrate? It does.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yeah, that’s how science works, you make observations, you form hypotheses, then you test them.

          • Oboehner

            No, science would take into account ALL possibilities, not ram through a preconceived set of beliefs.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, creationism will never be but an enemy of science and human health, welfare and prosperity.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…
            Evolutionism will never be anything other than a religion falsely called science.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Zzzz…stay asleep. The job of studying the behavior of volcanoes, earthquake, and rare earth mineral deposits rests with geologists who understand evolution. They’ll do it for you.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…
            Evolutionism will never be anything other than a religion falsely called science. Stuying the observable is one thing, pasting some religious belief on how it came about another.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Zzzzz…the ideas of Darwin and Wallace about geographical distribution lead to discovery of plate tectonics decades after they were dead, based on OBSERVABLE rock patterns at the bottom of the ocean. Go back to sleep, that’s what you do best.

          • Oboehner

            Plate tectonics: an attempt to explain the existence of mountain ranges despite “billions of years” of mass wasting.

          • Oboehner

            Plate tectonics: an attempt to explain the existence of mountain ranges despite “billions of years” of mass wasting.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            And the science we have inherited from Wallace is what the DoD needs for mining in Afghanistan.
            “Hyperspectral imaging characterizes minerals only on the surface of the Earth, not underground where the minerals are mined. The technology wouldn’t work well in countries where forests, grasses and soil cover the ground, but it’s perfect for Afghanistan. Over 50 million years, the slow-motion collision of Iran and Eurasian tectonic plates beneath Afghanistan formed rugged, rocky mountains out of what used to be mineral-laden subsurface rock.
            The hyperspectral instrument “can be used in a place where there’s no vegetative cover, and Afghanistan happens to have almost no vegetation and it is resource-laden,” McNutt explained. “And because of plate tectonic properties, … it has been tectonically uplifted and tectonically unroofed to reveal at the surface the mother lode of resources.”

            http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117330

          • Oboehner

            “Over 50 million years, the slow-motion collision of Iran and Eurasian tectonic plates beneath Afghanistan formed rugged, rocky mountains out of what used to be mineral-laden subsurface rock.” Have pictures or anybody witness this, or is this more religious belief?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Are you going to call the Defense Department and ask?

          • Oboehner

            Don’t need to, they wouldn’t be able to show evolutionism any more than you do.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You’re too afraid.

          • Oboehner

            Of something that doesn’t exist? Hardly.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I didn’t know the US Defense Department didn’t exist.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It might interest you, that origination concepts of the exact same type used by evolutionary biologists to trace the shared ancestry of man and chimp have already held up in court.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Schmidt

          • Oboehner

            “The absence of laboratory testing identification references against this patient’s name led to police visiting the man who readily disclosed that he had AIDS and that he had been called in for a blood test by Dr Schmidt on the evening in question.”
            Profound! Profoundly lame, no mention what-so-ever of any chimps.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Straw man. Try again.

          • Oboehner

            Your use of the term “straw man” is nowhere near correct, you are just using it as a cop-out. You made a claim that “the shared ancestry of man and chimp have already held up in court.” Then posted a link in which nothing even close was mentioned. Fail.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No. I said the genetic methods used to show the shared ancestry of man and chimp has already been held up in court. And molecular techniques are the same.

          • Oboehner

            Then you post some link that has nothing to do with your claim. Let’s not forget that slavery was once up-held in court (not held up)
            The “shared ancestry” claim is pure faith, the very same genetic code can evidence a creator or common designer. After all we were meant to exist on the same earth, so having similar genetics should be a no-brainer.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Excuse me? You said explicitly evidence for evolution wouldn’t be help up in court. It already has. And when I post links, you reply with creationist links that actually have nothing with the issue in question?

          • Oboehner

            So evolutionism has been declared to be real in court? Or are you just stretching the truth beyond it’s limits again – where was the mention of apes as you claim in the link you posted?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Or maybe you should READ science articles before you counter-post creationist links that have nothing to do with the subject?

          • Oboehner

            Sure as long as the “science” articles stem from a belief in evolutionism.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, they stem from empirical evidence.

          • Oboehner

            Sure empirical evidence based on assumption and faith really isn’t evidence at all.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Distinctions between human and chimp DNA are not by nature any different than those AMONG humans-they are simply a matter of quantity, not quality.
            NA fingerprinting allows forensic scientists to determine whether the DNA found at a crime scene came from a particular individual. But how does this technique work and what does it have to do with evolution? Answering this question depends upon understanding the genetic variation in human populations and the rates at which different parts of the genome evolve.
            Humans are 96% genetically identical to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Obviously, we are even more similar to each other: two randomly chosen people from anywhere on Earth are expected be 99.9% genetically identical. So how can one person’s DNA be unique enough to identify him or her as the perpetrator of a particular crime? The answer, it turns out, is volume: the human genome is composed of three billion base pairs! Even at 99.9% similarity, any two people will still differ at about three million base pairs. In fact, no two people on Earth have exactly the same genetic sequence, except identical twins.
            Some of these genetic differences influence the unique set of characteristics that makes you you: eye color, hair color, height, tendency towards heart disease, and numerous other traits. But most of these genetic differences have no discernable effect on your phenotype, or set of physical features, at all. And it is these genetic differences that biologists focus on when they are trying to identify or exonerate a suspect using DNA fingerprinting.
            Different parts of the genome evolve at different rates. DNA that encodes important traits tends to evolve slowly. This is because most (though not all) mutations in critical regions of the genome are likely to cause detrimental effects and be selected out of the population rapidly. If a stretch of DNA evolves slowly, few changes in its sequence will occur and many people in the population will likely carry identical sequences. Though important, these regions of the genome will not be very helpful for identification.
            On the other hand, some regions of the genome don’t seem to do anything in particular. Because variation in these regions has little effect on the characteristics of the organism, variants are largely “invisible” to natural selection. Here, mutations accumulate without much consequence and gene frequencies change via genetic drift. These regions evolve quickly, and as a consequence, different individuals in the population carry different sequences in these regions.
            Even within fast-evolving regions of the genome, there may be particular mutation “hotspots,” which are unusually variable in sequence. Many of these regions contain DNA that repeats the same sequence of bases over and over again (e.g., ATGGATGGATGGATGG…). Biologists think that cells frequently make mistakes copying these regions, accidentally producing more or fewer repeats than in the original DNA sequence and, hence, causing a new mutation. Because they evolve so quickly and vary so much in the number of repeats, these hotspots are ideal targets for DNA fingerprinting.
            In DNA fingerprinting, scientists collect samples of DNA from different sources — for example, from a hair left behind at the crime scene and from the blood of victims and suspects (see diagram below). They then narrow in on the stretches of repetitive DNA scattered throughout these samples. The profile of repetitive regions in a particular sample represents its DNA fingerprint, which ends up looking a bit like a barcode. Each bar in the barcode represents one particular stretch of repetitive DNA. Since these repetitive regions are common in the genome and highly variable from individual to individual, no two people (except identical twins) will have exactly the same set of repetitive regions and, hence, the same DNA fingerprint.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz… That much psychobabble to tell me DNA exists, nowhere is evolutionism relevant to DNA in that entire dissertation, all of that can be true under a different belief system.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I know, zzzz, you’d rather sleep than read material debunking your dogma.

          • Oboehner

            Good thing no debunking took place, so you can quit beating the horse – it’s dead already.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Right, creationism is dead already.

          • Oboehner

            Then we wouldn’t exist.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Not intellectually, correct.

          • Oboehner

            Tell it to Piltdown Man.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Darwin predicted, based on anatomic similarities between humans and other great apes, that origins of humanity would be found in Africa (which has come to pass). The first giveaway that Piltdown man was a hoax was wrong geography.

          • Oboehner

            That brings up the racist side of your religion.
            The first giveaway that Piltdown was a hoax is the claim it actually existed.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Bull. It is creationism that is racist.
            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix”.
            http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

            Darwinian evolution says humanity evolved in Africa, not that Africans are different than other humans. But that is not your first display of ignorance.

          • Oboehner

            “One of the most fascinating historical accounts about the fallout of biological evolution theory on human relations is the story of Ota Benga, a pygmy who was put on display in an American zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race. The incident clearly reveals the racism of evolutionary theory and the extent that the theory gripped the hearts and minds of scientists and journalists in the late 1800s. As humans move away from this time in history, we can more objectively look back at the horrors that evolutionary theory has brought to society of which this story is a poignant example.”
            http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/otabenga.html

            As for the rest of your post, BS plain and simple. There is nothing in the Bible to back any of that crap up, nothing. As for evolutionism, I gave you one example of many.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            This is how. “Because of the rapid rate of evolution of HIV-1, phylogenetic analysis of HIV-1 DNA sequences is a powerful tool for the identification of closely related viral strains that may be used to infer the transmission between individuals. In the case of the State of Louisiana vs. Richard J. Schmidt, the prosecution argued successfully that the methods of genomic DNA isolation, PCR, DNA sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis of HIV-1 DNA sequences to characterize HIV-1-positive samples identified by criminal investigation met the judicial standards of evidence admissibility. These standards include the facts that the methods are subject to empirical testing, are subject to peer review and publication, can be assessed for error, and are generally accepted in the scientific community (13). This case was the first time that phylogenetic analysis has been used as evidence in a United States criminal proceeding. ” http://m.pnas.org/content/99/22/14292.full

          • Oboehner

            I find it interesting how adaptations automatically lead to speciation, wake me when HIV becomes a higher life form – or don’t bother me with your religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I find it interesting that you can never stick with the same subject, wake me up when you decide if bacteria can synthesize a new enzyme out of scratch with no supernatural involvement or not. Until then, don’t bore me with your straw man fallacies.

          • Oboehner

            You really need to learn exactly what a straw man argument is.
            Do you know everything there is to know about life? Do scientists? How can they be sure the ability to produce your enzyme wasn’t already hard-wired in? You believe so hard in evolutionism that everything you see is somehow attributable to your religious world view, so much so that you are blind.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yawn. I’ve already written the responses to these questions. But OK, here goes: the original sample of bacteria (which we still have in the fridge) doesn’t have the enzyme-or the genetic blueprint for it. After a number of years, all of a sudden, the culture is overtake by bacteria that have a new enzyme. Luckily every single generation of bacteria was sampled and frozen. So they go back and trace the genetic make-up of every single generation. They discover that “neutral” mutations have existed for many generations in the bacteria but only in a small minority-because they are not favored natural selection. However, new mutations accumulate over time (that is how we know the enzyme was not already “hardwired as you put it, because necessary mutations to make it existed in the later generations, not earlier ones). However, once you have “a perfect alignment of stars”-that is, an extremely small group of bacteria with all the mutations needed to metabolize a source of nutrition, that was there all along but could not be used-suddenly, this group develops an evolutionary advantage over the entire population, and replaces all other bacteria-that is how you transition from bacteria without the enzyme to those with.
            Let me guess: next question is about giraffes?

          • Oboehner

            So you know for a fact that the ability to adapt wasn’t hardwired in? I’m calling BS on that.
            A limited adaptation within a species magically leads to higher life forms? That takes faith to believe that, I suppose you believe that the differences between a Chihuahua and a Mastiff is proof of evolutionism too. Hint: They are both dogs, and will always be dogs.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Hint: humans are apes, because chimps are closer to us genetically than to gorillas or anything else.
            As for ability to adapt being “hardwired”-what the heck do you even mean? I told you that building the enzyme requires several mutations, and none of them was there in the original sample.

          • Oboehner

            Looks like they were created by a common designer.
            You told me that the bacteria was still bacteria and didn’t become a higher life form and that I have to have faith that somehow billions of years ago it did.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You don’t get it, do you. A paternity test shows a descendency between 2 persons. It doesn’t show the two had a common creator. Same for HIV samples-you trace the common origin of two samples based on their genetic make-up, not that they had a common creator. It is the same for great apes, which includes humans.
            As for the second part of your comment-yawn, don’t you ever get tired of how many straw man attacks? You do you have to change the subjects when I am explaining the evolution of metabolic pathways?

          • Oboehner

            Next you’ll try and tell me the paternity test will show that one of the parents was an ape. What you and your religious cohorts are doing is taking a shred of evidence and trying to stretch it over you religious frame.
            “A paternity test shows a descendency[sic] (or close relationship) between 2 persons.” The science part.

            “you trace the common origin of two samples based on their genetic make-up, not that they had a common creator. It is the same for great apes, which includes humans.” The religious part.
            I’m not changing anything, I’m pointing out the religious aspect of your faith.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Straw man. Paternity tests show ancestry. As in molecular phylogenentics between humans and chimps.

          • Oboehner

            As in created that way, to share the same earth, by a common designer.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Except a paternity test doesn’t show a common creator, that’s not the use of the test.

          • Oboehner

            Does a paternity test show another species? No it doesn’t, it just shows more of same.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Does a test showing common ancestry between humans and chimps show anything beyond apes? No it doesn’t, humans always were, and today remain, a class of Great African Apes.

          • Oboehner

            You only BELIEVE it’s common ancestry, it’s not at all provable, just more speculation.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is based on exactly the same kind f information used in paternity tests.

          • Oboehner

            Which doesn’t prove human’s were anything other than humans, and apes were anything other than apes.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            By your logic, Spanish was never Latin and Swedish was never German.

          • Oboehner

            No, they were never anything other than language.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent
          • Oboehner

            The Onion, no wonder you believe in evolutionism, the wall must be science, it’s just as credible as evolutionism.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Well if evolution WERE a religion, it would have worship rituals, which it doesn’t.

          • Oboehner

            No, it would be a faith based system which it is.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is not a belief system, it is a tool. As in, indispensable when mining for rare earth minerals.

          • Oboehner

            *YAWN* Evolutionism has nothing to do with finding minerals, the process would have been the same if aliens would have started life on earth – which didn’t happen either – mapping the observable is mapping the observable, no “evolving” required.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            “Yawn” mapping rare earth minerals very much depends on understanding plate tectonics, as the DoD explains.

          • Oboehner

            An example of the cart before the horse, taking a known phenomena (mineral deposits) and slapping some speculation (tectonics) on it, then claiming the first is a result of the latter.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Bull. And you’d know that is bull if you’d read DoD’s press release I linked to.

          • Oboehner

            Read my post carefully.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            And this is where apes come in: we know humans and chimps had a shared ancestor precisely the way we know the victim and Dr Schmidt’s patient’s virus samples were from the same source. It is called molecular phylogeny.

            “No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.”

            http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

          • Oboehner

            “we know humans and chimps had a shared ancestor”
            Correction, you BELIEVE humans and chimps had a shared ancestor.
            All your doing is taking legitimate science and slapping your religion on it – more: “look we exist, that’s proof of evolutionism!” Just more faith.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Correction, molecular evidence, the exact same type introduced in evidence in LA murder case, proves humans and chimps had a common ancestor.

          • Oboehner

            Or a common creator, only a religious belief would exclude possibilities, real science would not.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Nah, see, Louisiana convicted that doctor based on the knowledge that the victim’s HIV and the patient’s HIV had a common ancestor (based on molecular phylogeny), not a common creator. I guess you are going to tell the court system to void the conviction on the basis of your alternative hypothesis?

          • Oboehner

            Don’t tell me let me guess, the HIV’s common ancestor was HIV.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Don’t let me guess, Tue common ancestor of apes was an ape.

          • Oboehner

            Just another ape, and the ancestor of man was just another human.

          • MisterPine

            When they have discovered air-tight evidence, we’d be fools not to follow them, and there’s nothing blind about it.

          • Oboehner

            The problem is there is NO air-tight evidence just blind faith.

          • MisterPine

            Too bad you are approximately the only person on earth who thinks so. Oh, wait, is that just popular opinion? Hm, maybe it’s popular because it is correct, proven, observable? Liking your little game? Do we get a prize if we get you to take the blinders off for 2 minutes?

          • Oboehner

            “correct, proven, observable” Hardly, unless you have 8X10’s of something “speciating” that I can “observe”. Do we get a prize if we get you to take the blinders off for 2 minutes?

          • MisterPine

            In the real world we can prove things from long ago without 8 x 10 glossies. You choose to deny this patent reality. You do so at your own ridicule.

          • Oboehner

            So I still have to take it on faith.

          • MisterPine

            You take it on facts. On evidence. Have you ever been to a museum?

          • Oboehner

            Hahahaha, what facts?

          • MisterPine

            So are you th Wendy Wright style of creationist who, when confronted with mountains of evidence can only say “show me the evidence”? Because that is what you are doing. Closing your ears to what you cannot comprehend anyway. I think that is really sad.

          • Oboehner

            The only thing you’ve demonstrated is mountains of BS. The evolutionism style, when asked for proof simply state “there be mountains of that there eveedense” yet never come up with any.

          • MisterPine

            Can you prove that it’s mountains of BS? No you can’t. Can you discredit what no one else is able to? No. Do you even understand the field you are talking about, since you have made statements along the lines of evolution being about exploding dots and one species turning into another, neither of which is evolution, and neither of which any scientist has ever claimed?

            All you are doing is playing games. You lose. You lost before you even started. And you are a laughingstock especially because every single claim you make about your disbelief in evolution can be applied to your belief in Bronze Age fairy stories.

          • Oboehner

            There’s mountains of evidence that it’s mountains of BS.

          • MisterPine

            You are an utter embarrassment to humanity.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzzz… it’s your religion…

          • MisterPine

            And everyone in the world including the dictionary says you’re wrong. Sleep on, sleeping beauty.

          • Oboehner

            More popular opinion…

          • MisterPine

            If you want to play that game, sure. The entire civilized world versus you. I would call that overwhelmingly popular. To the point of utter ridicule.

          • MisterPine

            Well, from your fan page, a couple of people seem to address your concerns:

            “Oboehner, could you point to where you “learned” all this? Because otherwise I’ll not only have to call you a liar, but a stupid liar.”

            And:

            “Yup, it’s all top secret–except for the fossil record.

            And fossil transitional series.

            And of course conserved retroviral insertions, transposons and pseudogenes–the word’s out on those. Oh, and cladistics. Atavistic and vestigial anatomic structures. Anatomic, genetic and peptide homologies. Convergence of independent phylogenies. Biogeographic distributions of species, etc. etc.

            And of course there’s the little thing that we’ve actually seen evolution occur in real time, in living populations, including the extinction and generation of new species populations (which by definition represents macroevolution).

            It’s not that the evidence is invisible or top secret–it’s that you can’t recognize it if you see it.”

            And:

            “Sure, it must be invisible or top-secret because no one has ever been able to show me any. ”

            That’s because religidiots like you intentionally dismiss any and all evidence that doesn’t agree with your book of mythology. Any evidence we present to you is immediately hand-waved away as “not evidence”.

            From AIG’s “Statement of Faith”:

            “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ”

            Instead you lie, twist words and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little creationism box. It’s really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.

            Let’s see: Ham, Hovind, Comfort, Cameron, Stein…

            And then you say we are the ones being closed-minded.”

          • Oboehner

            “I’ll not only have to call you a liar, but a stupid liar.” Not proof.
            “And fossil transitional series.” Not proven to be transitional, it’s only believed (faith).

            “Atavistic and vestigial anatomic structures” debunked, “vestigial” organs and structures have a purpose, see how far you get without your tail bone as an anchor for your muscles.

            “peptide homologies” An adaptive feature, not proof of evolutionism.

            “Convergence of independent phylogenies” Evidence of a creator.

            “Biogeographic distributions of species” Animals living where they are best suited either by birth or adaptation, not proof of evolutionism or its speciation.

            “That’s because religidiots like you…” More evidence it’s NOT true when this is resorted to.

            You lie, twist words, use ad hominem attacks, and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little evolutionism box. It’s really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.

          • MisterPine

            “I’ll not only have to call you a liar, but a stupid liar.” Not proof.
            You were asked where you learned your information. “Not proof” is not an answer but a dodge.

            “And fossil transitional series.” Not proven to be transitional, it’s only believed (faith).
            Proof. Ever been to a museum?

            “Atavistic and vestigial anatomic structures” debunked, “vestigial” organs and structures have a purpose”
            “Debunked” by who? A creationist? How is that an authoritative source?

            “peptide homologies” An adaptive feature, not proof of evolutionism.
            Definitive proof of evolution.

            “Convergence of independent phylogenies” Evidence of a creator.
            No. Evidence of evolution.

            “Biogeographic distributions of species” Animals living where they are best suited either by birth or adaptation, not proof of evolutionism or its speciation.
            Definitive, air-tight proof of evolution.

            “That’s because religidiots like you…” More evidence it’s NOT true when this is resorted to.
            No, you are being called names because you are both arrogant and ignorant of scientific matters.

            “You lie, twist words, use ad hominem attacks, and spread misinformation in an effort to hold onto what you WANT to be true, shoving everything whether it fits or not into your little evolutionism box. It’s really quite pathetic, from an educational standpoint.”

            SQUAAK! Fundie want a cracker! Let’s play the parrot game!

          • Oboehner

            “Proof. Ever been to a museum?” Proof because you say so? Hardly, still no proof.

            How is an evolutionist a credible source? Are we to just ignore all of the assumptions and fraud? You have ZERO proof the only thing you ever do is claim you have evidence, then when said “evidence” is called into question all you have is “ask a scientist” or “ever been to a museum” Post one piece of proof at a time, no stupid websites, and no long cut and paste jobs, just give me one shred of proof you can actually back up.

            “Definitive, air-tight proof of evolution.” Hardly, just you desperately clinging to your faith.

          • MisterPine

            “Proof. Ever been to a museum?” Proof because you say so? Hardly, still no proof.”
            I can play this game as long as you can. No, not proof because I say so. Proof because scientists say so. You know, scientists, who make their livelihoods out of making discoveries that benefit us and keep us from believing bronze age crapola as you do. Scientists who cure diseases. Scientists who advance technology. Scientists who improve our way of life on a daily basis. Tell me this, since you seem so intent on calling this all-important knowledge a “religion” even though we see its results every day, why then does your religion become exempt from being a religion because a few of your fellow science-denying fundie friends are calling it a “relationship”? Is it a conscious decision to take all the things the dictionary tells us and telling them they’re wrong?

            “How is an evolutionist a credible source?”
            Because they know and trust in the science that sustains us daily, with more evidence and proof than anyone could ever need. Have you ever been to a museum? There’s certainly lots of proof in one, but you won’t set foot inside anything that doesn’t have Ken Ham’s endorsement, will you? Must keep the ears plugged. La la la.

            “Are we to just ignore all of the assumptions…” Blah blah blah. All the same crap over and over. Here’s the evidence. Where’s the evidence? Right here. I don’t see it. Well, you don’t understand it. That’s an ad hominem attack. Yeah, and it also happens to be true.

            “Definitive, air-tight proof of evolution.” Hardly, just you desperately clinging to your faith.”

            I don’t have a faith, fundie douchenozzle. I have science and logic and reason and don’t cling to bronze age absurdities. And by the way, if it were a religion or a faith, they would not be permitted to teach it in science class in schools WORLDWIDE.

          • Oboehner

            Thars heaps of dat dere eveedence, don’t believe me? Then yer just dumb.

          • MisterPine

            Now you’re catching on.

          • Jazzidiot

            What country?

          • Oboehner

            The good ‘ol US of A.

          • Jazzidiot

            Show me.

          • Oboehner

            Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry.

          • MisterPine

            Notice, the list of submissions has grown. Oboehner grows more and more famous for his insights.
            http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=Oboehn

        • John Munro

          Evolution is a religion with no evidence anything ever evolved. yes they believe in nothing and that’s what they push

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            “No evidence anything ever evolved” LOL. I love it when delusional religious nut-jobs simply assert a TOTALLY INCORRECT statement and then imagine that the fact that they said it magically substitutes for proof of their asinine belief.

            OK, so you are obviously an ill-informed bible-thumper who believes that a deity in space used magic to create a man and woman (who procreated incestuously for the next sveral thousand years). Let’s pretend that your absurd statement is even remotely true (as anyone who graduated high-school knows that evolution is a proven fact); please explain the existence of black, white, Hispanic and Asian people – without evolution?

          • Richard

            What evidence do you have for macroevolution? Do you have any intermediate to intermediate macroevolution examples including all of the intermediates?

          • Paul Hiett

            How do you then explain the different races of humanity?

          • Richard

            Different races is an example of microevolution – small changes within the phylum.

          • Paul Hiett

            And they call just sprang forth in the last 3 thousand years, eh?

          • Richard

            That’s not what I believe. Humans have been around for multiple thousands of years.

          • Paul Hiett

            How about hundreds of thousands? Millions?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Or millions, depending on whether you believe fairy-tales invented by Middle Eastern desert nomads were actually telepathic communications from a ghost in space OR in the facts and evidence. I guess one is as good as the other? LOL

          • Richard

            No one believes humans have been around for millions of years. You might be the only one.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            While ‘modern humans’ have evolved within the last 200,000 years, our ancestors trace back more than 5,000,000 years. So, yes, if you discount every expert in biology and geology on the planet, then yes I might be the only one who knows this.

            LOL Are you even trying?

          • Richard

            “our ancestors trace back more than 5,000,000 years.”

            Can you provide all of the intermediates to substantiate your assertion?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Certainly. You can start with the biological and geological RESEARCH conducted by Anton Swisher and/or Carl Swisher. If you’re feeling really naughty, look up Erik Trinkaus. Of course, they are just the beginning. Every single credible scientist in the world has reached similar conclusions after examining the evidence.

            See, the difference between science and religion. Science goes where the evidence leads and requires intense examination, testing and peer-review (where flaws are sought out) before being published. Religion starts with the notion that an ancient book was the telepathic word of a deity and then actively ignores every bit of evidence that contradicts that hypothesis.

          • Richard

            I noticed you haven’t provided anything other than another opinion. How about some facts.

            The fact is, no one really knows where modern humans came from. There is a lot of speculation, but no general consensus. To suggest ‘every single credible scientist has reached a similar conclusion’ is grossly inaccurate.

            As for the rest of your comment, the first part discredited the rest.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Oh Richard. You poor, silly man. I like how you imagine you can divert away from the fact that you have no evidence, at all to prove your claim that a man in space created the universe with magic 🙂

            I am not sure if you really don’t get it, or are just pretending, but your total inability to comprehend science is not, in any way, affirmative evidence for what you hypothesize as true (a deity).

            I haven’t offered any ‘opinion.’ None at all. I get you have to sort of pretend that I did in order to build your straw-man argument, but it won’t work on me. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that we are in an alternate universe and you happen to be right. Let’s even pretend that ‘no one really knows where modern humans came from (even though we do, of course).’ That ‘fact’ would only serve to (possibly) discredit science. However, it would not, in any way whatsoever, magically act as affirmative evidence for the existence of an omnipotent man in space. You’d STILL have to present a shred of evidence to prove the man in space exists!

            Better luck next time 🙂

          • Richard

            There is plenty of evidence to support a belief in God. Atheists, however, have nothing to support their beliefs. Uneducated opinions aren’t evidence.

            BTW, I noticed you haven’t provided any intermediate to intermediate evidence for modern man. You said “‘every single credible scientist has reached a similar conclusion” but no proof.

            Here’s a tip, which did modern man come from H. erectus or H. habilis?

            Also, neither were around 5 million years ago as you asserted. Your comments demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • weasel1886

            There is no such thing as race just different human genetic variation

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Totally avoid the question and try to divert focus away from your total logical failure; that’s the spirit! Lol

            Micro evolution? Why don’t you ask your doctor why the flu shot has to be re-engineered every year. Go ahead, don’t be afraid 🙂

          • maturallite

            Macroevolution is a term invented by evolution deniers. The truth is there are no such things as micro and macro evolution. If you truly are interested in learning about the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, I would suggest starting with the genetic markers present in the DNA of all living things. These markers clearly paint the picture of the tree of life.

            Also, here is a question for you. What evidence do you have that your parents were born? Did you witness their births yourself? I’m guessing you have no doubts that your parents were in fact born some time in the past, and I assume you come to that conclusion from having seen them as adults yourself. My point is that even though you didn’t personally witness either of your parents being born, there is overwhelming evidence that allows you to infer that that was the case. Just food for thought.

          • weasel1886

            All life is in constant transistion. Even AIG says your arguement shouldn’t be used

          • Richard

            It may be in transition, but that doesn’t mean macroevolution is true. Macroevolution has always been assumed, but never proven.

          • weasel1886

            The term macroevolution is not used by evolutionary scientists. So the proof would have to come from someone else

          • Richard

            Yes, it is. You should check for yourself.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Source?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            There is no such thing as micro/macroevolution. The techniques used for tracing origins of viruses and bacteria by clinical epidemiologists are the exact same ones used in tracing the origins of birds and fishes by ecologists. Darwinian “common descent with modification” is fundamental to both.

          • John Munro

            perhaps you evolved from a grass hopper ? everything came from nothing examine you heart why do you deny his Love? For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Oye Vay! So you’ve been reduced to nonsensical ramblings and spouting meaningless gobbly-gook in hopes that no one will notice you’ve failed to prove your hypothesis. Perhaps if your grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon? Perhaps an invisible bowl of pasta is hiding behind Pluto?

            You are the one who believes that something came from nothing. You imagine an all-powerful deity simply *poofed* into existence from no-where and then used magic to create life. And your ‘evidence?’ Well, it’s what your mommy and your daddy taught you! LOL

            Claiming I deny ‘god’s love’ is like me claiming you deny Santa’s adoration, or that you deny a unicorn’s affection. You have done nothing, at all, to prove that this being exists. You confuse your faith with evidence and imagine you can overcome your lack of proof by simply restating your baseless hypothesis over and over. NOPE!

            Jesus never existed. He is a fictional character, just like Yahweh. Stop acting like a child, grow up and use your brain for something other than mindlessly droning on about the tenets of your cult.

          • John Munro

            Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Nephew, Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman!

          • Jazzidiot

            I highly recommend that you live THIS life. It’s the only one you’ll have. When you die, you go to the same “place” you were before you were born.

          • Richard

            “Jesus never existed. He is a fictional character, just like Yahweh. ”

            You have proof for your assertion, do you?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            LOL. Once again, my backwards friend, I do not need to present any evidence of something that did not happen and/or does not exist. Do you believe in the Eater Bunny? Prove he isn’t real!

            As there is no evidence that a deity exists, none of the gospel scribes were alive at the time Jesus was alleged to have lived and there are zero contemporary accounts of this person’s (who allegedly performed magic) existence, Accordingly, once again you claim fails due to a total lack of quantifiable evidence.

            Sorry 🙂

          • Rose

            You must really feel stupid to think that you need to go on a christian site and try to make yourself seem smarter by bullying christian commenters. I mean like seriously? If you’re going to debate with a Christian on the origins of the world at least do it in a mature manner instead of spouting insults and already jumping to the conclusion that you’re right. Just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean that you’ve got to bully us about it. Congratulations, you think a god particle exploded the earth and all the stars and planets into existence. WE GET IT! But it’ll never change our minds about our belief and our devotion in God, so CHILL!

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Oh, Rose. You poor, deluded child 🙂 I was sent to this after clicking on this story (which was linked from another page). I had no idea it was over-run by religious nutcases with their heads shoved up their a$$e$!

            I do love the zealot’s mind-set though. Perhaps you haven’t scrolled all the way up to see how this little debate got started, but one of your fellow maniacs affirmatively asserted some nonsense about evolution being untrue and the bible being evidence of the origins of the universe. As a rational person who got passed the 4th grade, I of course asked for evidence to support this odd hypothesis (which is my right). Naturally, the person imagined that spouting random nonsense about his faith and making wholly inaccurate claims about biology and geology magically served as proof for the existence of a deity in space. When I pointed out that his argument is a total failure, he of course retorted with more meaningless nonsense.

            But this is the religious zealot’s argument style. They make an positive assertion that they cannot possibly support with evidence, put up a meager defense and then lose. Next comes the only thing they have left: pretend they were attacked, feign outrage and hope no one notices that they were actually hoping to prove the existence of magic; It never works, but nice try 🙂

          • Rose

            If you clicked on the story ever so innocently then there’s no reason for you to comment. I saw how the argument started. In fact, it was rather difficult choosing which post to post on because of how childish all of them sounded. And calling us maniacs, not very mature considering we at least call you atheists instead of idiots.

            ‘As a rational person who got passed the 4th grade,’

            I passed the 4th grade too. I learned proper grammar. You’re supposed to say either ‘who got past’ or ‘who passed’.

            You’re right, you have the right to ask for evidence, but you’re not going to get it if all you’re going to do is be rude. And in all seriousness, why on earth are you going to act all surprised about this site’s commentators being Christians, when the site is obviously named ‘Christian News’? You act as though your side is so superior when really both sides are equal in terms of scientific knowledge. There’s evidence everywhere to prove God’s existence, and it’s quite equal to the evidence proving the Big Bang Theory. The difference is you can see God today, you’re never going to be able to see the Big Bang. You just have to know where to look, but sadly, your side ignores these works and sticks with what ‘seems rational’. Both sides have this issue, but I actually looked at both sides of the research in detail. But naturally all you’ll do is say that all I’m doing is spouting nonsense about magic with no ‘scientific background’. Trust me, I’ve argued with plenty of atheists and there’s really no getting to them unless they’re actually curious, whereas you’re just here to build up your ego. Sorry, but that’s the sad truth. I’ll be praying for you, and whether you accept it or not, God is real and he loves you more than you love your science.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Of course there is reason for me to be interested. The fact that, in 2015, adults still go around arguing in support of superstition and magic is disconcerting. We should be uniting to find truth through examination of the physical universe, not pretending ancient Middle Eastern nomads writing down fairy tales were actually transcribing dictation from a man in the clouds.

            There is no evidence for god. Your intense wish for it to be true is not evidence of a deity. Your failure to understand astronomy, biology and geology is not evidence of a deity. If there was actually this proof you claim, then religions wouldn’t be forced to fall back on ‘faith.’ If someone were to prove a god existed through affirmative evidence, then that person’s findings would have have been published. He or she would be famous

            You are Christian because your parents told you to be one. if you were born to a Muslim family, you’d be Muslim. If you were born to a Jewish family, you’d be Jewish (and so on and so forth). It’s all the same nonsense packaged in a different wrapper. It’s sad.

          • Rose

            There is evidence of my God. Saying that there is no God in a world of evidence, is just like going to an art museum, and saying that there are no artists, just because the artist is not physically there to say ‘I made that’. Everything is backed up on faith. You have just as much faith in the big bang as I do in my God. Faith is believing and knowing, which is not a well known definition, but it really is. Faith in God is not blind. I don’t believe because my parents said so. My parents gave me full fledged religious freedom, mainly because they weren’t religious themselves (at the time of course). I believe in God because he saved me from my sins, and he looked at me face to face when I called for his help. I’ve never heard a Muslim have an encounter with ‘Allah’, and the same is with Jews. And I suggest you do better research. God’s not Dead by Rice Broocks even has a movie. The reason this stuff isn’t so big, is because people don’t want to believe in the existence of God. They don’t want to think about laying down their sins and giving things up for him; like drugs, alcohol, pornography, and many more. That’s why people want to believe in the idea that one of these days they’re just going to die out. They want this ideal so that they can excuse themselves from sin. It’s sad, but the truth.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Sweetheart, you seem like a nice woman but, no, there is evidence for god. At all. None. The fact that humans exist is not ‘evidence’ for god. The fact that art exists is not ‘evidence’ for god. Wishing god exists so that we feel better is not ‘evidence’ for god. Evidence for god would be affirmative, quantifiable proof for such a being. Quantifiable means that every person examining the evidence and/or conducting the experiment would come to the same conclusion.

            God is the best explanation humans could come up with the explain phenomena that was beyond their comprehension. Today, we know so much and understand the universe so well that our need to use ‘god’ to fill in the gaps in our knowledge no longer exists. God can’t be dead, because he was never there in the first place.

            I suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins 🙂

          • Rose

            Thank you for your compliment, but yes indeed there is evidence of God. As a matter of fact, let’s challenge each other. I’ll read The God Delusion if you read God’s Not Dead. But frankly, I’ve read the content from Richard Dawkins, and all it did was increase my faith in God. If anything it’s helped my walk with the Lord. I wonder if it’ll be the same reversed?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Direct me to the peer-reviewed scientific journal that examined the quantifiable evidence in support of creation and we’ll talk. Barring that, someone’s personal faith that a god exists and (I’m sorry, but wholly baseless) claims that evidence for this being exists don’t mean much. Something doesn’t become real because we want it to be. it either is because the evidence suggests it, or it isn’t due to a total lack of evidence. Deities fall into the latter category.

            I can run around claiming that there is evidence of unicorns on Pluto. It doesn’t mean anything unless I can present it 🙂

          • Rose

            Comparing Richard Dawkins works with Rice Broocks, they both provide an equal amount of information, just different information. If you didn’t want to accept my challenge, a simple ‘no thank you I’m too chicken’ would’ve worked nicely especially since I would’ve boldly read The God Delusion. But hey, feel free to continue to avoid the information, just don’t say that you know what’s the ultimate truth when you haven’t explored all your options.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            LOL. Yes, I’m too ‘chicken’ to read your book. The thing you don’t realize is that I was raised Catholic. I went to Sunday school and studied the bible. I know it very well.

            However, even as a child I realized it was all a bunch of horse-dung. Even at 9, i was too intelligent to be persuaded (by demanding I have faith) that an invisible man in space sent telepathic messages to Middle Eastern cave dwellers who got nearly everything wrong with respect to astronomy, biology, geology and history. I mean, you’d think that the creator of the universe would have gotten SOME of it right? It’s such an asinine proposition that it’s almost embarrassing that people still cling to it.

            Then when I read that the ridiculous stories about talking snakes, a man living in a fish, a 900 year old man built a boat that housed millions of animals, men who performed magic and saw how the bible endorses rape, genocide, slavery and the oppression of women, it became very obvious it was all just made up by barbaric tribesman. THEN when I learned that the four gospel scribes weren’t even alive at the time this ‘Jesus’ character was alleged to have lived (which is obvious if you read them carefully) and their writings lack all credibility, it became obvious that religion is for suckers.

            I don’t claim to know the ultimate truth – I never said I did; sorry! However, I do know that no one has ever presented affirmative evidence that a deity exists and the bible is simply a poorly edited transcript of Middle Eastern oral traditions – there is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it’s the word of the creator of the universe or that its existence magically substitutes for proof that such a being exists. It’s just a poorly written book. LOL

            The problem with trying to prove god through philosophy is that (#1) you’ve already admitted failure because you’ve acknowledged you have no affirmative, credible evidence and are forced to pretend that you can rationalize the existence of this being and (#2) the ‘deity’ you discover will ALWAYS be an amalgamation of the desires of the particular philosopher attempting to prove the deity. In other words, your faith in a deity is wholly subjective and cannot be proven with testable evidence. Therefore, while it exists in your imagination, it does not live in the physical world.

          • Rose

            Number one, the catholic religion in my opinion is not as intimate with God as the Christians. I mean, I don’t have to go to a priest to talk to Jesus. I call and he comes. And you were nine when you renounced your belief? I’m sorry, but at that age very many kids aren’t dedicated to God and they’re still trying to figure out what life is. And that’s mainly because they are receiving so much information and they just don’t know how to process it yet. And that’s perfectly normal. What normally happens in those situations is you naturally don’t want to think that something as crazy sounding as a God existing, so you dismiss the stories God teaches without even considering the lessons.

            Also, yes indeed, religion is for suckers. A true believer doesn’t need a denomination or a church to believe in a God. Religion is just a title, and that’s all it needs to be. Nowadays people take it to extent and make God a ritual, which ruins the image of God wanting to be right beside us every day. If you read the bible with scales upon your eyes, yes you are going to get absolutely nothing. You actually have to be open minded and have to accept the idea to get anything from it. That’s where free will comes in.

            And anybody who doesn’t want a God to exist would say that. I can never truly explain it to you because you have scales on your eyes, but when you get a vision from God, you absolutely know it’s him and not yourself. Everyone has their own personality, and they know when they imagine things. You just know. But you will never be able to see this because you’re blinding yourself with the logic of the world.

          • MisterPine

            Oh God, you’re not one of those “Christians” who thinks Catholics aren’t Christian, are you? So what if they confess sins to a priest? Even as an atheist I know Catholics were the earliest Christians, why don’t you know it too?

          • Rose

            Chill I know what a Catholic is and what they believe. I’m not downing Catholics just because they confess their sins to a priest. I just said in my opinion, Catholics just aren’t as intimate with God. It seems rather ritualistic to me.

          • Clive Johnson

            So, do you have a hierarchy of intimacy with God, with Protestants on top, Catholics second, Jews third, Muslims fourth, and everyone else a distant 5th?

          • Rose

            No. When I say it’s in my opinion, that means that I wouldn’t be Catholic because I have my own way of communicating to God that doesn’t involve a priest. And like I said, I’m not downing Catholics. For my own personal being, the best way for me to be intimate with God, is aligned with the Christian beliefs. Everyone has their own way of communicating with God. As long as people are communicating with God and are keeping that relationship, it’s all fine with me.

          • Clive Johnson

            What are your feelings about people who believe in multiple gods?

          • Rose

            I think that people who believe in multiple gods are a little confused. For me, my God is my ultimate reality (and he is the ultimate reality) and I acknowledge this in my every day life. From my understanding of that ideal, you can’t have a relationship with any of those multiple gods. They’re just there. But I haven’t really studied on this topic as much. Thank you for bringing it up though; I’ll look more into that topic.

          • Clive Johnson

            Thank you for your answer.

          • ReasonableVoice101

            Surely, then, you can understand why some of us think that people who believe in any gods at all are a little confused.

          • MelanieWaffle

            I don’t think Rose was trying to dissolve in Catholics. I think she was just saying she feels other sects of Christianity are more intimate with God.

          • Bruce Chowning

            The Roman Catholics we see today were not the earliest Christians. Converted Jews were first. While it is debatable, and there were earlier believers in Rome, I believe the Catholic Church we know today were begun by the Emperor Constantine. I do believe that Catholics that have trusted Jesus as their savior are indeed Christians.

          • Naesh Sullser

            Hey tommy, you keep asking for evidence for gods existence right?
            Ok, your turn, where can I observe a change of kind as stated in evolutionary theory?

          • Richard

            You’ll be waiting a very long time, as none exists. If 450,000,000 years can’t produce it, it’s not going to happen.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Check out the link for ongoing evolution, Richard!

          • NoCrossNoCrescent
          • Naesh Sullser

            NCNC – there is no change of kind here, just an adaptation to the environment. Let me clarify – where can I observe a species transforming into another species? E coli is still E coli, where does it state that it changed from E coli into say………… something else completely different?

          • JOHN

            Well, If you’re not stupid and no the difference between macro and micro. Micro evolution is happening all the time. For example, Bacteria Cells use the process called “Natural Selection” in which the Bacteria Cell That is more resistant to the antibiotics live. Those are selected to live and are the better Cells. Now still in Micro evolution like all kinds of evolution, there is 1 random chance, a mutation has to happen in order for something to change in the bacteria. All of this can be applied to any lifeforms that we know of on earth.

          • Naesh Sullser

            Hi John
            Firstly, it is *know not no. I do indeed KNOW the difference between macro and micro.
            Secondly, my question has still not been answered. Where can I observe a change of kind – from one species to another?
            Natural selection is common place – survival of the fittest.
            So John, as you can see, I still haven’t been given an example where I could observe a change of kind according to the scientific method.

          • BravesFan

            This is a zero-sum game. Anything that was provided to you would be shredded apart as not being credible enough. Nothing would be good enough for you, because you are convinced 100% that you are right and creationists are wrong. So it’s pointless to direct you anywhere except exit stage left.

          • Bruce Chowning

            Science can’t explain what can’t be measured or replicated. Do really think that science is a complete one fits all tool? Test it for yourself. Using only scientific methods tell me how to measure and prove love. Or honor. Or compassion. Or evil. Or good. Or ….shall I go on? I love science. I’m so glad for scientific advances on this earth. But science has it’s limits. To try to find love using scientific tools is like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork. Wrong tool. Rose is doing a great job of answering you but you refuse to listen. You say that there is no evidence for God. The fact that there living breathing human beings is proof of a creator. You can’t get life from non living things. Commen sense (which isn’t very common) tells us that if there is a creation their MUST be an intelligent being that created it.You chastise us for having faith, but your faith is much much bigger than mine. You have faith that there is no creator even though you can SEE plants, trees, people, clouds. We SEE design in nature. A flower progresses (scientifically) from seed to shoot, to stem to full blown flower. But you think it wasn’t by design? We see trees that bud every spring and lose their leaves every fall but you say there is no design here. Then why don’t they lose their leaves one week then bud in one week……then keel over and die….then bud again but this time the tree give different leaves and different seeds. That would be random. Obviously this does not PROVE God…but we do have more. We have Jesus….of whom you say there is no contemporary record. Matthew and John were contemporary people who wrote what they witnessed. Mark came later but wrote first having spent time with Peter who also was an eye witness. Then we have Luke who was not an eyewitness but interviewed people who did see and know Jesus. Thus we have a historian who documents what happened. We have extrabiblical “historians” who also told of Jesus..Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus and more. They didn’t write an in depth book of him but acknowledged his existence and some of his message. We have the Jews themselves who wrote of Jesus. IF you accept Socrates as a valid historical person, then you must giveJesus equal time. There is 10 times the amounts of written evidence of Jesus than there is for ALL the historical figures of antiquity combined. Now….you wish to deny this is true. I’m ok with that. You are free to reject or to accept the evidence, but it is dishonest to say there is NO evidence.

          • namelessghost

            Rose said she’s willing to read The God Delusion so it seems only fair that you read God’s Not Dead.

          • Bruce Chowning

            Cop out.

          • Richard

            You believe Richard Dawkins…who even atheists say is an embarrassment?

            It’s no wonder you are confused.

          • Bruce Chowning

            “Quantifiable means that every person examining the evidence and/or conducting the experiment would come to the same conclusion.” Wow! You want us to believe that every scientist agrees with you that their is no Creator? Every person who has examined the evidence for evolution has come to the same conclusion? Methinks you have come off your proverbial rocker! So you are able to set up a strawman argument to try to knock down Christians? Sorry feller. That dog won’t hunt. While you are free to believe as you wish, you are not free to make up your own self-serving definitions! You yourself have proven the illogic assumption of your own argument. Rose has given you viable evidence. She has shown that creation is good evidence of a Creator. Have you tried to negate that evidence? No, you simply ignored it by saying there is no evidence. Now creation isn’t the only evidence of a Creator which we call God, but why should we provide more when you ignore what has been given? Especially when you have been rude insulting and condescending!

          • Bruce Chowning

            The natural (physical) can never explain or understand the supernatural. You’re using the wrong tool if you really want the truth.

          • Jazzidiot

            If you don’t believe in quantum theory, turn in your cellphone – it doesn’t work.

          • MelanieWaffle

            this is really reasonable……. who are you and where are the people starting flame wars

          • Bruce Chowning

            Nicely said.

          • BravesFan

            If you actually passed 4th grade, you would know that “past” and “passed” are not the same words.

          • Bruce Chowning

            I’m not sure that I knew the difference in 4th grade. Lol. Just yankin yore chain!

          • Richard

            Actually you do. You claim God doesn’t exist. You will need to prove it, otherwise it’s just your opinion. Do you have any evidence to support your faith? Any?

            “Just as there is no quantifiable (observable and testable) evidence supporting your claim that a deity exists”

            Of course there is. There are online resources replete with evidence. Sadly, that’s not the case for atheism…which is why you haven’t provided any.

            BTW, even 12 year old children know the Easter Bunny is fiction. If you think he is real, you are in worse shape than I thought.

            Also, I’ve heard all of our comments many times over. They are still nonsense assertions with no evidence. Unless you can prove Jesus wasn’t indeed a true historical person. Can you?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            NOPE! Sorry LOL

            Employing your meager and asinine reasoning, it would be incumbent on you to disprove my claim that ethereal gorillas live on Pluto. It would likewise be your obligation the find evidence to dispute my claim that invisible leprechauns orbit the sun. It doesn’t work that way (obviously!).

            Look, I get you need to try and ‘turn the tables’ because you are totally unable to present a shred of evidence in support of your hypothesis, but your pathetic attempts to equate evidence with lack-of-evidence fool no one. You are claiming a god exists. I am making no claim for or against. I am simply making the very obvious point that, until you prove your positive assertion true through evidence, I remain unmoved by your baseless claims.

            🙂

          • Richard

            An opinion doesn’t equate to actual evidence. Do you have any real evidence to support your belief? Anything??

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Oh Richard. Poor, poor Richard. So now you’ve sunk so low as to pretend that you can’t read? LOL Imagine being so out-argued that you just keep making the same (useless) comment over and over in the hopes it will magically become a legitimate point.

            As you may have failed to notice, I am not making a claim. I am asserting nothing. I haven’t presented any affirmative statements that would require support (awful for you, I know). I, of course, am simply pointing out the fact that you haven’t got a shred of quantifiable (observable and testible) evidence to support your claim that the universe was designed by a deity. I know this is REALLY hard for you to comprehend, but your failure to present proof of your claim does not, in any way, require me to do anything except to sit back and laugh at your desperation 🙂

          • Richard

            Another opinion doesn’t equate to actual evidence. Do you have any?

            Out-argued?! That’s a laugh. Uninformed opinions aren’t arguments.

            The reason you haven’t provided a real argument is because atheists don’t have one. All they have in unprovable assertions…but no facts.

            Atheists require great faith with no evidence.

          • MelanieWaffle

            Hey, while I agree it is impossible to emperically prove God exists, it is also impossible to emperically prove he does not exist. Faith comes in when I choose to believe in the Christian God. While I think Richard has an off interpretation of the Bible, you are invading a Christian space and instead of politely providing sound ligic, you are being rather rude and using your understanding of science to mock others. Not cool dude. I get us Christians can really suck sometimes, and Richard isn’t 100 percent innocent, but you should lay off please.

          • Bruce Chowning

            You hope

          • maturallite

            What kind of all knowing and all powerful god would have his son (who is in fact himself) killed in order to save his fallen creation from the torture they will suffer for not obeying his laws. Do you not see how ludicrous that sounds to a normal person?

          • John Swain

            It was simply because he wanted you to have a chance at salvation not so stupid as you

          • maturallite

            Does it not seem odd to you that you would need to be saved from a perfect all knowing and all loving creator? It sounds kind of sadistic to me.

          • Bruce Chowning

            We are save to BE with a perfect omniscient, all loing Creator. We are saved from the consequences of our own sin. And you wish to object to grace? Really?

          • Bruce Chowning

            It looks to me like you have misused what the bible says about God. God doesn’t send people to be tortured because they don’t obey God. NONE of us can do that all the time. What God does say is that sin has a consequence. (The wages of sin is death) Now, because God didn’t want his fallen to have to suffer the ultimate consequence of sin….eternal punishment, He, Himself came down to earth and suffered for us. This left us free to choose: do we want to accept the sacrifice of Jesus for our sin or do we wish to pay this price….ie consequence ourselves. God doesn’t send folks to hell. We get to CHOOSE. Now….how ludicrous does that sound? I choose to trust Jesus. I can serve a Being that loves me enough to suffer for me.

          • maturallite

            So why the requirement for blood sacrifice? And why would our eternal salvation depend on believing a preposterous assertion on terrible evidence? And what about the suffering of wild animals or infants with cancer? Do they suffer because of their lack of faith? What kind of perfect god would allow 99.999% of his creation to become extinct?

          • Bruce Chowning

            Those are all great questions. However they don’t have anything to do with my post. I will answer anyway because good questions deserve good answers. The point I’m making is that mankind does not have to do good things to get heaven. We can’t, because heaven is a perfect place and only perfection can enter. Thus, God has a delemma. He loves us and wants us in heaven but we don’t qualify. So what does he do? He sends his own son to pay the sin price leaving us free to choose his sacrifice as the qualification for heaven. What could be better news than this?
            Now, you answer your questions. In order. Why does God require a blood sacrifice? Because God, being the Creator, gets to make the rules. But even better than this, I believe that God is setting up a pattern so we could know who Jesus is when he comes. Jesus fulfills all the qualifications of the Savior, one of which is the blood sacrifice. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. -John the Baptiser Why would our salvation depend on preposterous assertions on terrible evidence. My first question would be what kind of evidence do you require? Qualified first hand witnesses aren’t good enough for you? If you discount the witnesses of Jesus then you have to discount the witnesses of all the historic figures of antiquity. We have nothing first hand from Socrates. Should we dismiss him because we only have one personal witness who saw him? Who does that? As for preposterous assertions, I have no trouble believing the eyewitness testimony of Jesus. After all,if God can make all there is out of nothing, (Genesis 1:1-25) then Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, calming the storm is peanuts. No? I can believe in God because Jesus pointed the way to Him. I can believe Jesus soooooo I can reliably believe in the things of God. Animals suffering, infants with cancer….none of that is God’s fault. Man (Adam and Eve) messed up the creation when they sinned. Our fallen world (all the bad things in it) is a direct cause of that sin. However, our God can overcome a fallen world with his sacrifice of Jesus. This is a God I can love. Do they suffer from lack of faith? Nope. It is faith that teaches why they suffer. They suffer because of us. Evil people do bad things. They choose to do bad things. If there are bad things,then someone suffers because of it. I think God suffers the most because he is holy and has nothing to do with evil. What kind of a perfect God would allow bunches of his creation to become extinct? A God who understands his creation and it’s place in the universe. Those animals who are extinct are so because they are not that important. Is man extinct? Nope. Man is important. Of all the things God created,only ONE of His creation was called “Very good.” Gen 1:31. Now, I want you to notice I did not say these extinct animals are not important. I said they are not critical. Not THAT important. What is the result of the dodo bird being extinct? Does that nullify God? Does that cause world hunger? Does that mar the lovliness of the earth? Does that cause mankind to lose faith, or lose his standing with God? No. I am a conservationist. I don’t want to lose rain forests or whales or any of God’s creatures. But in reality, how much does that matter in the grand scale of things?
            I’ll be happy to follow up on any or all of this things if you desire it. Thanks for the good questions

          • maturallite

            I guess it comes down to the fact that you and I clearly have different standards of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that part about animal and child suffering is just terrible. Clearly Yahweh isn’t all good and all powerful, or he would have devised a plan for salvation that doesn’t require billions of years of suffering. All of your mental gymnastics still cannot answer the question put forward by Epicurus over 2000 years ago. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

          • Bruce Chowning

            I actually agree with you. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. However, we have a limited forum here. If you want an indepth anwers to your questions, it would require a tome to complete it. Now….I’m not opposed to supplying you with a book or two…or three. But I can’t do it here. I can, however, supply you with information on books to read, if you’re truly desiring answers. I’m not really sure that you wish for honest answers to these questions. You give a hard highly skeptical slant to your questions. Assuming you do wish for valid answers, I will continue. Books I suggest you read: New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The Ten Most Common Objections to Christianity by Alex McFarland. Jesus Among Other Gods, by Ravi Zacharias. Each of these gives you a reasonable answer to the questions you are asking.
            Now to answer your last question by the Epicurians. First of all this question denies the authority of God. It twists the definitions of omnipotence and of God’s nature. When you start with a false statement, you will arrive at a false answer. Is God willing to prevent evil. You suggest that there is no good answer. That would be wrong. I am a father. I know that my children need my protection BUT even more they need training in order to live in the future. As a father, I can forbid my small child from touching a hot iron (and I do) I could jump up and force compliance and he’ll learn nothing. In other words, I could prevent harm but he would learn the wrong lesson. This would teach the child that nothing bad can happen to him. But we all know that bad things happen to everyone. He needs to learn to trust his father. Dad has said don’t touch the iron or you will regret it. He then chooses to obey or to disobey. If he obeys he will learn to trust.. If he disobeys he will also learn to trust….only with painful consequences. He will know that his dad was right in forbidding him to touch the iron. Now….does it diminish my status as father by allowing him to choose? I think not. The Epicurian false result is that I am either incapable of being a good dad or I am a vicious mean dad. Both are Wrong. I am TRAINING my son to follow good rules. The same applies to God. He is training us to trust Him. I know that a minor burn will hurt but it will not be fatal. So I allow him to make a choice. If God prevents all evil then God has become a puppeteer. Man will have no choices. With no choice, man doesn’t understand relationship with God and will not learn how much God loves us. You say God is either inept or He is mean. I say God loves us and allows suffering for our good. For only through suffering do we know what Jesus did for us. I call Him God for he loved me even when he knew I would make bad choices and rebel against Him. I can worship a God who loves me.

            If you will contact me at: [email protected], and send me your address I will gladly purchase some of these books for you and send them to you at my expense.

          • John Swain

            Sorry but you have that wrong he gave his only begotten son if you read in the book of Job he has many sons

          • Jazzidiot

            “Everything came from nothing” see Laurence Krauss about that. It’s complicated.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Whatever would take a fundamentalist rather than throw in an irrelevant bible quote? Just can’t happen, can it.

          • John Munro

            its is irreverent to you because your hateful

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Ad hominem. Try again.

          • http://www.OpenAirSeattle.blogspot.com/ OpenAirSeattle

            You have “faith” in nothing. A proven fact that nothing comes from nothing. Who is the delusional and asinine? Oh we who live by faith in God are. Your are the deceived.

          • Jazzidiot

            It could be a god. Or a tea cup revolving around the sun. Just as likely – maybe more so.

          • Harry Oh!

            Ok genius, how did life begin?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            That’s a pointless question. Certainly, you could look into abiogenesis and the origins of life if you REALLY wanted to. All you’d need is a library card if you actually wanted to educate yourself on these things.

            However, the reason it’s a pointless question is that ‘god’ is not your magic fall-back position that just fills in the gaps of our knowledge. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that my answer to your question was “I don’t know.” That STILL wouldn’t mean that the correct answer is ‘god’ (or whatever else you arbitrarily decided it was) simply be default. God would not magically be proven to exist simply because you found, what you perceived, to be a gap in scientific knowledge. You’d STILL have to affirmatively prove that your hypothesis (god did it) was correct.

          • Richard

            “abiogenesis”
            Abiogenesis was proven false years ago. To believe abiogenesis is anti-science.

            Science knows you can’t get life from non-life. Try again.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            What is “life”, and what is ” nonlife”? Since you claim to speak for science you may want to know at times they are extremely hard to tease apart. http://www.nature.com/news/how-life-emerged-from-deep-sea-rocks-1.12109

          • Harry Oh!

            The fact is that science has no answer for how nothing came from nothing. And it’s not my job to prove God, it’s yours to use ‘science’ to disprove Him, which you can’t. Nor can science weigh, measure or explain human consciousness and morality. If you were a ‘true’ science believer, you would want to seek out more evidence and use experimentation and investigation to find the answers. But instead you blindly declare that God does not exist, without any evidence, thereby exposing yourself as nothing more than a rude, arrogant God-hater. Just like the rest of the truth denying pack like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is not my job to prove FSM, it is your job to disprove him!

          • Clive Johnson

            Which god are you talking about?

            There are any number of god concepts, some of which involve starting the universe, others not, some that are intertwined with the Christian faith, others not.

            The problem is that there’s no objective evidence that can settle this question. All you and other believers have is your psychological certainty. This doesn’t pass as evidence.

          • Bruce Chowning

            Wow, Tommy! That is one very eloquent …..non answer. The question is a good one. How did life begin. Most evolutionists would say random atoms fused together and somehow BAM…life happened. However, this does not answer the question How does life come from non life? Answer, it doesn’t. There has never been a rock that somehow “evolved” into a lizard (or whatever) All sciences agree that life comes from life. It HAS to. Christians believe in an uncaused Cause. We have given it the title of God. Christians don’t mind others not believing what they believe. But they do take offense in someone asserting that life is random, purposeless and basically useless. (what’s it all about, Alfie?) No scientist ever has given proof…..say, good evidence that matter came from non matter. They say there was a big bang. They say random molecules connected and life formed over time. That’s nice, but it doesn’t SHOW or even try to explain where did these random molecules originate? Who caused the big bang? Science is supposed to be logical. Where is the logic that says life comes from non life? Where is the logic that says, random molecules have always existed and were not caused by anything or anyone? That is totally senseless. Science worshippers often laugh at the Christians who believe in the supernatural as misformed, superstitious idiots lacking intelligence. (even though there are many many Christians who are scientists) I grant you that in every faith, there are some who are superstitious….some who go out on a tangent and blather nonsense. But the fact remains that it is reasonable to believe in a Creator based upon what Jesus taught. I believe what Jesus taught because he was anything but a superstitious moron. He was examined and tested by the leading scholars of his day. He aced every test. He predicted his own death and resurrection and pulled it off, exactly as he said. I can believe in the unknown when I trust the known. Example…..my wife is a great lady. She is honest and trustworthy. I know this because I have observed her and found she is worthy of my trust. If she should come in and tell me she saw a living alien, I might doubt, but I would assume she is correct based on what I know about her. THIS is sensible. THIS is logical. We believe that God the uncaused Cause created all there is out of nothing because we trust the one whom He sent;. Just like I trust my wife. Evolutionist, however can’t be believed because they don’t know how life got here. Do you know why? Because science is LIMITED in what it can observe and what it can replicate. Neither of these are a good tool in the supernatural. We can’t replicate the creation of life out of nothing. We can’t observe it. So why should I trust science in something with which it has no expertise? That would be like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork….you might get a taste, but it would take forever to eat it all. Now, I’m not against science. I love it! But I don’t want to use a tool that is unsuited for the task in trying to learn.

          • Jeff Rainwater

            Scientists concede that the chances of life spontaneously starting are about a billion to one. There are billions of stars, most have several planets, many in the goldilocks zone. So even at a billion to one, you have billions of planets. So life could have started from non life. There’s also new research into how RNA precursors could have formed. When you think about how life began, remember it only had to begin once. So no matter how small the chances are that it could happen, we are proof that it has.

          • 2197_uxo_1

            Could have again theory.

          • Jeff Rainwater

            Gravity is a theory, we use radio wave theory to communicate. electron theory has given us nearly all of our technology. All of these are theories that are generally accepted by everyone. There are plenty more that people just don’t seem to think about. Yet so many people will key in on the fact that evolution is a theory.

          • Acecool

            The Multiverse, Electromagnetism/Gravity and Life cannot exist without it. Therefore, judgment is a much needed force, to eliminate those things that would jeopardize what God creates and the lives of those who do worship (follow) God (Yehweh YHWH יהוה‎),

            Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing God tells man is that He controls all aspects of the universe.

            Metaphorically speaking, This is only the tip of the iceberg

            So you need scientific evidence, even though science is still in it’s early infancy of ever changing paradigm theories. You don’t believe in unseen invisible spiritual matter, yet (if you keep up with modern science) you know that invisible neutrino energy particles travel up to the speed of light, even through great distances of highly dense matter completely unaffected, including walls, doors etc,. Now add the “Higgs Field” where the unseen becomes matter. Strange how the bible illustrated this phenomenon first!

            “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3

            Continue to mock, chide, prod, antagonize and learn fast that negative begets negative.

            Or for you doubters, you make your own luck!

            You call us deluded, but we who believe are up against a bigger challenge! To give proof, that science is on our side and continues to grow stronger with each scientific discovery, that indeed! Much of what is written in the Bible (by dumb sheep herders?) is strangely and ironically scientifically correct.
            ______________________________________________________________________

            When young children with minds like sponges are brainwashed from being forced to learn evolution in our schools, where theism is completely eliminated, it’s easy to assess why there is so much bigotry and one sided bias. What’s worse than being rude? when atheists protest against creationism and have it removed from the classroom. It would be good to have both sides of the story and allow the freedom for these kids to make up their own minds.

            What evolutionists find hard to conceive is that evolution is completely hypothetical with absolutely no guarantee of it being 100% proven fact. However, because science feels it has the right to re-define the word “Theory” as fact, is just one more forced lie to help prop up those theories. If it were actual fact, then why not just relabel it Scientific Law?

            Here’s the catch!…..If you saw a knife on the ground and said that knife must of fell off the bench, you aren’t lying, you are creating a theory because 5 mins beforehand you saw the knife on the bench.

            If someone had picked the knife up and placed it on the ground, the truth would be that someone placed it there. That is the difference between theory and fact. Theory is using evidence to support your position and how you drew your conclusion, fact is “Actual” events.

            When you say a fish transformed over millions of years into an ape, you are creating a theory using evidence to support that theory, that’s why its not FACT.

            Try to understand the difference between the two.

          • MelanieWaffle

            As a Christian evolutionist I think God kick started the whole thing. When God said let there be light I think that was the big bang. I don’t know about you but when God spoke I would like to think it was that powerful if not more so.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            You know that is not a question for evolution genius, right?

          • John Swain

            I would like to know what makes you believe that a flawed theory could possibly be fact I have a simple question for you if evolution is fact please explain what stopped it from continuing to happen right now in this time and age?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Zabba dabba babba, and mabba abba dabda! What on earth are you rambling about?

            I assume you are incorrectly asserting that evolution is a “flawed theory.” Of course, all science wholly supports evolution and there are absolutely NO flaws that would discredit it as a fact. Now, your complete lack of knowledge on the subject notwithstanding . . . . let’s pretend, for a moment, that we lived in an alternate reality and there was no evidence for evolution. Are you with me? In this imaginary universe, science has not yet uncovered the fact that evolution is a very natural biological process and is occurring constantly. That STILL wouldn’t mean that a god exists! God doesn’t become real simply because you can’t come up with a better answer.

            If you want to assert a god exists, you still have to prove it through evidence. And since you cannot (don’t feel badly – no one every has) then there is no reason to think it exists.

            Ciao Bebe!

          • MisterPine

            What do you mean, “what stopped it from continuing to happen right now in this time and age? It never stopped. It doesn’t stop.

          • Oboehner

            Can’t stop when it hasn’t ever started.

          • MisterPine

            Keep those blinders on tight.

          • Jazzidiot

            You are confusing theory with hypothesis. There are overwhelming lines of evidence from dozens of scientific disciplines, way beyond Darwin’s wildest dreams (see DNA). It is fact upon fact upon fact. Maybe you should question the theory of gravity. Jump off your roof until it fails. BTW, what stopped it continuing to happen? Google e-coli and fruit fly and evolution can be seen before your very eyes.

          • MelanieWaffle

            Well said

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It hasn’t.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            What made you think it ever stopped?

          • MelanieWaffle

            While I agree Evolution is an excellent theory and appears to be the process God used to create life, you were very rude in the way you said it. People here may take you more seriously if you weren’t being mean.

          • Bruce Chowning

            First of all, insulting someone based on their personal opinion never won anyone any brownie points in the argument. It only makes the insulter look childish. Second, to answer your question about differing races: There aren’t any differing races. We are all humans. Some have different skin color, eye color, hair color etc. This proves adaptation, not evolution. Two humans who’s skin color is not the same are STILL humans. Evolution assumes that all differing animals, humans came from one common source which they define as random with no purpose. What evolutionists have SAID, can not be proven. Ever heard of the missing link? It’s missing because it doesn’t exist. To date no evolutionist has ever documented that an alligator and a human came from the same “blob” of goo known as primordial ooze. To date, no Creationist has ever said that life doesn’t adapt to its surroundings. Darwin did do one thing that everyone acknowledges. He proved adaptation. He did not prove evolution, heck he wasn’t TRYING to prove evolution. He was noting that finches (and other animals) in the Galapagos islands changed over time. What these birds did NOT do was to become a different species. They did not turn into fish…or squirrels. IF evolution were true, then we should see MILLIONS of beings in transition. In other words if evolution were true and that we all came from a common random, purposeless ancestor…or cause if you will….then there should be tons of birds with scales…..snakes with wings, Hippos with feathers…etc. There aren’t any. Thus it is correct to say that nothing ever evolved. Changed? Yes…but evolved into a different species entirely? Nope

          • Erasto Chiswanu

            Creatures arguing, asking and questioning about
            creation without a real awareness that they are part of Creation, you can not reach that far, thats why any scientist can not come with a true answer of origin of life because ya part of it!. The Word of God talks better in Deutoronomy 29;29, there are things that God has kept secret and it is difficult for the humana understanding to find out how it was and how it is! unless otherwise we can stay with some scientist ideas and trust them which is not true……

          • Bruce Chowning

            Well said, my friend!

          • 2197_uxo_1

            So if we evolved from apes why are there still apes and why haven’t they evolved

          • http://www.OpenAirSeattle.blogspot.com/ OpenAirSeattle

            Agree

          • weasel1886

            Evolution is fact

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is rather odd that those consider religion the greatest virtue (no pun intended) use it as an insult.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Do bacteria building new enzymes completely out of scratch count?
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

          • John Munro

            so people can evolve from bactera ?

          • TizzyD

            Example 1: tests with bacterial cultures from the same source bacteria growing over decades have conclusively demonstrated speciation between groups in different environments. Over the millions of generations, selection favored the characteristics of some more than others. Example 2: malaria vaccines once very effective no longer work. Why? Because those random genetic differences in some instances of malaria enabled some to survive. Those that survived are effectively not the same as those that died. Your ignorance is to think that evolution only happens in large scales, when, in fact, you are are not a perfect replica between the genes of your parents. Some genetic errors occurred, and that may be a factor helping or hindering you. This evolution happens *all the time*.

        • John Swain

          You are correct in that it is not a religion but it is only a theory that is flawed and yet it is taught to children as though it were fact religion is a fact that can not be taught imagine that

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is just a theory, like gravity!

        • iLLuSioNaTi

          Evolution isn’t Science, it is PseudoScience at best and should be treated as such. The GPS (Government Public Schools) have no business teaching something as fact without solid proof to back it up. It is no different than the lie of man-made global warming (which has been proven to be an hoax) which sadly both Obama and the Pope are pushing at everyone’s expense. When the blind lead the blind, both WILL fall into the ditch!

      • DoctorDan118

        That’s because it’s based on scientific evidence, you neanderthal. Oh those darn scientists with their facts and evidence, I guess we should stop giving preferential treatment to people who “believe” in gravity and the boiling point of water, too. You do know the earth is round right? And that dinosaurs existed? But I guess that’s just a “belief” too, right. Man, I hope you don’t have children. Poor things. It must suck to wake up every day scared to death that you’ll be tortured by an invisible sky fairy for not believing in talking snakes. “I was going to use my brain God, I was tempted to listen to those scientists with all their evidence and facts, but I resisted God. Aren’t you proud of me!?! I showed how loyal I am to you be disregarding anything that contradicted what the goatherders said!!!”

        • Oboehner

          Neanderthal doesn’t exist, it’s just one of your fairytales like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, gill slits, etc.
          Next comes the predictable “comparing an unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable religious belief to scientific theories that are observable, testable, and repeatable. Sorry, association doesn’t help your pathetic claim. And how quaint, yes I do believe the earth is round and dinosaurs existed, the “sky daddy” mentioned it in his “goat-herder” book.
          “…those scientists with all their evidence and facts” Sorry, it doesn’t matter how many times you say “evidence and facts”, they still aren’t going to evolve out of that pile of BS.

          • MisterPine

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

            Look, more facts for you to bury your head in the sand over.

          • Oboehner
          • MisterPine

            Cute. Got a link from a scientific source?

          • Oboehner

            Just as scientific as yours, if you actually read it you would know that wiki-boy.

          • MisterPine

            icr.org LOL
            Try again.

          • MisterPine

            What no young earth creationist I’ve yet encountered will admit is that it isn’t enough to just raise objections to evolutionary theory. If those objections are to have any weight, any credibility, creationists have to provide an alternative theory with at least as much evidence and explanatory power. But you can’t do that, can you?

          • Oboehner

            What, one good religion deserves another?

          • MisterPine

            Name calling and potshots are all you’ve got. Doesn’t mean squat when you don’t state your own beliefs, which you know will be squashed flat the moment you do.

          • Oboehner

            You’re the one claiming “science”, I’m just calling it as it is – a religion.

          • MisterPine

            Even though it’s taught in science class? Can you find your butt with both hands?

          • MisterPine

            By the way, congratulations – you are now famous:

            http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=Oboehner

          • Oboehner

            Isn’t that special.

          • MisterPine

            Yes, that’s what they say nowadays…it used to be “mentally challenged”. But we are all rooting for you.

          • Oboehner

            Still doesn’t prove your religion.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t have one, Einstein. I have facts and knowledge.

          • Oboehner

            Denial doesn’t prove it either.

          • MisterPine

            I think it’s pretty obvious that you are the one living in denial.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Lol!

          • Oboehner

            Just more human bone fragments which some imagination thrown in with some creative testing.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Ah…riiight. Well let’s see, do you have any forensic experts on board, or are you pulling that out of your a$$?

          • Oboehner

            A new report, published in the journal PLoS ONE, confirms the fact that Neandertals could and did interbreed with people deemed to be modern humans which further dispels the millions of years mythology.

            Article: Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012. North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e47765.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Em…how does that mean Neanderthals didn’t exist?

          • Oboehner

            That means they didn’t exist in any kind of evolutionary progression, just another name for another race of human.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Did you ever freaking READ the article? It says Neanderthals left a genetic imprint on certain subgroups of modern humans, the Europeans and the Asians (but not black Africans). How could they possibly leave a distinct mark if they weren’t distinct to begin with?

          • Oboehner

            Interbred with “modern” humans. It was probably just some pigmy remains shoved in the evolutionism box like so many other things like a pig’s tooth.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Good thing you’re not the forensic pathologist working on any human remains, you couldn’t distinguish a human remain from Neanderthal! Lol.

          • Oboehner

            Good thing, I might upset your religion.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Nah, you’d send the wrong person to the death chamber.

          • Oboehner

            Not with something observable, now if I made assumptions like evolutionism…

          • DoctorDan118

            Neanderthal doesn’t exist? Well, you just completely FAILED on every account right there. It’s quite simple…thousands of scientists around the world, who speak different languages, doing research for decades on end, all coming up with the same conclusion, and all the religious folks can say is “Liar Liar Pants on Fire!”. You dismiss scientific evidence because it destroys your case, and you know it.

          • Oboehner

            It is not the “caveman” that it is portrayed to be – the name exists, but it is not some missing link, that does not exist.
            If you have proof, share it. Don’t give me some website link or a thousand word cut and paste, since you’re so smart put it in your own words and limit it to one point at a time.

          • DoctorDan118

            I don’t have time to explain basic science to someone who completely dismisses facts and evidence because they contradict his ideology. I’m actually annoyed with myself for wasting so much time arguing with someone in denial. Of course, I’m sure you will take that as some sort of “sign” that I don’t know what I’m talking about….but I’m just over it. You asking me to source this is like asking me to source something when I say George Washington was the first US president. It’s common knowledge to anyone with an education. But I doubt you have any interest in anything that contradicts your Iron Age mythology. The fact is that there is a plethora of evidence showing that we share genetic features with earlier primate forms. We didn’t come directly from monkeys, but from a common ancestor. So if you so called God created us, why do humans have the genetic information for a vestigial tail? Respond however you want, I’m sick of attempting to educate people that refuse to be educated. I won’t read anything else.

          • Oboehner

            Whatever you say exploding dot ape-boy.

      • MisterPine

        It isn’t evolutionism, it’s evolution. It’s a fact, not a belief.

        • Richard

          Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution isn’t. In fact, the science coming forward today is disproving macroevolution.

          • MisterPine

            There is a certain amount of disagreement I have with that statement.

        • Oboehner

          You just believe it’s a fact.

          • MisterPine

            Not belief but acceptance because it is a fact. You lose.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…

          • MisterPine

            I’m sure you slept through your science classes, too.

          • Oboehner

            Not when they actually taught some.

          • MisterPine

            Which I suppose was never?

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        Chemistry also gets preferential treatment over alchemy!

        • Oboehner

          Faith over facts.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            So you think alchemy is “fact”? Good to know.

          • Oboehner

            Typical evolutionist, seeing things that just aren’t there.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            All I see now is that you are being a troll.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, spent already?

          • MisterPine

            Oh, this is getting painful to watch, just concede defeat and extreme fundiness already…

          • Oboehner

            Then I would be lying.

          • MisterPine

            No you wouldn’t be. Arrogance combined with ignorance is a painful combination for us to have to watch.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            Yeah, zzzzzzz. Ask yourself if you are responsible enough to be using a computer at all.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        It would be interesting if you could stay on the same subject rather than complain about having to (gasp) learn in school?

        • Oboehner

          It would be interesting if you could stay on the same subject rather than complain about having to (gasp) learn [someone’s religion] in school? Sorry, it is on topic.

    • tstewart2

      So that is why muslim students are being accommodated for their “prayer times”?
      1) http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html
      2) http://buzzpo.com/tuscon-school-accommodating-islamic-prayers/
      3) http://rt.com/usa/muslim-prayer-us-schools-060/
      There are many more.

      • Paul Hiett

        Are Christians and Jews and those of other faiths being denied anything here?

    • Peter Leh

      very reasonable.

    • Harry Oh!

      Wrong again, the laws are being bent to accommodate the liberal party line and anyone who disagrees is silenced or punished. Someday they’ll come for you.

    • bosco49

      May I suggest that there are many works of literature other than the bible which have texts directly derived from or which paraphrase the bible? Why not read passages from some of these authors’ works and accomplish the same purpose?

    • pastoredsmith

      Hello atheist. You seem to be on this Christian News site a lot.
      As usual, you babble nonsense. The First Amendment that has now been distorted by a rogue SCOTUS and government that was bullied by atheist demands has now been redefined.
      All you have to do to discover that the USA was NEVER meant to stifle Christian viewpoints is to look at the founding of this country. The US Congress authorized, paid for and distributed Bibles. Thomas Jefferson, one of the least devout Christians (actually, he was a Deist) organized and sponsored a Christian Church that met in the Rotunda at the Capitol.
      Benjamin Franklin, using tax dollars, helped to start churches. He, like Jefferson, is one of a few of the 250 or so Founding Fathers that atheists love to put in the spotlight because the majority of the remainder of them were devout Christians, some pastors.
      The FFRF, along with the other atheist ilk groups out there, are nothing but bullies. It is not enough that you live in a country where you have the right to believe, teach and promote your religion (yes, atheism is a religion according to the IRS). You feel that it is your sworn duty to marginalize, ridicule and try to force all religions out of the public square except for your own. After all, a “no gods allowed” zone (such as at public schools and government buildings) are ATHEIST ZONES.
      You fools (Psalm 14:1) won’t stop until you have made it illegal for anyone who follows any religion except for atheism to bring it to the public arena. This makes you fall into the same category as Hitler.
      Your message of hopelessness, vanity of life, no hope and no purpose has already caused massive hemorrhage in the moral fabric of this country, and has doomed people to suicide and hopelessness of their own.
      Yes, freedom of religion is under assault by atheists. And, the number one target in America is Christianity. Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

    • Jesop Ash

      on the contrary, I would want to hear a Jewish prayer and I am Christian. Freedom of expression protects our rights NOT bullying into silence. When you obtain a “right” to shut people up because they offend you then free speech no longer exists.

    • 2197_uxo_1

      Where do you people get separation of church and state from in the constitution? There is no such sentence!

  • Gary

    This is one of the reasons I oppose “public schools”.

    • Paul Hiett

      Because they don’t cater to your parents choice of a religion they made for you? Not everyone in this country believes exactly what you do Gary.

      • Gary

        My parents did not choose my religion. I chose it myself.

        I fully understand that many others do not share my beliefs. And that is why I want as little to do with them as possible.

        • Paul Hiett

          Oh, so your parents were atheist and just sat back and let you choose your own path?

          • Gary

            My parents were Christians. And I chose Christianity too, when I was old enough to make the choice. You don’t understand how it works in Christianity. No one is forcing me to be a Christian. No one made the decision for me. I freely chose to believe the Bible and follow Christ on my own.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…yeah, I’m sure you were just inundated with choices, weren’t you? You went to many different types of churches, your parents read to you from the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, they exposed you to Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and then after all that, when you were finally old enough, you just so happened to pick Christianity, the same religion as your parents.

            What a coincidence!!!!

          • Gary

            You said your parents were “Christians”. By your own theory then, you should be a Christian too. Kind of blows your theory out of the water.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not at all. I wasn’t allowed to stop attending church until I was 15. Up til then, I was inundated just like you…church every Sunday, prayers before meals, constantly being told about God and Jesus in our every day lives.

            I simply benefited from a more liberal surrounding once we moved to California in 83, and the fact my parents let up on the pressure at that point too. I was allowed to question, to research, to learn on my own. Part of my own college curriculum included many classes on religion. It was through education that I became an atheist.

            Make no mistake, the only reason you’re a Christian today is because you were raised as one.

          • Gary

            BS. When I got older, I looked into the beliefs of some other religions. I could have chosen one of them. I still could. Your theory is stupid. As are you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure pal. I can tell by the anger in your post that I’m spot on, and you can’t stand it when an atheist is right.

          • Gary

            All of the New Testament Jews who chose to follow Christ are examples of people choosing a religion different from the one they were raised in. I know people who chose to be Christians who were raised Buddhist, some raised Hindu, some raised Muslim, and other religions.

          • misterprecedent

            Jesus (if he existed) was a JEW. His Jewish followers didn’t choose a different religion.

          • Gary

            Many people, including Paul (wrote some of the NT books) disagree with you. They believe Judaism and Christianity are different religions.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, Gary, some people do convert to Christianity. Christians also convert TO those religions. Most conversions though, are from religion to atheism.

            The majority of people in the world, though, can attribute their own religious beliefs to those of their family. You’re simply part of that larger group.

    • Better AndBetter

      Yet you’d nut up if a muslim did the same thing.

      Hypocrite.

  • MisterPine

    Public school. Not a private Christian school. Therefore not appropriate to read the Bible over the intercom. Easy one.

  • bowie1

    Perhaps he may as well say, “Good Morning Students. Have a nice day.” (Click)

  • Better AndBetter

    Can you imagine the outrage if a muslim read from the koran in like manner? Oh, the hypocrisy!

    • Richard

      The USA is a predominantly Christian country. If you aren’t liking it, there are other countries.

      • Paul Hiett

        Yes, Christianity is the predominant religion here, but it is not the official religion of this country. In fact, there is no such thing. Public schools are not churches.

        • Richard

          Why do you spend so much time on a Christian website if Christianity offends you so much? Your behavior seems illogical.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You’re confusing this public forum with your journal. If you want to trash a group of people and you don’t want them to respond to you then don’t put it on an open website on the internet.

          • Richard

            How was I trashing them? Why isn’t your comment trashing me?

          • Better AndBetter

            To know my enemy.

          • Richard

            You are oblivious to your enemy because you are already a casualty.

          • Better AndBetter

            Ooo… spooky!

          • Richard

            But it’s true. You may not realize it yet, but you will if you don’t make some changes.

          • Better AndBetter

            Nah… FSM will save me.

          • SashaC

            rAmen!

          • Richard

            If you believe the FSM is real, you’re in a heap of trouble.

          • maturallite

            To counter religious radicals like you who are actively eroding our constitutional protections.

      • DoctorDan118

        The USA is a predominately white nation as well. Does that mean white people get special privileges? If you want to live in a country where religion runs the land, perhaps YOU are the one who should relocate. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

        • Richard

          Since when did Iran become a Christian country?

          • Better AndBetter

            You’d love it… they’ll bring you right up into the arms of Allah.

          • Richard

            I don’t believe in allah.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Do you believe in Elah?

          • maturallite

            Allah is the god of Abraham, just FYI.

      • Better AndBetter

        Freedom of RELIGION means ALL RELIGIONS your hypocritical swine. You’re simply not special.

      • Better AndBetter

        Freedom of religion does NOT only apply to those who follow your religion. Good grief. You’re NOT special.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        So Richard is IS doing a good thing telling Christians to convert to Islam or die? Iraq and Syria are both Muslim majority, so Muslims can do whatever the heck they want, correct?

  • DoctorDan118

    Only a Christian fundamentalist could be standing on the chest of a non-Christian, suffocating and crushing him, and when the non-Christian taps him on the leg and kindly asks him to stop what he’s doing, the Christian yells: “Why are you persecuting me!!!! Stop forcing yourself on me!!!! BOOHOO!!!!”

    • Richard

      If you think you are being oppressed now, just wait 90 years or so.

  • dawnrosanne

    This is a sad day for religious freedom in America. The principal was reading from God’s holy word and encouraging students to lead moral, upright lives. It’s sick that a hypocritical, judgmental, biased group like the FFRF (who love to do their saber-rattling) should have achieved this “victory.” It’s no victory; it’s a loss. The school should not have backed down.

    • Paul Hiett

      So as long as the principal is quoting verses from a religion you agree with, it’s ok. What happens when the religion is not one you agree with?

      • dawnrosanne

        It would depend on what was being said.

        • Paul Hiett

          Do you understand what “hypocrisy” means?

    • Better AndBetter

      So… an imam reading from the koran in your child’s school wouldn’t tick you off?

      • Richard

        I remember a commenter outed you for having multiple accounts. Your comments obviously can’t be trusted as you are a deceiver.

        • Better AndBetter

          No, just this one. My other, Badkey, was banned. Should this one be banned, I’ll be back under another moniker.

          I’m perfectly open and honest about it. No deception intended.

          • Richard

            I saw your badkey moniker just recently. You also said you had others as needed.

          • Better AndBetter

            Not here. Perhaps on CNS News. Here, I can no longer post under that name.

          • Richard

            Were you banned on the day the person caught you?

          • Better AndBetter

            Day before I believe. That, however, was the first day I logged in with this older account.

          • Better AndBetter

            He actually thought I was doubling as someone else… it was quite funny.

          • Paul Hiett

            Hilarious actually, although he did finally apologize when he realized he had no other recourse.

          • Richard

            I read that exchange. He or she caught Badkey, which he admitted to. He thought you were one and the same but later apologized, which I thought was commendable.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Where in the principal’s job description does it indicate that he is to educate children in the Christian belief system?

    • Kara Connor

      And if they hired a Muslim principal who were to read the Qur’an over the speakers every day, you’d be up with that?

  • John Munro

    No one religion should have any precedence over another? and what is it you believe in you would be a lousy car sales man and I doubt you believe in anything.

    • Paul Hiett

      Why do you think your religion should be the only religion tolerated in the world?

      • John Munro

        you are in America under freedom yet you attack it right? read the Declaration of Independence.

        • Paul Hiett

          First, the Declaration of Independence does not establish law in this country, the Constitution does. Yet, there is no mention of “God” or any religion for that matter anywhere in it.

          In fact, the Constitution actually states that no religion shall be recognized.

          You might want to read up on the history of this country a little more.

  • FoJC_Forever

    This is a typical attack from Luciferian people who know Scripture to be God’s written Word, but reject Truth. They have also rejected Salvation through the Son of God, and, if they die in their current condition, will be cast away from all Righteousness and Good. As those who have chosen to embrace the Father of Lies, they must, as Love dictates, be confined to a place of their choosing – a place devoid of all the greatness and awesomeness of God.

    • Paul Hiett

      Christians are so funny when they think their religion is the only religion in the world.

      • Richard

        Maybe not the only, but the only true belief in God.

        • Paul Hiett

          Are you aware that the followers of other religions believe as strongly in theirs as you do in yours?

          • Richard

            I understand they do. But if you look at the evidence and the reality of their beliefs, you’ll quickly see the facts betray their beliefs as being false. Christianity is the only faith that has all of the evidence.

          • Paul Hiett

            You have no more evidence to support your religion being “right” than anyone else. You don’t get to put your religious beliefs up on a pedestal just because you believe in it. All religions are equally right…or wrong, depending on your perspective.

          • Richard

            A substantial bit more. What other belief has God coming to earth, living with people for over 30 years, being killed because he claimed to be God, then rise from the dead, then ascend to heaven in front of many eye witnesses who wrote about it? Who also has many non biblical historians record his earthly sojourn as historical fact?

          • Paul Hiett

            Exactly what about that story is factual? There is nothing outside of the Bible to substantiate any story in the Bible, and in fact some stories have already been proven false. Sure, it’s possible, and even probable, a man named Jesus existed.

            Son of God? Other than the Bible, no one else has ever corroborated any aspect of that story.

          • Richard

            “Exactly what about that story is factual? ”

            Exactly all of it. Unless you can prove the historical record wrong. Can you?

            “There is nothing outside of the Bible to substantiate any story in the Bible”

            Can you provide an example? How do you explain Alexander the Great? The collapse of Babylon? The arrival of Jesus? Do you have proof for your assertions?

            The Bible is a historical document. You will need to disprove its accounts. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            So in all other aspects of life, the burden of proof is on those who claim the positive, yet when it comes to religion, the burden of proof is only on those who claim the negative.

            I always get a kick out of that hypocrisy.

          • Richard

            You are looking that this incorrectly. If you believe the historical record is incorrect, it is your burden to prove it untrue. Anyone can make unfounded assertions. But if you do make them, you should be prepared to back them up. Can you?

          • Marvelatthis

            If he exists Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. Who needs to corroborate that?
            These men record his existence. Look them up and see what they thought:

            Thallus (52AD)
            Tacitus (56-120AD)
            Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
            Phlegon (80-140AD)
            Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
            Suetonius (69-140AD)
            Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
            Celsus (175AD)
            Josephus (37-101AD)
            Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
            The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, I say his existence is probable. Son of God?

            Nope.

          • Richard

            Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

          • Marvelatthis

            Yea, I read your text the first time. And again I will say Son of God? Yep.

        • Better AndBetter

          Allah and Vishnu say you’re wrong. And they’re just as proven as your sky being.

          • Richard

            You have already been proven to be a deceiver.

          • Better AndBetter

            No, you are just bad at reading.

          • Richard

            No, I read the one who caught you and your reply. You’ve been outed as a deceiver.

          • Better AndBetter

            As I said, you read poorly. I readily admitted it then for the same reasons.

          • Richard

            Are you saying you don’t use the Badkey any more?

          • Better AndBetter

            On this forum, I cannot. That account was banned for having a different opinion than the site owners.

          • Paul Hiett

            Richard, you need to apologize to him. He has been 100% honest regarding his accounts. He and I were accused of being the same person. His “Badkey” account was banned, so he’s using this one…and he’s admitted as such. Other than that, no, he’s not using two accounts, nor am I.

          • Richard

            What do I have to apologize for? Watching him get caught and admitting he has many others and will use them whenever he chooses, is not my issue.

  • Paul Hiett

    I think one of the biggest hurdles for Christians in America is to get past their superiority complex. I say that not to be mean or insulting, but merely as an observation. Christians assume they are right merely because they’re the highest population, and because Christianity was the predominant religion throughout this country for so long. It’s preached into us from birth, with very little opportunity, until now that is, to even hear about other religions. So to them, the argument about God existing is black and white…either they’re right, or there is no God. For some reason, the legitimacy of other religions is never considered.

    Yet, the truth is, this country was not built on the backs of Christians. This country was built by people of all walks of life, of many cultures, and many faiths. Do you, Christians, believe the sacrifice of an atheist on D Day during WW2 was less important than that of a Christian? Is the death of a Jew on the sans of Iwo Jima less important than the Christian next to him? What about the Muslims who died in Vietnam fighting for our country? Do you negate his sacrifice because his religion was different?

    What makes you Christians more important than everyone else who sacrificed for this country’s success?

    When you blast people who don’t want to see Christianity in our public schools, you are essentially stating that any religion other than Christianity is not worthy of respect and tolerance. You are stating that the sacrifices of the followers of those religions are not worth remembering or respecting. That’s the message that you are sending.

    I think many of you need to tour the Arlington Cemetery, the Vietnam war memorial, and the graveyards in France where our soldiers are buried. You will find many, many of our soldiers who did not follow your particular choice of a religion. Was their sacrifice really less than that of the Christian buried next to him?

    Think about it.

    • Gary

      When people disagree about truth and morality it is impossible for them to work together for common goals because they have no common goals. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. I think Mr. Lincoln was paraphrasing Jesus Christ on that from Luke 11:17.

      • Paul Hiett

        Then why do Christians continue to attempt to widen the divide?

        • Gary

          We don’t have to try to widen it. You are doing that for us.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Gary. It’s stories like this, in which Christians abuse their positions of power to force Christianity on others that widens the divide.

            You clearly do not equate the sacrifices other have made for this country, as if only the blood of good, white Christians has ever been spilled in the defense of it.

          • Gary

            When you promote things that are immoral, like ssm and homosexuality, you are widening the gap.

          • MisterPine

            No one is “promoting” ssm and homosexuality, Gary. We aren’t out there with placards and signs. We simply see no reason to oppose them.

          • Gary

            Then change promoting to supporting. Same effect. Christians see much reason to oppose them. And your support for ssm and homosexuality is why people like you will never be able to find common ground with Christians. We want a different kind of society than you do.

          • MisterPine

            No, actually Gary, most of the Christians I know would support them too. It’s only an extremely narrow branch of fundamentalist kooks who oppose them because we know there is not a single reason why we should.

          • Richard

            No good Christian should support sinful behavior.

          • MisterPine

            It is not sinful behavior. In the real world as we know it people have attractions to other people. For most people, that is the opposite gender. For approximately ten percent, it is the same gender. It involves no choice, cannot be changed, is not an illness, and requires no cure.

          • Gary

            Homosexuality is sinful, according to the Bible.

          • MisterPine

            Then throw your Bible away, because it’s wrong.

          • Gary

            The Bible is not wrong.

          • MisterPine

            It is wrong about MANY things, that is one of the worst.

          • Richard

            By what authority do you believe it is wrong?

          • MisterPine

            Modern science and the expertise of mental health professionals.

          • Richard

            Modern science? Since when did modern science enter into what is sinful and what isn’t. I believe you are really confused.

          • MisterPine

            What would you like them to do Richard, live loveless and sexless lives because of the outdated information from a 2000 year old book? We have vast knowledge on the subject now they did not have when the Bible was written. By human beings.

          • Richard

            You are misinformed on many aspects of this discussion.

            Not live loveless, but get help to resolve their issues.

            The Bible, while written by human authors, was inspired by God…a far higher authority than the desires of humans.

          • MisterPine

            There are no “issues” – you cannot fix what is not broken. It is not an illness. That is outdated, archaic thinking. We have no proof of God, but we know and understand human sexuality.

          • Richard

            “There are no “issues” – you cannot fix what is not broken. ”

            Did you ignore all of the quotes about people who have ‘fixed’ their issues and have successfully returned to a hetero lifestyle? Denying they exist doesn’t negate them.

            There is a ton of evidence to support a belief in God. But you actually have to evaluate it. Dismissing it doesn’t negate it.

          • MisterPine

            Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a range of treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Such treatments have been criticized for being pseudo-scientific.Conversion therapy has been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries.[5] Medical and scientific organizations in the United States and Britain have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful. The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association). In a letter dated February 23, 2011 to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the United States stated “while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable”.The American Psychiatric Association has condemned “psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”It states that, “Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation.” It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation “by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue. The advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation.

            The highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other religious organizations and the therapy is derided by critics as “pray the gay away.”

          • Richard

            Only by the naysayers. Ask those it has set free.

          • Gary

            God has provided no moral way for anyone to engage in homosexuality.

          • MisterPine

            You don’t know that Gary, you aren’t God.

          • Gary

            I do know that. The Bible says only s-x between a man and his wife is moral.

          • MisterPine

            No you don’t. And if you actually follow a God that would create homosexuals just so he could hate them then why would anyone follow your religion?

          • Gary

            I would. And millions of others do as well. The Bible says homosexuality is unnatural. It is a deliberate choice made by wicked people.

          • MisterPine

            Are you trying to push Christianity in the same direction that the KKK does? Because from where I sit there is absolutely no difference between you and them.

          • Gary

            Opinions vary.

          • MisterPine

            And I reject yours. From the look of the posts on this site, most other people do as well.

          • Gary

            You can be wrong if you want to.

          • MisterPine

            And you think you are NOT wrong, with all your hate?

          • Gary

            Only God has the authority to define good and evil.

          • MisterPine

            And you are not God.

          • Gary

            No, I am not God. But I know what God has said about homosexuality and marriage.

          • Richard

            Neither are you.

          • MisterPine

            And I’m not trying to define good and evil.

          • Richard

            Yes you are. You just said that homosexuality wasn’t a sin. I quote you, “Then throw your Bible away, because it’s wrong.”

          • MisterPine

            ????????
            Wrong. As in incorrect. Which is is. I said nothing about good and evil. If the Bible maintains that homosexuality is a sin, then it is factually incorrect.

          • Richard

            “I said nothing about good and evil.”

            What do you think sin is?

            “If the Bible maintains that homosexuality is a sin, then it is factually incorrect.”

            God does say homosexuality is a sin. Your opinion is incorrect.

          • MisterPine

            Sin is an abstract invention of the church.

            Your opinion about my opinion is irrelevant. You are not God and you do not speak for God.

          • Richard

            No, sin is God’s measure of behavior.

            God speaks for himself. You can read what he says any time you want. That’s why he inspired the writers…so that all mankind could know about and of the living God. Denying him doesn’t negate him.

          • MisterPine

            And I happen to not believe that, it’s your religious opinion and I reject your religion entirely. God is an abstract.

          • Gary

            Christians believe the Bible is right. And that is another reason we will never get along with you..

          • MisterPine

            Then how do you explain all the Christians I know who completely disagree with you?

          • Gary

            All Christians agree that homosexuality and ssm are evil. Those you are calling Christians are not real Christians.

          • MisterPine

            That is called the No True Scotsman fallacy Gary, you should look it up. They are Christians as real as any on earth.

          • Gary

            If they were Christians, they would not support what the Bible condemns.

          • MisterPine

            Believe it or not, there are many people who don’t believe those passages refer to homosexuality at all.

          • Gary

            Yes, but they are not Christians.

          • MisterPine

            No True Scotsman fallacy. You do not get to dictate who is or isn’t a Christian.

          • Richard

            Their behaviors do.

          • MisterPine

            I would far rather follow someone acting Christ-like towards homosexuals, showing love and compassion, than hatred and oppression.

          • Gary

            If homosexuals are moral, as you claim, why do they need love and compassion?

          • MisterPine

            Do you expect a serious answer to this patent absurdity?

          • Richard

            I don’t hate homosexuals. I care for all humans.

            What I’m getting at is truth rather than error.

          • MisterPine

            Well, you really aren’t saying much that I would call truthful.

          • Richard

            It’s all truth. I have no agenda to lie. If you took some time to learn about psychology and behavioral science, you would see this issue differently. But because you don’t have this background, you are trying to understand this from a layman’s perspective…which is misleading.

          • MisterPine

            I suppose my accreditation in psychiatric social work and university degrees don’t count then, eh? All right then. We’ll just call you the expert and be done with this.

          • Richard

            I’ve responded to your claims in another comment.

          • Richard

            “It is not sinful behavior.”

            Yes, it is. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean it isn’t.

            No one is born gay. They all have a choice:

            Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors — how they “got that way.” The first of these studies was conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second, in 1970, involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. – Bell (1973) Homosexualities: their range and character. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Cole & Dienstbier (eds) Univ Nebraska Press; King (1980) The Etiology of Homosexuality as Related to Childhood Experiences and Adult Adjustment Ed.D. Thesis, Indiana Univ.

          • MisterPine

            Why don’t you try using some data and evidence a little more recent? The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and practically EVERY other mental health organization would tell you everything you said was wrong. And it is. No one makes a choice. Did YOU make a choice?

          • Richard

            In a 1983 study conducted by the Family Research Institute (FRI) involving a random sample of 147 homosexuals, 35% said their sexual desires were hereditary. – Cameron, et al (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Rpts 64:1167-79; Cameron, et al (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Rpts 62:211-9; Cameron, et al (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Rpts 58:327-37; Cameron (1985) Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Rpts 57:1227-36.

          • MisterPine

            Would you like to post any more information from discredited, anti-gay activist Paul Cameron?

            How about a non-biased source? Try the APA.

          • Richard

            The research isn’t discredited. What were you expecting, a pro-gay activist?

            The research is solid and has been cited many times. You just don’t like it because it betrays your assertion.

            There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. – APA

          • MisterPine

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

            And what were you hoping to prove with your APA quote? I happen to have no issue with it.

          • Richard

            The point is no one is born gay. It has never been established, only implied. That’s even what the APA quote confirms.

          • MisterPine

            It is irrelevant whether people are born gay or whether it happens in early life. The point is it is not chosen.

          • Richard

            “The point is it is not chosen.”

            It is a chosen lifestyle. You may not understand why, but it is. All desire is learned behavior, then acted on, which requires a decision.

          • MisterPine

            No.

            In the first place, homosexuality isn’t a behavior, and it isn’t a lifestyle. It is a state of being, it is your attraction. You
            don’t have to lift a finger and you can still be a homosexual. What you choose to do with it is where we might differ.

            From where I sit, we heterosexual people form attractions, fall in love, and there is no choice involved. Why, then, do you think homosexuals would go against the attraction to the opposite gender just to rebel? Does that make any sense to you?

            Have you ever SPOKEN to a homosexual? Not one would tell you they “chose” anything, except perhaps to enter into a loving relationship with another person…which the rest of us also do, so why is it right for us but wrong for THEM, and I repeat, what would you have them do otherwise?

          • Richard

            “homosexuality isn’t a behavior, and it isn’t a lifestyle. ”

            I understand you don’t understand this. But it doesn’t mean your opinion is correct.

            Attraction is another word for desire. Desires are established through preferences. Preferences – notions of like and dislike – are learned, then acted on. We can change preference at will

            “Why, then, do you think homosexuals would go against the attraction to the opposite gender just to rebel?”

            They don’t do it to rebel. They do it not because of biology, but because of preference: they have what they believe are logical reasons for being attracted to a same-sex partner. Logical reasons are learned then acted on.

          • MisterPine

            “I understand you don’t understand this.” No, I DO understand it. I’ve been a psychiatric social worker for many years and I know this subject very well. Mine is not an opinion, it’s what we have learned on this subject in recent years with lots of research and lots of good data.

            Desires are not established through preferences. If I observe an attractive woman and feel a desire, I haven’t “preferred” her over a male, the male was never desired to begin with. And I never “learned” to dislike broccoli, I hated it from the first time I had it and that was all I needed to know about it. Homosexuals don’t look at men and women and make a choice. They know which one they desire. Just like the rest of us.

          • Richard

            “I’ve been a psychiatric social worker for many years and I know this subject very well.”

            I’m surprised by your comment. As someone trained in human behavior, you should know how system of beliefs are developed and how they influence behavior.

            To suggest people are born gay flies in the face of what you should have had as training.

            “Desires are not established through preferences.”

            Yes, they are. If you did have training, you should know that preferences are a part of a human’s system of beliefs, predicated on the notions of like and dislike. Preferences are learned, then acted on. Your training should have taught you this.

            Your comments betray your claims of psychiatric training.

          • MisterPine

            “As someone trained in human behavior, you should know how system of beliefs are developed and how they influence behavior.”

            This is not a matter of belief but of attraction. That’s your problem right there. You do not understand attraction.

            “To suggest people are born gay flies in the face of what you should have had as training.”

            Strawman argument. I never said people were born gay. So you are being dishonest. I said we do not know whether people are born gay or whether it is formed in early life. And in fact it doesn’t fly in the face of my training either. Many people, if not most, would say that you’re born with your sexuality.

            “Your training should have taught you this.”

            Unless you have had similar training yourself I fail to see how you could know what is and isn’t included on the curriculum. As it happens you haven’t presented one ounce of medical information, only things that come from a Christian background.

          • Richard

            “You do not understand attraction.”

            I understand it well. There are many ways people are attracted to something, including people. Your training should have taught you this.

            “I never said people were born gay.”

            Suggesting they had no choice, they can’t change, and there aren’t any ex-gays isn’t saying gays are born that way? If not, what were you saying?

            “Unless you have had similar training yourself I fail to see how you could know what is and isn’t included on the curriculum.”

            I know very well what you should have been taught. As I said, your comments don’t line up with what you have claimed as training.

          • MisterPine

            I’m sorry, I don’t believe you are qualified to say things like “your training should have taught you this” when you are electing to suppress homosexual attraction strictly on the basis of your religion.

            “Suggesting they had no choice, they can’t change, and there aren’t any ex-gays isn’t saying gays are born that way? If not, what were you saying?”

            It’s all true. They had no choice, they can’t change, and there are no ex-gays. That isn’t necessarily to say they were born that way, as I’ve already pointed out, it may have formed in early life. I fail to see why you’re having trouble understanding this.

            “As I said, your comments don’t line up with what you have claimed as training.”

            I have repeatedly pointed out that they do. You’ve been caught putting words in my mouth and misquoting me.

          • Richard

            “it may have formed in early life. ”

            Formed how?

            With respect to your so-called training, I’m not buying it. I know what you should have been taught.

          • MisterPine

            That is still a matter of speculation, there are many theories but nothing concrete that has reached a consensus.

            With respect to my training, I don’t think you have enough of an objective mind to “buy” it or not – I think you’re wanting to sneer at it from a fundamentalist Christian perspective, because I’ve encountered many people like you in the past who are impervious to facts.

          • MisterPine

            They don’t know how. Yet.

            You do not know what should or should not be taught in matters of psychology. Your fundamentalism shines through and you wouldn’t have made it past the door. There isn’t room for religious bigotry in the field of science.

          • Richard

            You say they don’t know how? Yet you are convinced gay attraction isn’t learned? Do you realize how illogical your reasoning is?

            Psychologists and therapists do know the factors that result in gay behavior, which is why I question the training you say you have.

            And, science and a belief in God are compatible…since God created everything and science is the quest to understand God’s creation.

            You appear anti-science and heavy on uninformed opinion.

          • MisterPine

            “You say they don’t know how?”

            No, they don’t know how…yet. But they will. Science hasn’t got all the answers yet, but they continue to study.

            “Yet you are convinced gay attraction isn’t learned? Do you realize how illogical your reasoning is?”

            Science knows that gay attraction is not a learned thing. That’s one thing they DO know. I’m sorry you find this illogical. It makes perfect sense to me and to every one of my colleagues. Should they take all the things they have learned and throw them out until they have it all, is that what you are suggesting?

            “Psychologists and therapists do know the factors that result in gay behavior, which is why I question the training you say you have.”

            Yes they do, but you haven’t presented any. You have thrown out only outdated information from discredited Christian bigots, the very thing we steer clear of. A fundamentalist Christian perspective is what you have and that’s why you “question” me. We aren’t looking to guilt homosexuals into questionable religious morals, we want to help them to love themselves as they are.

            You appear anti-science and anti-technology and heavy on fundamentalist Christian rhetoric.

          • namelessghost

            No. The only thing that APA quote confirms is that sexual orientation is not a choice.

          • Richard

            They say ‘no sense of choice.’ This means they don’t realize it’s a choice. All of the other research says it is.

            Just because a person doesn’t realize it’s a choice doesn’t mean it isn’t. It just means they don’t realize it is.

          • namelessghost

            No, all the other research does not say it’s a choice.

            Just because you want to think it’s a choice, doesn’t mean it is.

          • Richard

            “Our findings suggest there may be genes at play — we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation. Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.” – Michael Bailey, Northwestern University psychology professor, Published online: 17 November 2014; Psychological Medicine

            What they found was that even though there were similarities in people with these two sets of genes, there were people with these genes that weren’t homosexual, and people without them that were. This means that these genes in no way determine gay behavior. The research confirms what others were saying. No one is born gay. They become gay through a series of factors.

          • MisterPine

            Yes, you tried this same quote with Paul Hiett the other day and he shot you down. Why are you trying it again? Why won’t you look at data from respected medical sources?

          • Richard

            He didn’t ‘shoot me down.’ My point was made. He had no reasonable rebuttal.

            The research is clear. No one is born gay. Same-sex attraction is learned. Those are the facts. The research from the mid 1900s to today is solid and repeatable.

          • MisterPine

            No, same-sex attraction is not “learned,” and I defy you to find a reasonable, factual medical opinion that would agree with you. If you’re taking your information from the mid-1900s, I can see the problem already.

          • Richard

            “I defy you to find a reasonable, factual medical opinion that would agree with you.”

            There are ex-homosexuals — those who have continued in homosexual liaisons for a number of years and then choose to change not only their habits, but also the object of their desire. Sometimes this alteration occurs as the result of psychotherapy; – Beiber, et al (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study Basic Books.

          • MisterPine

            False. There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual. We know that sexuality cannot be altered. If those “ex-gay” people elect to live a celibate life, it does not mean they are not still homosexual. It just means they chose not to engage in further sexual conduct.

          • Richard

            “There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual. We know that sexuality cannot be altered.”

            Are you calling this person a liar? How about these?

            “I worked to overcome feelings of inadequacy and incompetence as a man. As I worked with my counselor to fill my emotional needs, extinguish harmful behaviors, and heal emotional wounds, I noticed my homosexual compulsions becoming less intense. With time, they began to subside. Then, subtly, I noticed heterosexual feelings starting to emerge. These new feelings grew slowly as I continued progressing through the recovery process.” – “Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency”, Floyd and Kae Godfrey

            “It has been seventeen years since I resolved my homosexual problems. I use that word purposely. I am not suppressing the feelings. I have filled the underlying needs that created the homosexual attractions, and the problems are resolved. I am happy to say I no longer struggle with homosexuality. It no longer controls my life.” – Jason Park, author

            “I am one of thousands of men and women who have come out of the gay lifestyle,” he said after recounting the turbulent history of his life. “But the media and other people, gay activists, don’t want you to hear that. You know why? Because the entire gay agenda is build on a faulty sinking foundation. Two pillars: Number one—that you are born gay. And number two—that you can’t change. I am living proof that both of those are faulty and wrong. – Stephen Bennett, a recovered homosexual now happily married to his wife for twelve years.

            I have learned over the past twelve years of counseling hundreds of men, women, and adolescents, and working with thousands of people in healing seminars around the world, that no matter what issue or issues we are facing in our lives, our wounds all originate from the same sources. For, as Leanne Payne said, “To write about the healing of the homosexual is to write about the healing of all men and women.” We all fall short of our original design for greatness. When we heal ourselves, the world heals a little more. When we help others heal, we heal in the process.” – Richard Cohen

            Books written by ex-gay authors:
            – Beyond Gay, by David Morrison
            – Born That Way? By Erin Eldridge
            – Closing the Closet: Testimonies of Deliverance from Homosexuality, Talbert Swan
            – Free Indeed, by Barbara Swallow
            – Growth Into Manhood: Resuming the Journey, by Alan Medinger
            – Healing Homosexuality: Case Studies of Reparative Therapy, by Joseph Nicolosi
            – Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind, by Jeanette Howard
            – A Place in the Kingdom, by Garrick and Ginger Hyde
            – Portraits of Freedom: 14 People Who Came Out of Homosexuality, by Bob Davies
            – Voices of Hope, 22 Personal Essays, Compiled by Ty Mansfield
            – You Don’t Have to be Gay, by Jeff Konrad

          • MisterPine

            Yes. I am calling that person a liar. Or at the very least, very
            deceived. Exodus International, the largest “ex-gay” organization in the world, closed its doors recently and its founder apologized to everyone involved with it, admitting fraud.

            If you teach a homosexual person not to have sexual relations, you have not altered their sexuality, you’ve turned them celibate. That’s all you’ve done. They are still homosexual. And telling a human being to refrain from sexual contact isn’t what I’d call a particularly humane thing to do.

            The books you mentioned are written from fundamentalist Christian perspectives and as such have no merit.

          • MisterPine

            I recommend the video “Cure Me, I’m Gay” by Doctor Christian Jessen, to expore the world of “ex-gay” therapy:

            http://www.channel4.com/programmes/undercover-doctor-cure-me-im-gay

          • Richard

            There are people who can’t quit smoking. Does it mean they were born to smoke? There are people who can’t quit molesting children. Does that mean they were born to attack children?

          • MisterPine

            There is no reason to stop loving a person. It is not something unhealthy like smoking or abusing children.

          • Richard

            In a large random sample, 88% of women currently claiming lesbian attraction and 73% of men claiming to currently enjoy homosexual relations, said that they had been sexually aroused by the opposite s e x. – Cameron, et al (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Rpts 64:1167-79; Cameron, et al (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Rpts 62:211-9; Cameron, et al (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Rpts 58:327-37; Cameron (1985) Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Rpts 57:1227-36.

          • namelessghost

            “No one is born gay. They all have a choice”

            So, you decided to be straight?

          • Richard

            Yes. As the research clearly shows, so does everyone else.

            Arriving at an attraction is a process. Acting on a desire requires a decision.

          • namelessghost

            I see. What did you do, flip a coin? Heads I’ll be straight; tails I’ll be gay? lol

          • Gary

            Since Christians don’t support ssm or homosexuality, you don’t know any Christians who support those things.

          • Richard

            “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” – Romans 6: 1, 2

          • MisterPine

            “Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
            psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious
            choice that can be voluntarily changed.” – APA website

          • Richard

            Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors — how they “got that way.” The first of these studies was conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second, in 1970, involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. – Bell (1973) Homosexualities: their range and character. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Cole & Dienstbier (eds) Univ Nebraska Press; King (1980) The Etiology of Homosexuality as Related to Childhood Experiences and Adult Adjustment Ed.D. Thesis, Indiana Univ.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    A wise choice. There are plenty of inspirational words and sayings that are outside of the Christian faith. There is no reason for a public school principal to be quoting from the Bible through the school’s PA system. He is there for ALL students of ALL faiths as well as no faith. The school is not a place for religious indoctrination. That can be done at home and in church.

  • Richard

    Atheists often say the burden of proof is on Christians. But that’s not actually true. Atheists believe God doesn’t exist. It’s their burden to provide evidence to support that belief. Ask them for evidence. They don’t have any. That is blind faith.

    • Paul Hiett

      Prove that Odin does not exist then.

      • Richard

        Do you believe Odin exists?

        • Paul Hiett

          Irrelevant. If you can’t prove Odin does not exist, then by your own standards you must accept that He does.

          • Richard

            Odin never was real. Reasonable people know that.

            Resorting to illogical nonsense comparisons speaks volumes about the atheist faith.

          • Richard

            I’ve already said Odin is mythology…like most people believe.

            Do you believe Odin is real?

  • Peter Leh

    the “thought for the day” may use religious references legally if the groups are equally accommodated. It is all or nothing.

  • Jim

    Here’s a positive thought for the day: Superintendent Michael Gilbert and Principal Dan Noll are not above the law. The arrogance of these two! They both knew perfectly well that forcing public school students to listen to religious propaganda is flatly against the law, but they flouted the law anyway. Congratulations to the student who blew the whistle on this illegal practice. Gilbert caved because he knew that he’d lose any lawsuit filed against the school district and his job might be in jeopardy if he squandered tens of thousands–even hundreds of thousands–of tax dollars in pointless litigation. These fanatics thumb their noses at the law but are brought to heel by the only higher power they truly believe in–money.

  • http://www.OpenAirSeattle.blogspot.com/ OpenAirSeattle

    FFRF (the devil) says that they see the change as a victory for the organization. Of course He does. Why? because…faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.Romans 10:17 The devil would not want those young kids to get faith so He has to stop them. Scripture reading has been in our public schools since the foundation of our country. Not till recent have we had the devil stop it. He can try to stop it in the public forum but Jesus said Himself…I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18 The devil loses.

    • Paul Hiett

      Just to be clear though, you’d also support the reading of any other religious text too, right?

  • Olivier André Fidélia

    An atheist believes that the universe blew up from nothing then created planets from nothing including a planet like planet earth which is perfectly made to support life. Atheist also believe that all life came from a single cell organism. Which came first DNA or the first cell? How did the first generation of organisms look ? Did they have partially developed organs? If so how were they able to survive? Did they magically sprout from molecules and into adult organisms? Or did they magically sprout from molecules into babies? How did things like blood develop from absolutely nothing? Without blood organs like the heart don’t work, how did the first organisms survive? And what about reproduction, so evolution magically created a mean for species to continue life by making offsprings? How did evolution create reproduction? Some parts of the body cannot survive without the other so did evolution just create organisms with all that was necessary to survive? Atheist take the human body and complexity of it lightly. The human body as well as the body of every organism is far too complex to simply be a result of blind chance. Atheist believe that accidents can create perfect order. No amount of time nor chance could ever transform a single cell into a species. Atheist believe that nothing created complex things like the brain, eyes, DNA, the nervous system, consciousness, morals, and a huge amount of other things in our body that is far too precise and well designed to simple be created by chance. How is it that science knows something as complex as a computer or car could never come from an accident, but truly believe that something such as life which is far more complicated could come from an accident.

    • Paul Hiett

      So the obvious answer is a magical, invisible man that snaps his fingers and creates everything? Oh, and prior to everything existing, he existed…and this makes more sense?

      • Olivier André Fidélia

        It really does make more sense. Look how intelligent humans are, of course it would take something far more intelligent then us to create us. Life does not come from non life. An accident could not produce so much order and such a grand design. Science can do a lot but it will never confirm the existence of God. In the Bible he states that he has hidden himself from us and that nature should be enough evidence for his existence. Look around you this can not be an accident. We are perfectly created with senses perfectly tuned for us to comprehend this world.

        • Olivier André Fidélia

          Saying that there is no creator despite the intricate design of this planet and it’s inhabitants is like saying that an airplane, a car, a building, a phone, a computer, a house and anything which requires a constructor was made from an accident and for no reason. Now does that really make more sense to you?

          • Olivier André Fidélia

            “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

  • sammy13

    Just another sad day as a result of one complaint, a single complaint, and anonymous complaint. So reading a passage from the good book is insulting, frightening, offensive, what? Anyone remember this from their PUBLIC kindergarten days in the 1950’s before milk and cookies? I do.

    Thank you for the world so sweet.
    Thank you for the food we eat.
    Thank you for the birds that sing.
    Thank you God for everything.
    Amen

    Pretty offensive , isn’t it? Truly unsettling, and very dangerous. Cannot expose people to an expression of thanks to an unseen power or person greater than us.

    • Harry Oh!

      I’m pretty sure that old Ike is doing backflips in his grave.

    • MisterPine

      How did you go from singing thank you to God before your milk and cookies to “kill the gays” before milk and cookies? Seems to me Christianity is the thing that has changed.

  • Harry Oh!

    A single complaint from a single atheist without any protests from the Christian community is proof that the culture war has been lost.

    • MisterPine

      Or won. Depending on your viewpoint.

      • Harry Oh!

        When the bad guys win it’s called a loss.

        • MisterPine

          Oh well then, it’s definitely a win.

  • Richard

    Christians have thousands of pieces of evidence that support a belief that God is real, including the historical record. It doesn’t take much faith to bridge the gap between all the evidence and a belief in God.

    Atheists have no evidence to support a belief that God doesn’t exist. It takes great blind faith to bridge the gap between no evidence and a belief that God doesn’t exist.

    Which is the more rational? Logical? The answer is clear.

  • Bill

    There should be separation of school and state.

    • TheBBP

      There is. Those schools are private and cost a premium to attend.

      • Bill

        I did not mean that people should have the option of having the state not involved in the schooling of their children. I mean that government should not be involved in schooling in any way shape or form.

  • Richard

    Whether atheists agree or not, they own the burden to prove their assertions. Anyone can make a flippant assertion. It’s quite another thing to be able to back it up with real facts and evidence…not just an opinion.

    The next time an atheist asserts God is a myth, fairytale or imaginary, ask them to prove their assertion.

    The next time they say the Bible is fiction or made up, ask them to prove their assertions with real evidence and not just an uneducated opinion.

    Christians have all the evidence, including historical, scientific, and archeological. Atheists have none…which is why they can’t provide any and have to resort to illogical nonsensical analogies (or worse, putdowns and insults).

    Here’s an interesting fact: research has found that 19 percent of atheists are angry with God – a God they don’t believe in.

    • Better AndBetter

      You have zero facts on your side.

      • Richard

        Spoken like a true atheist. And you call yourselves logical free-thinkers. Free is the operative word. You know what they say about free.

    • Paul Hiett

      And as long as you can’t prove Odin does not exist, He’s as real as your god.

      • Richard

        As I said, all atheists have is illogical nonsensical foolishness. That is the state of the atheist faith. Atheists have great blind faith in their unsupportable opinion.

        • Paul Hiett

          Still waiting for you to prove that Odin is not real. You claim He’s just “mythology”. Well, then it should be easy to prove for you.

          If you can’t, then you need to admit He’s as real as your god.

          • Richard

            That’s all you have isn’t it. An irrational nonsensical illogical childish game. You have great faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m just using your own criteria, and you can’t stand it. Here, let’s simplify it using your rules.

            The next time a Christian asserts Odin is a myth, fairytale or imaginary, ask them to prove their assertion.

            So, I’m asking you to prove your assertion.

          • Richard

            That’s not my criteria at all.

            Dancing around your great faith won’t help it at all.

          • Paul Hiett

            You said, and I quote, “The next time an atheist asserts God is a myth, fairytale or imaginary, ask them to prove their assertion.”

            Are you really so illogical that you think you can have two different sets of criteria for the proof of deities?

            Either a deity requires proof of existence, or a deity requires proof of non existence.

            Which is it?

          • Richard

            I did say, “The next time an atheist asserts God is a myth, fairytale or imaginary, ask him to prove his assertion.”

            Well, can you? All you’ve done so far is dance around the issue. Do you have any evidence to support your belief or not? Even a yes or no will do.

          • Paul Hiett

            And like always, I can’t prove that your deity does not exist.

            However, neither can you prove that Odin does not exist. Ergo, you must accept that Odin is as real as your choice of a god.

          • Richard

            ” I can’t prove that your deity does not exist.”

            Finally. You admit you have no evidence to support a belief that God does not exist.

            That is the plight of the atheist. No proof. No evidence. But great blind faith.

            Thanks for finally admitting that.

          • Paul Hiett

            And likewise, you admit that you have no evidence to support a blind faith that Odin, and every other deity in religion for that matter, does not exist.

          • Richard

            You admitted atheists have no evidence but blind faith. Repeatedly bringing up a fictional character doesn’t help your cause.

          • Paul Hiett

            Fictional? Oh, so you think Odin isn’t real. Odin is very real to everyone who believes in him. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean He doesn’t.

            Let’s see your proof that Odin isn’t real. Should be easy to do, after all, he’s just a “fictional character”, right?

          • Richard

            Still dancing. Still not attractive for the atheist faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            I find it hilarious how ignorant you are about religion in the world. Are you really so naive and uneducated that you think people don’t still worship the Norse Gods? You need to do some research, as you are woefully outmatched in this debate.

            The sad thing is, you lost this debate before it even began when you thought you could demand proof that your deity exists, but then demand a different type of proof for another god. It could be you don’t even realize your own fallacy, or you do, and you’re “dancing” around it.

            So why the delay here? Why are you trying to avoid proving that Odin does not exist?

            Shall we make it easier on you? Let’s go for a more popular deity these days.

            Why don’t you prove that Vishnu is not real, eh? Can you do that, Richard? Can you prove that the Supreme god of Hinduism is not real?

          • Richard

            Are you saying you believe Odin is real? Vishnu? Ra?

            Do you believe any God is real?

          • Paul Hiett

            I can understand your reluctance to answer the question, since you know you’ve trapped yourself.

            Regardless, you need to provide some proof that Vishnu, or any other deity if you wish, is not real. Should be easy, right?

          • Richard

            Since you don’t believe Odin is real, I agree.

          • Paul Hiett

            So either you admit your god is not real, or you accept that all deities that you can’t prove don’t exist are real.

            Which is it?

          • Richard

            It’s not an either or question. That is a mistake on your part.

            You asked me to prove to you Odin is not real, and I did. You believe Odin isn’t real so there’s nothing to prove.

          • Paul Hiett

            Wait, you proved Odin isn’t real? When did this happen?

            This is hilarious…you don’t even realize you lost this debate a long time ago, but you still perpetuate it. Amazing.

            The issue still stands. Can you prove that Odin (or Vishnu, take your pick) is not real?

            Obviously you can’t, by the way, but it’s fun watching you squirm around your own mistakes.

          • Richard

            “Wait, you proved Odin isn’t real? When did this happen?”

            You don’t believe Odin is real, so there’s nothing else to prove. Why would I spend any time proving to you what you already believe to be true? Isn’t that illogical?

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, that’s irrelevant. There are people that do. There are millions that believe in Vishnu.

            My belief has nothing to do with you being able to prove that either Odin or Vishnu do not exist. Thus far, you have not provided any information, so by your own admission, you then believe that they do exist.

            Unless…the burden of proof is on the person who claims a god exists? Do you now want to go that route?

          • Richard

            It’s exactly relevant. Why would you ask someone to prove to you what you already believe? Isn’t that illogical? Irrational?

            But it does demonstrate how desperate atheists are to have to resort to such nonsense to defend their faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            Can you prove that either Odin or Vishnu is not real?

            It’s a simple question.

          • Richard

            Yes. Since you already believe Odin and Vishnu aren’t real, I agree. There’s nothing else to prove. How can you not see this?

          • Paul Hiett

            Can you prove that either Odin or Vishnu is not real?

          • Richard

            I’m agreeing with you, Odin and Vishnu aren’t real.

            What else do you want? This would only be an issue if you believed Odin and Vishnu were real. But you don’t, so there’s nothing else to prove. I agree with your assessment on these gods.

          • Paul Hiett

            This is where your ignorance hurts you. Atheists don’t claim to know if any deities are real. We simply don’t believe that they are. Knowing and believing are actually two different things.

            So again, I ask, can you prove that Odin and Vishnu are not real?

          • Richard

            Atheists, such as you, don’t believe any gods are real. So why ask me to prove to you what you already believe about Odin? Do you honestly think your question is logical? Reasonable?

            I’ve explained to you why this is an illogical and silly question. To keep asking it suggests you are really desperate.

          • Richard

            Are you saying you believe Odin is real?

          • Woody Chuck

            “That’s all you have isn’t it. An irrational nonsensical illogical childish game. You have great faith.”

            You just described religion (faith.) The rejection of that cannot, by definition, be faith. Zero does not equal one.

  • Richard

    The foundation of the atheist faith is denial.

    • Paul Hiett

      You do realize that you “deny” all of the same gods we do, we just deny one extra.

      • Richard

        There is only one God. Christians don’t make the same mistakes atheists do. I thought atheists were supposed to be logical.

        • Paul Hiett

          You’re the one who claims that if a deity can’t be proven, then it must be real, yet turns around and claims that if a deity can’t be proven false, it must be real.

          And you claim I’m the illogical one?

          • Richard

            You are confused. I never said that.

          • Paul Hiett

            You just did!!!!!! Read your own writing!!!!

          • Richard

            I read and comprehend well. You are confused.

          • Woody Chuck

            Richard, let’s see how well you read and comprehend how this applies to you – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

          • Richard

            More nonsense.

        • Woody Chuck

          “I thought atheists were supposed to be logical.”

          You can add that erroneous thought to the long list of your others. Rejection of theology is unrelated to logic. It exists because there’s no evidence that a god exists. I don’t require logic to disbelieve in leprechauns.

          “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not
          have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that
          aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

          -Sam
          Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

          • Richard

            “It exists because there’s no evidence that a god exists.”

            And that’s your mistake. There is sufficient evidence. Equating an imaginary figure to an actual person which factual historical references is your error in logic.

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL! Provide your evidence.

  • Richard

    Here is the illogical nature of atheists. They admit to not believing in any gods. Then, when you ask them for evidence to support their faith, they ask you to prove to them Odin (or any other gods they choose) isn’t real.

    In other words, they are asking you to prove to them what they already believe.

    Oh, the desperate lengths they have to go to to defend their faith.

    • Paul Hiett

      Christian logic: You must prove my god is not real, but you must prove that your god is real.

      I don’t think you’ve thought this through much.

      • Richard

        Can you not see the error in your logic? The irrationality of what you just wrote?

        • Paul Hiett

          You’re the one who is stating this! Are you bi-polar or something?

          First, you claim I need to prove that your deity is not real. Then you turn around and claim I need to prove Odin is real.

          Either criteria A is what we use, or criteria B. You can’t have one set of criteria for your deity, and a different set for another.

          Do you really not get this?

          • Richard

            “First, you claim I need to prove that your deity is not real.”

            No, I asked you to provide evidence to support your belief that God is not real. To which you said you don’t have any. That is a blind faith,

            “Then you turn around and claim I need to prove Odin is real.

            No, you said Odin wasn’t real and I agreed with you. It’s illogical to ask someone to prove to you what you already believe.

            How can you not see your comments as being really illogical and irrational?

          • Paul Hiett

            This is amazing.

            Let’s see if we can simplify this for you.

            1. You claim your deity is real. You ask for proof of that your deity is not real, and then claim that if proof can’t be provided, your deity must be real.

            2. You claim Odin is not real. You ask for proof that Odin is real, and then claim that if proof can’t be provided, Odin is not real.

            Do you really not see the illogical hypocrisy in your arguments?

          • Richard

            No need to simplify for me. You are the one who doesn’t understand.

            Take a little more time and think about it. I’m hopeful you’ll see the error in your reasoning. If you still can’t figure it out, I’ll break it down into little pieces.

          • Paul Hiett

            By all means, explain it…but do so with only one set of criteria please. If you can’t do that, your argument is moot.

          • Richard

            Christians believe in one God. Not all the rest of the gods. But one God. The living God.

            Christians have a number of pieces of evidence on which to support their beliefs.

            We believe because there is sufficient evidence on which to come to a reasonable conclusion. Christianity is a reasonable faith…it is based on solid and irrefutable evidence.

            Atheists don’t believe in any gods. They are fully convinced no gods exist, including the Christian God.

            But they don’t have any evidence to support their beliefs. None. Many atheists don’t realize atheism is an unsupportable faith. In this case, atheism is an unreasonable faith. An illogical one.

            Now to the point:

            Atheists don’t believe in any gods, yet when asked for the evidence to support their beliefs, they posit an illogical question, such as: “Prove to me Odin doesn’t exist.”

            In this case, you are asking someone prove to you what you already believe to be true. This is like asking, ‘Prove to me you aren’t me.’

            Since both parties agree that Odin doesn’t exist, it’s an illogical question.

            The difference:

            Christians believe in God. We are asking you to prove to us that our God – the one we believe in – isn’t true, if that’s what you believe.

            Your question is, prove to atheists what they also don’t believe to be true.

            Do you see the difference now?

            In the former, Christians are asking you to prove what they believe is true. In the latter, you are asking Christians to prove to you what you also don’t believe is true.

            Do you get it now?

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL! Your argument is based upon the erroneous and faulty premise that disbelief = belief.

            Zero does not equal one!

          • Richard

            You don’t get it either, do you.

            You might want to get some training in logic.

          • Woody Chuck

            Let’s assume that I should. Then simply dispense with logic and provide evidence for your imaginary god.

          • Richard

            Of course I can provide reasonable evidence to support a belief in God. I’m sure many other Christians can, too.

            But I’ll have to do that at another time. I’m off to work. I’ll begin as I get time.

          • Woody Chuck

            “But I’ll have to do that at another time.”

            Ha-Ha-Ha!

          • Richard

            What, you don’t have a job?

          • Woody Chuck

            Neither your nor my employment status is relevant to your inability to provide evidence for your imaginary god.

          • Paul Hiett

            Forget about what I believe. It makes no difference what I think or believe.

            All I am asking you to do is what you have asked of me, and others I imagine.

            Can you prove that Odin is not real? Please address that question and that question only.

          • Richard

            Your logic needs work.

          • Paul Hiett

            Why do you avoid the question?

            Can you prove that Odin is not real? It’s a simple question. In fact, you’ve probably noticed that it’s the same question you asked me of your deity.

            So, again, I ask, can you prove that Odin is not real? Please answer the question.

            If you can’t, and reply with anything other than an honest answer to the question, I’ll simply take that as an admission that you can’t, and that you accept that Odin is just as real as your god.

          • Richard

            This will be the last time I answer. Since you and I don’t believe Odin is real, that’s all that is required.

            You don’t believe Odin is real.
            Neither do I.
            Why would I need to prove to you what you already believe? That is illogical.

            If you believed Odin was real, that would be a different matter. Do you believe Odin is real? I thought you said you believe there weren’t any gods? Have you changed your mind?

          • Paul Hiett

            Thank you for admitting that you now accept that Odin is real, since all it required was you not being able to prove that He is not.

          • Woody Chuck

            I believe that Odin is real. Can you prove that Odin is not real? Please address that question.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Since both parties agree that Odin doesn’t exist, it’s an illogical question.”

            The stupidity of your comments belies the imagination. A question is neither logical nor illogical, nor is the agreement of any parties relevant to its answer.

    • Woody Chuck

      “They admit to not believing in any gods.”

      Admit – confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance

      We atheists don’t “admit” to any such thing – furthermore, it would be redundant. Nor do we outright ask theists to prove that any imaginary gods other than theirs aren’t real. We simply ask for evidence that THEIR imaginary god is REAL.

      There’s an obvious pattern in your failure to do that. You resort to false equivocation and semantics to support your delusion and defend its obvious weakness.

  • Woody Chuck

    Richard is so threatened and insecure in his delusion that he’s attempting to defend it with a logical fallacy known as false equivocation. Rejection of faith is not, BY DEFINITION, faith.

    • Richard

      You aren’t rejecting faith. You are rejecting God. That rejection of God requires faith.

      Your logic needs work, too. And atheists call themselves logical? Rational?

      • Woody Chuck

        I, and I assume you, reject leprechauns. That requires faith (to you)?

        • Richard

          Do you believe in Leprechauns?

          • Woody Chuck

            Don’t answer my question with a diversionary question.

            I, and I assume you, reject leprechauns. That requires faith (to you)?

          • Richard

            I, as you, also don’t believe Leprechauns are real.

          • Woody Chuck

            So that’s part of your faith…

          • Richard

            Leprechauns are folklore. They never were real. No faith required to believe they aren’t real.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Leprechauns are folklore. They never were real. No faith required to believe they aren’t real.”

            God is “folklore.” He never was real. No faith required to believe they he isn’t real.

            “You have complete faith and trust that no gods, including the Christian God, exist.”

            You have complete faith and trust that no leprechauns exist.

          • Richard

            “God is “folklore.” He never was real.”

            That’s your problem. You are trying to equate a real being with an imaginary one. Your starting premise is wrong.

          • Woody Chuck

            I don’t have any premise. I reject yours.

          • Richard

            Wow. It’s no wonder your faith is blind.

      • Woody Chuck

        “You aren’t rejecting faith. You are rejecting God. That rejection of God requires faith.”

        You aren’t rejecting faith. You are rejecting Odin. That rejection of Odin requires faith.

        Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. Please explain how your rejection of Odin and my rejection of your God is faith.

        • Richard

          Both you and Paul don’t believe any gods exist, including the Christian God. Since you believe Odin isn’t real, there’s nothing else for me to prove. You are already convinced. Nothing else is required.

          I also agree, based on the evidence, Odin isn’t real.

          Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something

          You have complete faith and trust that no gods, including the Christian God, exist. Your faith is based on no evidence. That is blind faith. In other words, an illogical and unreasonable faith.

          Christians believe the one and only God is real. Our belief is based on a significant amount of evidence. Based on the evidence, ours is a logical and reasonable faith.

          I’ve stated this before. Why are you having trouble with this?

          • Woody Chuck

            You didn’t explain how your rejection of Odin is faith. You wrote ” based on the evidence, Odin isn’t real” – that conflicts with your claim that it is faith.

            I have “trouble” with your lying about definitions to support your delusion, failure to answer questions and objection about your faith, and your inability to provide any evidence for your ismgary god..

          • Richard

            You two as really confused. That may be why you don’t believe in the real God. If you can’t figure out why you are confused about this, you’re in a heap of trouble.

          • Woody Chuck

            I’m not confused – you’re intellectually dishonest.

          • Richard

            LOL You have the problem with logic and you call me intellectually dishonest.

          • Woody Chuck

            I don’t have any problem with logic. I have a problem with you making a claim for which there’s no evidence and about you lying about disbelief in your imaginary god being faith.

          • Richard

            Why would someone ask another person to prove to them something they already believe? How is that even a logical proposition?

          • Woody Chuck

            To illustrate the fallacy of your logical fallacy.

          • Richard

            Which makes the proposition even that much more illogical.

            It’s sad that that’s all atheists have to support their faith – an illogical unreasonable proposition? Doesn’t that tell you something?

          • Woody Chuck

            Your constant lies and refusal to provide evidence for your imaginary god tells me a lot about you.

          • Richard

            Not lies. Logic…which seems to escape you.

          • Woody Chuck

            So now you’re admitting that “logic” is your evidence?

          • Paul Hiett

            Richard, you don’t get it…what we think or believe in doesn’t matter. You have been asked a direct question.

            Don’t worry about what anyone else thinks or believes. Either answer the question, or admit you can’t.

            Can you prove that Odin is not real? That’s the only question you are being asked.

          • Richard

            Of course what you believe matters. If it didn’t, why would you ask me to prove something to you?

          • Woody Chuck

            Richard, you’re dishonest. It doesn’t matter in the context of the discussion.

          • Richard

            Think about it. On one hand, Paul says he wants me to prove Odin doesn’t exist. Then on the other he says his beliefs aren’t relevant. If they aren’t relevant, there’s no need to ask me to prove something to him.

            You can’t have it both ways. Either your beliefs are relevant, or there’s no need to ask someone to prove something to you (which requires your beliefs to be relevant). Did any of you take logic in school?

          • Woody Chuck

            Richard, it’s very simple for you – provide evidence, not your logical fallacies,

          • Richard

            The logic of this discussion is far over your head. And atheists call themselves intellectual free-thinkers. It’s often their lack of critical thinking skills that causes them to think themselves wise.

          • Woody Chuck

            “And atheists call themselves intellectual free-thinkers. ”

            Atheist means disbelief in gods – nothing more.

          • Richard

            A disbelief in God with zero evidence to support your belief. That is blind faith.

          • Woody Chuck

            Like your disbelief in leprechauns?

          • Richard

            No. Leprechauns were never true. No faith required.

          • Woody Chuck

            Neither is your god true.

          • Richard

            What proof do you have to support your assertion?

          • Paul Hiett

            Let’s borrow a page from your Arguing for Dummies book…

            We don’t believe in your deity, therefore we don’t need to prove it doesn’t exist. You need to prove it does.

          • Woody Chuck

            Why all of the sudden do you require proof when you refuse to provide proof for your assertion?

            My “assertion” isn’t an assertion – it’s a rejection of yours that god is “true.”

          • Richard

            None, as I suspected.

          • Woody Chuck

            None is required to reject an an assertion. It’s required to accept one.

          • Woody Chuck

            Disbelief isn’t faith, regardless of how many times you lie about it.

          • Richard

            Yes it is. To believe something to be true, most people have evidence. To believe something is false in spite of the mounds of evidence requires blind faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            Richard, it’s a simple question.

            Can you prove that Odin is not real?

          • Richard

            I’ve already answered you at least three times. Asking a silly question again isn’t going to change my answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            You haven’t answered the question once. You’ve danced and ducked and dodged around it, but you certainly haven’t answered it.

            So, again, I’m asking you, “Richard” to answer a question without worrying about what anyone else thinks or believes. All I am asking is for YOU to prove that Odin does not exist.

            Can you do that?

          • Woody Chuck

            You’re a liar – you never answered it.

          • Richard

            You should keep on reading. I’m sure you’ll come across them.

      • Paul Hiett

        Since your god doesn’t exist, I’m not too worried about rejecting it.

        • Marvelatthis

          Oh he exists alright. I’m living proof that God exists and I’ve told you why. It’s so easy for someone to deny God’s existence when things are going well. Again I’ll tell you experience has everything to do with God’s existence. Your afraid of God’s existence. It’s easy to see that, after everything you have been saying. If God exists, your life will have little meaning at the end of it because of how you choose to live your life. The path to riches is fleeting. The path to goodness and mercy lies in the hands of God. You can make claims about God and Christ all day long. It doesn’t change the fact that God does exist. What will happen is when you are faced with your own mortality and the prime time of your life is behind you, it will be a rude awakening. The great thing about God is he can wait for you. When you wake up God will be there to pick you up.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s only your opinion that he exists though. You can’t prove your deity exists anymore than someone can prove Odin or Vishnu is real. It’s a fact that all deities have the same small chance of being real, and since that is established as a fact, then no religion can claim to be better than another one, and therefore no religion should be forced upon others in our government or public schools.

          • Marvelatthis

            Proof. When you can give me an explanation of all life that exists in the Ocean today, and solve all the mysteries of this world, and you can prove the very origin (beginning of life) I’ll listen to you. I could say the same thing about Atheism. No public forum should have to listen to someone that claims there is no God. No one should have to appease an Atheist because a student brings a Bible to school, or nobody should have to sue for the right to have “under God” in the preamble at their school like the brave young woman that stood up for God in her school and won, against nutty Atheist groups. When you decide to prove knowledge you are not understanding or even privy to, you let me know.

          • Paul Hiett

            Have you heard of the “god of the gaps” argument? My guess is you haven’t.

            Essentially, it’s the argument used when someone doesn’t know how something works. Rather than look for answers, you shut your mind and attribute it to your choice of a deity.

            By the way, it’s grammatically incorrect to capitalize “atheist” or “atheism”.

          • Marvelatthis

            Now we go to God of the gaps. Oh brother what next. Atheist is a label. It has no real meaning.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Atheist is a label. It has no real meaning.”

            EXACTLY! It’s a not faith, not a religion, nor a philosophy.

          • Marvelatthis

            I see you updated your comment. I beg to differ with you, it is a philosophy. Just read some of Richard Dawkin’s books. Then state its not a philosophy. While your at it related to a religion, explain to me why an Atheist group has tried to get tax exemption for a church of non-believers believers? If its not faith, show me evidence that God is exempt from existing. Your opinion certainly isn’t shared by a number of articles that say just the opposite. How can that be?

            A study done (in Nature) written by an atheist tells this: There’s more to say here. We could turn the argument on its head: if God exists and has designed us to connect with him, then we’re actually functioning properly when we’re directed toward belief in God. We can agree that natural/physical processes partly contribute to commitment to God. In that case, the basic argument of Dawkins and Dennett could actually support the idea that religious believers are functioning decently and in order.

            On top of this, we’re left wondering why people would think up gods and spirits in the first place. Why would humans voluntarily sacrifice their lives for some intangible realm? Maybe it’s because the physical domain doesn’t contain the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning, and guidance for life. Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings; they’re able to rise above the physical and biological to reflect on it and their condition. This can result in the search for a world-transcending God.

            Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a useful fiction or, worse, a harmful delusion fall short of telling us why the religious impulse is so deeply embedded. If God exists, however, we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist.

          • Woody Chuck

            “why an Atheist group has tried to get tax exemption for a church of non-believers believers?”

            Really?! You don’t understand why?!

            “Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings; they’re able to rise above the physical and biological to reflect on it and their condition. This can result in the search for a world-transcending God.”

            You’re so far in the deep end and gasping for air that any attempt at rescue from drowning is futile.

            “What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?” – Richard Dawkins

          • Marvelatthis

            What is amazing about this article is it was written by an Atheist. Dawkins also said, mild pedophilia is ok, that anyone raped should get over it, and that any child with a defect should be aborted and try again. Who is drowning now?

          • Woody Chuck

            “Dawkins also said…” Source? Quotes?

            “Who is drowning now?”

            Huh? How are any of those things considered to be “drowning?”

          • Marvelatthis

            Do a google on Dawkins. Then look up onfaith started by a woman that was an Atheist. Your not even aware that many Atheist’s are removing themselves from the Philosophies of Dawkins now that he has made those statements. It would seem that using Dawkins as a principle for Knowledge would be “drowning” as you indicated that I was drowning because of what an Atheist article stated from a peer reviewed article in Nature related to Atheism and the remarks that the New Atheist continue to use.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Then look up onfaith started by a woman that was an Atheist.”

            Wow! One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence.

          • Marvelatthis

            LOL, it is only a part of the overall debate we are having. You call it like you want it. However, you have not shown me any information related to you’re particular claims. Only opinions. I have no need for you’re opinions of me. That also is a fallacy since you know nothing about me. And yet, you make claims that somehow you know the person that I am. I’ve heard this type of argument over and over again which is fine. Personal attacks are one of the many methods of the Atheist.

          • Woody Chuck

            “overall debate we are having”

            This is about as much a debate as one with my two year old niece about the tooth fairy.

            “Personal attacks are one of the many methods of the Atheist.”

            An observation of fact isn’t a “personal attack.”

            Atheist isn’t a proper noun.

            “related to you’re particular claims…you’re opinions of me.”

            You’re means “you are,” not “relating to or belonging to you.”

            “That also is a fallacy since you know nothing about me.”

            I was a referring to a FORMAL LOGICAL FALLACY.

            When you can elevate your “debate” and arguments to the level of at least someone with a grammar school education, then get back to me. Until then, save them for VBS class lectures.

          • Marvelatthis

            LOL your a funny guy. By the way what is up with that profile pic?

          • Marvelatthis

            Before I leave this idiotic conversation with you, I’ll let you read the rest of my two year old information. You might learn something.
            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_myths.html

          • Woody Chuck

            The difference between you and my two year old niece is that she’s honest, you’re not.

          • Marvelatthis

            Explain to me how I have been dishonest with anything I’ve said. If you can show me dishonesty I will apologize. My intent is to show you information that you can interpret on your own. You don’t have to agree with it, but everything I’ve posted to you comes from either articles, science, the Bible, and resources of varies web sites. Most of these people have PHD’s in certain fields and I find they are useful to anyone that wants to know more about the issues discussed. It is not necessary for your personal attacks as I’ve said. You don’t know me so your making assumptions without knowledge of who I am. That is not necessary. Lets stick to the issues and I will attempt not to attack you personally. If I have I’m sorry for that. However, if what I post to you makes you feel afraid, or uncomfortable let me know. I’m not your enemy. Is it possible for you to have a conversation without being demeaning?

          • Woody Chuck

            “it is a philosophy” – the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school

            What is the doctrine of so-called atheism?

          • Marvelatthis

            Do you mean agenda? That is easy. The removal of any and all representations of Christianity in public or private. It’s a futile effort but your Atheist agenda will fail. You see it over and over again. Your personal doctrine is to argue against God. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If you think you can remove God your sadly mistaken.

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL! Now you’re attempting to refine what a philosophy is in order to suit your agenda. Answer the question – what is the alleged atheism doctrine?

          • Marvelatthis

            You can choose to accept or deny my answer, but I’ve already answered the question. Is there something new you want to add?

          • Woody Chuck

            “If you think you can remove God your sadly mistaken.”

            Funny stuff! Remove an imaginary being?

          • Marvelatthis

            Lets see how imaginary God is. Even science has a take on that one.

            First, as it has been stated, it is impossible to prove that there is no God — a universal negative. But, curiously, there are only two possibilities: Either, There is a God (Theism); or, There is no God (Atheism). Intriguingly, these two possibilities are necessary contraries—If either is false, the other must be true. [Read that last sentence again]. Fascinatingly, the proposition “There is no God” is a universal negative and cannot be proven… So by deductive reasoning, we can conclude that there is indeed a God… Now, on to the 7 Proofs:
            1. Proof from First Mover (Cause of all motion and change)
            2. Proof from First Efficient Cause (Cause of all Effects;
            The Cosmological Argument)
            3. Proof from Final Cause (Cause of Purpose or Design; The
            Teleological Argument)
            4. Proof from Necessary Being (Source of all Contingent Being)
            5. Proof from Degrees of Perfection (Perfect Exemplar)
            (The 5 Proofs above are known as The 5 Ways of Thomas
            Aquinas).
            6. The Proof from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (The
            Numerator) —
            Now, here’s my favorite proof of all:
            7. The Proof from Prophecy — The Foreteller
            The A.V. 1611 King James Bible has 1,817 prophecies contained within. So far, 1,530 prophecies have been fulfilled. That is a lot of prophesies! Some are very simple one-item prophecies, and some are very complex multi-item prophecies. These prophesies are 100% fulfilled and 100% accurate! For a very well researched book on Biblical fulfilled prophesies, please check out “Encyclopedia of Bible Prophesy” by J. Barton Payne. It’s a nice several-hundred page book documenting all the fulfilled prophesies in great detail…
            Now, you do realize that secular Anthropologists and Archaeologists use the Bible to search for ancient civilizations, etc. don’t you? They sure do… scientists use the Bible for their own work! Go figure…

            You can make any claim you want to, however the claim is most probably another effort from an Atheist to make since of God. To proclaim imaginary you of course would have to conclusively provide information in which God would be imaginary.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Even science has a take on that one.”

            At first I thought you were simply intellectually dishonest, but it’s obvious that you’re outright dishonest.

            “There is no God” is a universal negative and cannot be proven…”

            LOL! That is an entirely false premise created in order to claim “by deductive reasoning, we can conclude that there is indeed a God.”

            The claim is that there is a god, not that there isn’t one! No human woke-up one day thousands of years ago and proclaimed “there is no God” any more than did someone proclaim “there are no leprechauns (or insert any other imaginary being(s)). No, there was a claim FOR them that was THEN rejected.

            It so sad that your delusion is so strong that you must resort to trickery, logical fallacies, and lies to defend it. If your god is as you claim, then he would certainly reveal himself rather than rely on incompetent mortals such as you to defend him.

          • Marvelatthis

            Again your incorrect. 441 years ago was the beginning of Atheism when a man proclaimed “there is no God” Even some 25 years ago the claim was that “God is Dead” That was on the cover of Time magazine. Delusion is a word without meaning to me since it would require me alone to have a delusion about God. As you well know there are billions of people that know that God exists. Are they having mass delusions? One thing is true, God doesn’t need evidence of his own existence lol. He has already revealed himself.

          • Woody Chuck

            “However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow, gradual,
            incremental steps. God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very,
            very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning
            of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is
            to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately
            postulating something far far more complicated than that which you
            are trying to explain.” – Richard Dawkins

          • Marvelatthis

            LOL, I’m amazed that your sticking with Dawkins. Here is another bit of information for your hero.

            But in recent months, a few of his opinions have riled many in the atheist community as well. Remarks he made on Twitter and elsewhere on subjects ranging from sexual harassment (“stop whining”) to Down syndrome fetuses (“abort and try again”) have sparked suggestions from some fellow nonbelievers that he would serve atheism better by keeping quiet.

            Bottom line: he stands by everything he has said — including comments that one form of rape or pedophilia is “worse” than another, and that a drunken woman who is raped might be responsible for her fate.

            “People like Dawkins . . . are the public face of atheism. And that public face is one that is defensively and irrationally sexist. It’s not only turning women away from atheism, it’s discrediting the idea that atheists are actually people who argue from a position of rationality. How can they be, when they cling to the ancient, irrational tradition of treating women like they aren’t quite as human as men?”

            “Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job.”

            “I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said. “And so I occasionally wax a little sarcastic, and I when I have done that, I then have subsequently discovered some truly horrific things, which is that some of the women who were the butt of my sarcasm

            Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which many credit with helping to normalize atheism with its “out” campaign, aimed at getting atheists to go public about their lack of religious faith. The foundation also works to remove the influence of religion on science education.

          • Woody Chuck

            You’re so dishonest. You can’t redefine “agenda” and “doctrine” to make your false argument.

            “Your personal doctrine is to argue against God.”

            No, that would be personal agenda. Doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

          • Marvelatthis

            Other group is consistent with Atheism. My argument isn’t false or dishonest. Again I will say your wrong. Are you denying that Freedom from religion is a group? I’m surprised at your ignorance on the subject of Atheism, seeing that your argument is based on it.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Are you denying that Freedom from religion is a group?”

            HUH?! Your ability to jump from one unwarranted comment to another is truly astounding.

          • Marvelatthis

            answer the question

          • Woody Chuck

            You’re not particular bright, are you? I did answer it by not not answering it – of course it’s a “group.” Now, what’s your point, if any?

          • Marvelatthis

            I quote: “You can’t redefine “agenda” and “doctrine” to make your false argument.” “Doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group” You asked me to explain the Doctrine of Atheism. You provided a definition. Then you state that your doctrine is not an argument against God as I stated it. Your inference is that you do not have a Doctrine related to God, but clearly Atheist’s do. I answered your question. Now what is the purpose of your attacks on me?

          • Woody Chuck

            You so mangle my comments to suit your agenda. Your dishonesty is loathsome.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, the god of the gaps argument is a very real fallacy the the religious among us like to use when they can’t explain something…such as how life began.

            Don’t know something? Attribute it to whatever deity you worship!

            Mankind has been using it for hundreds of thousands of years. Only, the gaps are getting smaller and smaller.

          • Marvelatthis

            Jeesch I know what it means. Unbelievable you continue to use these crazy assumptions. Again if you do not have knowledge or privy to knowledge stop trying to think you do.

          • Paul Hiett

            I know exactly what the “god of the gaps” argument is, and why you use it. It’s not exactly a secret.

          • Marvelatthis

            That’s true, now about the knowledge thing

          • Paul Hiett

            People used to think Thor rode around in the heavens on his chariot causing the thunder and lighting. Hawaiians used to think Pele caused volcano to erupt. Because they didn’t know the truth, this is all they had to go on. Rather than admit ignorance and simply say, “we don’t know”, they invent deities.

            Our ignorance about the beginning of life, and the creation of the universe is really no different than not knowing how earthquakes happen, or how rain storms formed. We know now about the latter, which is why no one blames Thor for lightning, or another deity for the earthquakes.

            But yet, oddly enough, since we haven’t yet proved how life began, people still want to attribute a supernatural being. I guess when it comes to religion, people really don’t learn from history.

          • Marvelatthis

            Are you saying that there is nothing about the Universe that is considered “Supernatural”? You know that for a fact am I correct, or is that only an assumption, hypothesis maybe? What about the conscious mind? What about spirituality, what about the very concept of love? You can accurately explain emotions now? Beliefs? You can explain that right?

          • Paul Hiett

            What I am saying, is that there are things we cannot know at this time; humanity doesn’t have the capability of answering these questions currently. Atheists don’t believe in deities…but they don’t claim to know this as a fact. There simply isn’t enough proof of any deity for us to choose any particular religion.

            Your problem is that whenever you encounter something you don’t know…such as the origin of life, the beginning of the universe, spirituality, etc…you simply attribute it to your choice of a deity. There’s no difference in doing that today than the lonely Roman farmer 2000 years ago cursing Jupiter.

          • Marvelatthis

            There are things that we can never know. That doesn’t exempt God from existing now does it? Nothing you have said has exempted God’s existence. Your playing semantics. Your problem is that you don’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            And nothing you have said, or Richard, can prove that any other deity, such as Odin or Vishnu, does not exist.

          • Marvelatthis

            Like I said before, when you show proof of everything in the Universe I’ll listen to you. You can’t even tell me what the concept of conscious thought means. You can’t explain to me why Jupiter is bigger than the earth. It just…….happened. Can you explain the reason that Jupiter is bigger than earth?

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me guess…because your god made it that way?

            It’s a rhetorical statement by the way.

            We already know that one of the reasons that life thrives on this planet is because the gravity and size of Jupiter pulls most of the meteors, asteroids, and comets away from their trajectories which could slam into our planet.

            We already know why our planet has thrived, for the most part…of course, some of those projectiles still hit us.

            Now, tell me all about how your choice of a deity is why Jupiter is so big.

          • Marvelatthis

            For exactly the reason you just stated. Miracle? By the very nature of its existence it is fine tuned. Very good, now tell me why would a miracle like that just happen? Could it be that we are the reason and life are the reason for Jupiter to be a protector of earth? I would say yes, God created things to protect us, his creation. Ever wonder why a huge meteor hasn’t already taken out earth. Look at the moon for example, the many times it has been struck by rocks. And yet in comparison the earth isn’t a comparison. Yes we have been hit, but it hasn’t eliminated mankind. What eliminates life on this planet is us.

          • Marvelatthis

            It’s been fun but I’ve gotta go. I have three more shots to take today and its time for number 2. Diabetes is kickin my b…..

          • Marvelatthis

            Neither can you. Does that exempt God from existing? No it doesn’t

          • Woody Chuck

            Really? Are you saying the existence of Odin and Vishnu is as possible as your God?

          • Marvelatthis

            Nope

          • Woody Chuck

            Why isn’t their existence just as possible as your God’s?

          • Marvelatthis

            Rather than to type everything out, here are some reason’s you should consider when asking that question. Hope it helps resolve the issue for you.

            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

          • Woody Chuck

            LOL! It’s not an issue for me. You obviously don’t understand that my question was rhetorical.

          • Marvelatthis

            LOL I see

          • Woody Chuck

            “if you do not have knowledge or privy to knowledge stop trying to think you do.”

            Such as knowledge of god.

          • Marvelatthis

            In Paul’s case yes. As for you I suppose we will have to see

          • Woody Chuck

            For some odd reason “Ocean” is also capitalized.

          • Woody Chuck

            “I’m living proof that God exists.”

            Actually, you’re living proof that an omnipotent god doesn’t exist.

          • Marvelatthis

            Actually your wrong lol.

          • Woody Chuck

            But you’re right?

          • Richard

            I agree with Marvel. You’re wrong.

          • Woody Chuck

            You’re agreement is irrelevant.

          • Richard

            Not at all. I concur with Marvel. That is relevant.

          • Marvelatthis

            It’s very relevant actually. To me. What is irrelevant is your statement. (smile)

          • Marvelatthis

            When it comes to knowing God how could I be wrong? You have all the answers answer that one.

  • Richard

    Paul and Woody don’t believe in any gods. Yet, they ask me to prove Odin (which is a folklore god) isn’t real. You’d think the ‘folklore’ description would be proof enough.

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      “Folklore” gods depend entirely on time and place. Odin was no folklore god 1200 years ago among the Norse.

      • Richard

        Odin is a folklore god. A fictional character. Unless you believe he exists. Do you?

        • NoCrossNoCrescent

          Like I said, folklore depends on who you ask. The Vikings certainly wouldn’t call him a folklore god.

          • Richard

            I’m asking you. Do you believe Odin is real?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            “I am asking you” is another way of saying “I can’t defend my opinion on definition of folklore, so I’ll conveniently change the subject”.

          • Paul Hiett

            He will never actually answer the question though. His problem is, he doesn’t want to be trapped in his answer, since he already established that the only criteria to prove the existence of a deity is for someone to not be able to prove it doesn’t exist.

            He just doesn’t have the integrity to admit when he’s wrong.

          • Richard

            I don’t have a problem. You have a problem with logic: asking someone to prove something you already believe.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, it is asking the other person to prove what s/he believes.

          • Paul Hiett

            This is where you fail, and it really is nothing more than a cowards way out.

            It’s a simple question, Richard. What I, or anyone else believes has no bearing on the question.

            You, and you specifically, have been asked to prove that Odin does not exist.

            Now, either you can answer that question, or you cannot.

            Thus far, all you’ve done is hide from it.

          • Richard

            It only seems like I fail because you are greatly confused.

            Asking someone to prove something you already believe is silly. And that is the foundation on which atheism is constructed: no evidence, but silly nonsensical question. Atheists have great faith.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            In reason and evidence.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just…wow.

            It’s such a simple question. The only reason you would refuse to answer it as you have done so so many times, is that you’re simply scared to admit that you can’t prove Odin doesn’t exist, therefore, by default, you accept His existence.

          • Richard

            Is Odin real? No. I agree with you.

          • Paul Hiett

            I asked you to prove that Odin is not real, just as you asked me to prove that your deity is not real. Since I could not, you then took the position that because I could not, your choice of a deity is real.

            Using the exact same argument that you yourself came up with, I asked you to prove Odin is not real.

            Since you have refused to provide any proof, you must now accept that Odin is every bit as real as your deity.

            If you insist on using the word “logic” in your argument, you might want to actually learn what “logic” means first.

          • Richard

            Is that your answer? A yes or no will do.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            How about “none of your business”? This is a question about the beliefs of the Norse civilization, not mine.

          • Richard

            Is that because you don’t know what you believe or are you afraid to tell anyone?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Is it because you are too afraid to talk about the definition of “folklore” even though YOU brought it up?

          • Richard

            That’s still not an answer. Do you have one or just more nonsense?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            I don’t have an obligation to answer any question whatsoever when you’re ducking something you yourself brought up.

          • Richard

            You mean you won’t answer because it will expose your illogical faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            Pot meet kettle. Holy crap.

          • Marvelatthis

            Apply your statement, to your statement. Correct.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, because the question itself is simply irrelevant to the issue of what a “folklore” god is.

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      I am still waiting to learn other than time and place, what makes OdinOdin, but not the god of bible/koran a “folklore” god. “Do you believe in Odin” is a cop out and doesn’t count as an answer.

    • Woody Chuck

      You’d think that Richard could simply provide evidence for his god and settle it once and for all. But in the absence of any evidence, he must resort to logical fallacies, semantics, and outright lies to defend his delusion.

      • Paul Hiett

        Richard requires that you prove his god does not exist.

        Richard then requires that you prove the existence of any other deity.

        Oddly enough, he doesn’t see the issue with this.

        • Richard

          I’ve explained it above.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, you haven’t, but at this point I am not surprised you don’t understand why.

          • Richard

            I’m not surprised you don’t understand yet.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you now admitting that you have two sets of different criteria for establishing whether or not a deity is real?

          • Woody Chuck

            He did that much before now.

      • Richard

        Do you mean you haven’t evaluated any evidence?

        • Woody Chuck

          No, I mean you haven’t provided any.

          • Richard

            It sounds to me like you haven’t evaluated any.

          • Woody Chuck

            I did. Now, back to my point – where is your evidence?

  • Richard

    The problem with the FSM, Leprechaun, and Odin questions is that they all start with an incorrect premise. They equate these imaginary and fictional characters to a real historical being. This is a mistake in logic and reason. This is why atheists often find themselves running in circles trying to figure out why their ‘argument’ is silly.

    The reality of God is already established as a matter of the historical record. To believe God isn’t real, requires them to disprove the already established facts about God…which all of them admit they can’t do.

    Because they can’t do it, their entire belief that God isn’t real – even though God has already been established as real – is based on blind faith…a belief (opinion) but not facts and evidence.

    This is why it takes great faith to be an atheist.

    • Paul Hiett

      Odin is a very “real” deity of the pantheon of Norse Gods. They were worshiped heavily for a period of time, and still are today, albeit not as widespread as it used to be.

      None the less, there are still people today that worship Odin. To these people, he is a very real deity; every bit as real as yours.

      So again, I ask, can you prove that Odin is not real?

      • Richard

        “Odin is a very “real” deity of the pantheon of Norse Gods.”

        How do you reconcile this with the fact that you don’t believe Odin is real?

        • Paul Hiett

          What is wrong with you that you can’t answer a simple question?

          What I believe doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether or not you can provide proof that Odin is not real.

          Can you? Can you prove that Odin is not real?

          • Richard

            I agree with you. Odin isn’t real.

          • Woody Chuck

            He didn’t ask you about your agreement. This is yet another example of your dishonesty.

          • Paul Hiett

            I could ask him about how well a watermelon grows in Florida and he’d come back with “Oranges aren’t watermelons”.

        • Woody Chuck

          It is reconcilable in the context of his use of quotation marks in regard to “real.”

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      What “real historical being”? Are you saying vikings were not historical?

      • Richard

        Jewish history attests to the reality of God. If you don’t believe it, you will need to disprove it not just dismiss it. Can you?

        • NoCrossNoCrescent

          Eh… What? Any more than Norse history “attests” to reality of Thor?

          • Richard

            Are you saying you belief Odin is real? Thor is real?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No, I am saying your basis for believing in god makes as much sense as Thor and Odin.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Viking history attests to the reality of Odin. If you don’t believe it, you will need to disprove it not just dismiss it. Can you?
            (And no, I don’t, because I don’t accept religious traditions as “history”.)

        • Paul Hiett

          And here we go again…you have to prove my deity doesn’t exist, while proving yours does.

          The hypocrisy here is amazing, but yet you perpetuate this illogical argument of yours still.

          • Richard

            God is already established as a historical figure. If you disagree, you will need to proof the history is wrong. Can you?

          • Woody Chuck

            Here you again – “you must prove that my god is fictional.”

          • Paul Hiett

            So is Odin. Thor. Mercury, Vishnu. Horsus. Isis. Zeus. Jupiter. I could go on…there are thousands of deities well established as “historical figures”.

            If you disagree, you will need to prove the history is wrong. Can you?

          • Richard

            I agree with you. None of them are true. Only the Christian God is true.

          • Woody Chuck

            He asked you if you can prove that history is wrong, not about your agreement or disagreement.

          • Paul Hiett

            I didn’t ask if you believed me. I didn’t ask you anything like that at all.

            I asked you, directly, whether or not you have proof that the other gods don’t exist. You still refuse to answer the question.

    • Woody Chuck

      You lying about word definitions only demonstrates your dishonesty.

      • Richard

        I haven’t lied. If you disagree with my definitions, you should look them up.

        • NoCrossNoCrescent

          Excuse me, can you please explain what you mean even by “real historical being”?

          • Richard

            Who do you think the Jews were referring to throughout their history?

            Who do you think the Christians are referring to when they talk about Jesus?

            Have you not studied Jewish and Christian history?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Islamic histories attest to the existence of the flying donkey Mohammad rode to visit god. If you don’t believe in the flying donkey, you have to disprove it. Can you?

          • Richard

            Do you believe a flying donkey? I don’t.

          • Woody Chuck

            Does that mean the flying is fictional?

          • Richard

            I don’t believe the Koran is true. All of the evidence stacks against it.

          • Woody Chuck

            What evidence?

          • Richard

            Have you studied Islam? The Koran? Muslim history?

          • Woody Chuck

            Don’t answer with diversionary questions.

            I asked you what evidence? What is your evidence that the Koran is not true?

          • Richard

            We’re not talking about Islam.

          • Woody Chuck

            I’m replying to YOUR comment: “All of the evidence stacks against it (the Koran).”

          • Richard

            That was a statement of fact. I didn’t say I was going to get into the evidence.

          • Woody Chuck

            “I didn’t say I was going to get into the evidence.”

            I don’t expect that you would, That’s how you operate.

          • Richard

            You wanted evidence, I posted links to website with a lot of evidence. It’s up to you what you do with it.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            But you believe people coming back from the dead after 3 days? I don’t.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Incidentally if only you knew how arbitrary you sound: “Do you believe a flying donkey? I don’t.” Well do you believe in a walking corpse? I don’t!

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            It is completely illogical and arbitrary on your part to believe in people coming back from the dead but not flying donkeys.

          • Paul Hiett

            And what are the Norsemen referring to in their history? What are the Indians referring to when they talk about their history? The Native Americans? The Japanese?

            Have you not studied the history of any other culture other than Jewish/Christian?

          • Richard

            Why is this a concern for you. You already said you don’t believe any of them.

            I’ve studied many histories and faiths.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then prove that Odin isn’t real. Can you?

          • Richard

            I agree with you. Odin isn’t real.

          • Paul Hiett

            Once again, I am pointing out that what I believe has no bearing on the conversation. I am pointing to a very real religion, not folklore. People today still worship Odin, thus establishing itself as a legitimate religion.

            Now, as it is a legitimate religion with a deity older than yours, do you have any proof at all that Odin is not real?

            Do you have the integrity to answer the question, or will you continue to be a coward?

          • Richard

            “I am pointing out that what I believe has no bearing on the conversation. ”

            You want me to prove to you that Odin isn’t real, yet you say your beliefs have no bearing on the conversation. If your beliefs have no bearing, then you wouldn’t need me to prove it to you…which requires your beliefs to be relevant.

          • Paul Hiett

            Once again, what I believe is not relevant to the conversation.

            If you wish to discuss what I believe, we can, in a different thread. Right now, you’ve been asked a very simple, and direct question.

            Can you, Richard, provide proof that Odin is not real.

            Please do not respond with anything other than a direct answer to that question. If you can’t then please don’t respond at all.

          • Richard

            You really don’t get this, do you?

            In order to be convinced of something, you need to engage your beliefs (to see if you agree that the notion is true or untrue). You can’t have anyone prove anything to you without engaging your beliefs.

            if you already believe something to be true, asking someone else to prove it to you is illogical. This entire notion is a contradiction.

          • Woody Chuck

            “You really don’t get this, do you?”

            I get it – you are intellectually dishonest fraud.

          • Richard

            No. Your logic is flawed.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Who do you think the Norse refer to when they speak of Thor and Odin?/Have you not studied Viking history?

        • Woody Chuck

          My research into definitions doesn’t change your intentional misuse of them

          • Richard

            How can you misuse definitions? LOL

            Your comments are showing your desperation to defend your blind faith.

          • Woody Chuck

            “How can you misuse definitions”

            By claiming that disbelief is belief, as you do.

          • Richard

            Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

            Atheists believe that it is true that God doesn’t exist.

          • Woody Chuck

            Wrong – atheists DISBELIEVE in gods. Disbelief is not belief.

          • Richard

            Are you saying you are unable to believe in God or that you believe God isn’t real?

          • Woody Chuck

            I didn’t say anything about my personal beliefs. I said disbelief is not belief, despite you lying to the contrary to support your delusion.

          • Richard

            LOL Here we go with the lying thing.

            It may seem like I’m lying, but that’s just because you are very confused.

            Disbelief means unable to. Unable to doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It just means you aren’t able to believe in God.

            This is quite different than saying God doesn’t exist.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Disbelief means unable to. Unable to doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It just means you aren’t able to believe in God.”

            Disbelief is the antonym of belief, despite your attempts to explain otherwise.

          • Richard

            I quote the dictionary’s definition. It is what it is.

            Believe means: accept something as true.
            Disbelieve means: not accept something is true.

            Neither of these say proving something is true.

          • Woody Chuck

            Finally, you admit that disbelief is not belief.

          • Richard

            I listed the two definitions. How can you not see the difference between the two?

            You believe God isn’t real. That’s not disbelieving, that’s believing the real God isn’t real. They are two different things.

          • Woody Chuck

            Yes – they are two different things! Thank you for finally admitting that!

          • Richard

            I never said they were the same. You are really confused.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Believe means: accept something as true. Disbelieve means: not accept something is true.”

            Believe means: accept god is true.
            Disbelieve means: not accept god is is true

            BY YOUR OWN EXAMPLE – rejection of god is not BELIEF.

    • Woody Chuck

      “The reality of God is already established as a matter of the historical record.”

      An alleged historical record that you refuse to reference or provide. This is why it requires great faith to be a theist – BY DEFINITION.

      • Paul Hiett

        Richard will never get it. He simply lacks the integrity to carry on a legitimate debate.

        • Woody Chuck

          He’s dishonest, as is his belief and religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve had a lot of debates with other religious folks…he’s pretty “out there” though, in comparison. Not sure if I can recall anyone so adamantly refusing to answer a simple question after they themselves asked it to begin with.

          • Richard

            Not out there. You still don’t get it. That’s a logic problem on your end.

          • Woody Chuck

            You don’t get – it’s not a “logic problem” at all.

          • Richard

            It is. You just can’t see it.

          • Paul Hiett

            You will never get him to answer a question. He expects you to answer his, but every “answer” he gives will be nothing more than a question right back at you, or a statement completely irrelevant to the conversation.

          • Richard

            I agree with all of you atheists. I don’t believe Odin is real.

          • Paul Hiett

            And like clockwork, Richard proves my point.

          • Woody Chuck

            “”Believe means: accept something as true. Disbelieve means: not accept something is true.”

            Believe means: accept god is true.
            Disbelieve means: not accept god is is true

            BY YOUR OWN EXAMPLE – rejection of god is not BELIEF.

          • Richard

            You are very confused. Maybe there’s no hope that you’ll ever get this.

      • Richard

        Alleged means without proof. This is your error. There is plenty of proof to support Jewish history. All archeological finds support the Biblical record. Most knowledgable scholars today don’t dispute Jewish history.

        There is also plenty of proof to show Jesus is a real historical figure…non Biblical as well.

        As I said earlier, atheists start out with an incorrect premise. That is the reason atheism is illogical and unreasonable.

        • Woody Chuck

          Are you saying that the Bible is NOT the word of god, but a Jewish history? For example Genesis 6:9-9:17?

          • Richard

            I thought you evaluated the evidence? If you did, you would know both are true.

          • Woody Chuck

            Both what are true?

          • Richard

            The Bible is the word of God AND Jewish history.

  • Richard

    Since most of you atheists believe there is no evidence for God, here are a few links you might find helpful:

    http://www.godandscience.org/

    http://www.reasons.org/

    http://www.tacticalfaith.com/media

    https://carm.org/

    Spend some time evaluating the evidence, then we can talk.

    Remember, denying and dismissing the evidence isn’t refuting or negating it.

    • Woody Chuck

      Because god requires websites and ancient books to reveal himself.

      • Richard

        You can find all sorts of evidence to support a belief in God.

        As I said, dismissing it doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence.

        • Woody Chuck

          “You can find all sorts of evidence to support a belief in God.”

          YES – a belief in god(s) – not for the actual existence of god(s).

          • Richard

            What’s the difference?

          • Woody Chuck

            The difference is that belief isn’t reality.

          • Richard

            With all respect, Woody, you aren’t making any sense.

            Support a belief in God means to support a belief that God is real…that his existence is real. They are one and the same.

          • Woody Chuck

            Nope – for example the Bible supports a belief in God, not that he actual exists.

          • Richard

            Not that I should have to clarify this, but believing in God means believing he exists.

          • Woody Chuck

            You obviously don’t understand the difference between evidence and belief. The Bible is no more evidence for god than you saying that he exists.

          • Richard

            I understand the difference between evidence and belief very well.

            “The Bible is no more evidence for god than you saying that he exists.”

            Your comment, however, illustrates you don’t know the difference.

    • MisterPine

      carm.org is a hate site. It’s even anti-Catholic.

      • Richard

        Not a hate site. Has some good evidence to support a belief in God.

        As I said, dismissing it doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence.

        • MisterPine

          Very much a hate site. Not to be taken seriously by Christians of a non-fundamentalist stripe.

          • Richard

            How would you know?

          • MisterPine

            Because it is well-known to be biased towards fundamentalist Christians. Go read some of their entries on Catholicism.

    • Woody Chuck

      Those are as much evidence for god as is this one http://www.catholic.org/

      Propaganda isn’t evidence.

  • Woody Chuck

    “This is why it takes great faith to be an atheist.”

    Except when Richard says it doesn’t:

    “Believe means: accept something as true.

    Disbelieve means: not accept something is true.”

    Believe means: accept god is true.

    Disbelieve means: not accept god is is true

    BY YOUR OWN EXAMPLE – rejection of god is not BELIEF. Therefore it cannot be faith.

    Faith – strong belief or trust in someone or something. : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs. : a system of religious beliefs. plural faiths

    • Richard

      Are you rejecting God, or are you saying God doesn’t exist?

      • Woody Chuck

        I’m not expressing any personal belief about God. I’m exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

        • Richard

          intellectual dishonesty: a term used by someone who doesn’t understand the discussion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Kind of like someone who refuses to answer a question they themselves ask of others?

          • Richard

            I’ve answered it too many times already. Just because you don’t like my answer, doesn’t mean it’s a non answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            When asked if you have proof that a deity does not exist, answering with “I agree with you…” is not addressing the question.

            There are only two answers…”yes” or “no”. If your answer is anything other than either of those words, then you are merely trying to avoid giving a direct answer.

            I know why you’re doing it, of course. You’re a Christian, and Christians have a hard time answering the tough questions, especially when it requires them to be honest.

            I’d ask the question again, but I already know you don’t have it in you to be honest, so I won’t waste my time.

          • Richard

            I AGREE WITH YOU. NO! I DON’T BELIEVE ODIN IS REAL.

            if you want evidence, use the evidence you used to arrive at a similar conclusion.

          • Paul Hiett

            I didn’t ask you if you believed, did I? Can you point anywhere where I asked if you believed Odin was real? Not once did I ever inquire as to whether or not you believed.

            Pay attention…close attention here now…do you have proof that Odin does not exist? I don’t care if you believe Odin is real. I don’t care if you agree with me that Odin isn’t real. I don’t care what you or I believe in regards to anything.

            All I am asking is this…the ONLY thing I am asking…is whether or not you have proof that Odin is not real.

          • Richard

            You have sufficient proof to believe Odin isn’t real, and so do I. On that we agree.

          • Woody Chuck

            The LACK OF evidence for Odin is EXACTLY the same as for your God, and for all the other gods that you reject.

          • Richard

            There is sufficient evidence that Odin is a fictional character…as most people believe today. That’s why Odin is classified as ‘folklore’ and not real.

          • Woody Chuck

            “There is sufficient evidence that Odin is a fictional character”

            What evidence?

          • Richard

            The same evidence you arrived at to believe that Odin isn’t real. You did use evidence, didn’t you?

          • Woody Chuck

            Just as you don’t understand that disbelief isn’t belief, you don’t understand belief isn’t evidence.

          • Woody Chuck

            Your comments are evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

          • Woody Chuck

            “I DON’T BELIEVE ODIN IS REAL.”

            At least you didn’t write that you believe he doesn’t exist, thus invalidating your illusion that disbelief = belief. When you are honest in your replies, well, you’re honest.

          • Woody Chuck

            “intellectual dishonesty: a term used by someone who doesn’t understand the discussion.”

            Says Richard, the person who wrote “Are you rejecting God, or are you saying God doesn’t exist?” in reply to a comment about him (Richard).

          • Richard

            “Are you rejecting God, or are you saying God doesn’t exist?”

            That is correct. They are two different questions.
            1. Rejecting God means to dismiss as inadequate, not to your taste.

            2. Believing God doesn’t exist means you don’t believe he is real.

            This is an example of what Woody says is intellectual dishonesty. As I said, he thinks it’s dishonest because he doesn’t understand the discussion.

  • Woody Chuck

    Richard – Support a belief in God means to support a belief that God is real…that his existence is real. They are one and the same.

    To Richard, belief and reality are the same.

    • Richard

      As I said, with respect, your critical thinking skills are wanting.

      • Woody Chuck

        My thinking skills aren’t the issue.

  • Richard

    Well, it’s been fun chatting with you all. Time to go. I’ve left some good resources for you to check out that have a lot of evidence that supports a belief in God.

    But one thing to keep in mind is that generally, believing in God isn’t a matter of evidence, but a matter of the will. All of the evidence in the world isn’t going to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

    God reveals himself to people who want to genuinely know him. He has revealed himself to multiple billions of people over the years, including me. I know God is real. No faith required for me.

    If you really want to get to know the real living God, seek him with a sincere heart. Ask him to reveal himself to you. He will if you are sincere.

    But he generally doesn’t if you aren’t sincere.

    There is so much evidence to make an informed decision, no one has an excuse not to. The ball is in your court.

    • Paul Hiett

      No Richard, the ball is in your court to answer the question.

      Do you have proof that Odin is not real. It’s a yes or no question, Richard, not one of “do you agree with me”.

      I trust you understand the difference?

      • Richard

        I’ve always understood it. You were the one having trouble.

    • Woody Chuck

      “God reveals himself to people who want to genuinely know him.”

      To the point of delusion.

      • Richard

        Do you think all of the NT writers were delusional, and all of the multiple billions of people since Christ were delusional…and the 2 plus billion people today who know Christ?

        That’s quite a delusion.

        Yet, so few don’t believe. Could it be the few are deluded instead? Me thinks so!

        • Woody Chuck

          What about the 2/3 of the world’s population who aren’t xians?

          • Richard

            That is their choice. This is the reason Jesus said the gate to heaven is narrow and the road to destruction wide…not because of anything other than man’s sinfulness and desire to be his own god, similar to the father they follow, satan.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Yet, so few DON’T believe”

            Actually, it’s that SO MANY don’t believe as you do.

            It’s funny how that two billion people was somehow significant until you were notified it’s only 1/3 of the Earth’s population. According to your bandwagon fallacy, you’re in the delusional group.

          • Richard

            The Christian faith is the most popular on earth. All the rest of the two thirds are split up into ALL of the remaining beliefs. Atheism accounts for almost the least.

          • Woody Chuck

            “The Christian faith is the most popular on earth.”

            The MAJORITY of the population rejects your brand of delusion. So according to your logical fallacy, YOU must be mistaken in your choice.

        • Woody Chuck

          From poor logical Richard, here’s another one – the bandwagon fallacy, aka Appeal to Popularity, Argument by Consensus, Argumentum ad Populum, Authority of the Many.

    • Woody Chuck

      “He has revealed himself to multiple billions of people over the years, including me.I know God is real. No faith required for me.”

      Richard, who previously argued for god in the context of LOGIC now reverts to ANOTHER logical fallacy – Misleading vividness.

      Regardless, if that’s enough for him, that’s his business. But his delusion doesn’t belong in the public schools.

      • Richard

        You’re still having trouble with this all. That’s okay. Keep working at it. Sometimes these things take time.

        • Woody Chuck

          “You’re still having trouble with this all.”

          This isn’t about me. Try to stay on topic rather than avoid your failure to demonstrate any support for your delusion.

          • Richard

            God gave us many ways that we could know he alone is God. The most obvious is the arrival and life of Jesus.

            Most knowledgable historians today don’t dispute Christ was real. The question is, what Jesus really God, as he said he was, or was he crazy.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Most knowledgable historians today”

            Source?

          • Richard

            Ask a knowledgeable historian, not a skeptic. The historical record is solid. And so are the non biblical historians who wrote about Jesus.

            Did you know that Christ has the closest close-dating attestations of most histories at the time?

            Scholars place the NT writers to have written about Christ to within 30 years of Christ. For example, many of the Pauline letters were written and circulated by 51 AD. That is a mere 17 or so years after Christ.

            To put this into context, the first major documentation about Alexander the Great happened 300 years after he died. The next was historian who wrote about Alexander the Great was 425 – 450 years after he lived. To have a historical document written and well circulated within 17 years is exceptional and not typical of recorded history at that time.

            The Bible has been attacked since 200 AD. Yet, it remains solid after all this time for good reason. It is reliable and true.

    • Woody Chuck

      “But he generally doesn’t if you aren’t sincere.”

      All hail the apostle Richard who knows the mind of God.

      • Richard

        You can know the mind of God too. That’s why God gave us a book about him…so that humans could know him.

        • Woody Chuck

          And TV evangelists and internet websites – some god. It’s funny how in the good old Bible days he was performing miracles, but now he relies on nuts like you to pimp him.

          • Richard

            God is still in the miracle ‘business.’ But you need to know him so you can recognize his miracles.

            Knowing God is like any relationship. If you don’t know him, you won’t know he exists. I didn’t encounter you until today, but that didn’t mean you didn’t exist. But that I didn’t know that until today.

          • Woody Chuck

            “Knowing God is like any relationship.”

            Except that ACCORDING TO YOU, a book is required – “That’s why God gave us a book about him…so that humans could know him.”

          • Richard

            God gave us the Bible so that we could know him. Like any relationship, the more you know about a person, the better the relationship. He knows you intimately. He wants you to know him that way too. But as I said, that decision is up to you. He is available should you want a relationship with him.

        • Woody Chuck

          “You can know the mind of God too.”

          The mind of a maniacal murderer – no thanks.

          • Richard

            You really don’t know God. There’s a book you may want to read. It’s called “Is God A Moral Monster.” It addresses your question.

            It’s not that God is a ‘maniacal murderer’ but that you don’t understand why God did the things he did. This is a ‘your understanding problem’ not a ‘God’ problem.

            If you want to broaden your understanding, that’s a good resource.

          • Woody Chuck

            “You really don’t know God.”

            But Pope “not delusional” Richard does.

          • Richard

            Nope. I’m just another person who encountered God many years ago. As I said, over 2 billion people today know him as I do.

            God wants you to know him too. He loves you as much as he loves all the rest of us. But he won’t force himself on you. As he says, he stands at your door and knocks, but you have to want to let him in. That decision is up to you.

          • Woody Chuck

            “That decision is up to you.”

            And NOT public school officials.

          • Richard

            God wants everyone to know him. That is his desire. But as I said, he doesn’t force himself on anyone. If he did, what kind of relationship would that be?

            Love only flourishes when it is given freely.

            Did you know, God is the author of love? Without him, there won’t be any. All of us know the desire of love because God first loved us. Those that don’t choose him will be separated from love. Not because he doesn’t want to offer it, but because he honors the requests of people who choose to reject him.

          • Woody Chuck

            “God is the author of love? Without him, there won’t be any”

            Source?

          • Richard

            Have you ever wondered why life feels kind of empty? Have you ever thought you were missing something somewhere?

    • Woody Chuck

      “But one thing to keep in mind is that generally, believing in God isn’t a matter of evidence, but a matter of the will.”

      AKA – faith.

      • Richard

        Satan knew God yet rejected him because satan wanted to be God. It’s not always about faith.

  • BarkingDawg

    So what’s the big deal. The principal was in violation of the establishment clause.

    • Woody Chuck

      Yes, it’s cut and dried that he was, and therefore the violation was resolved.

  • Woody Chuck

    Richard – “All archeological finds support the Biblical record.” “The Bible is the word of God AND Jewish history.”

    This is yet another fabrication by Richard. As usual, he provides no evidence to support his claim when, in fact, there is much scholarly debate about the historicity of the Bible.

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      Hector Avalos, professor of biblical languages at Iowa State, puts it best: biblical archaeology lies in ruins, be it literally or metaphorically.

      • Richard

        Hector is greatly mistaken. ALL of the archeological discoveries to date corroborate the accounts in the Bible. To suggest otherwise, well, is plain lying.

        • NoCrossNoCrescent

          You might want to look up an example before you make accusations.

  • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

    If you have REAL faith you shouldn’t need the government to prop up your religion. Secularism is for grownups.

    • Paul Hiett

      Maybe the Principal was worried the indoctrination process at home wasn’t good enough for the students, and he was just helping the parents out.

      • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

        Yeah, that’s always a potential problem. ;^]

    • Woody Chuck

      Nor tax breaks.

    • Richard

      Not for grown ups, but for self-worshipers.

      • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

        Thank you for your heavily-researched informed reply!

  • ValerieWagner

    Why does Dan Noll ‘preach’ from the Bible at all, being an educated man he should know better. You open the door to one belief(or religion) you got to let them ALL in, including Satin worshipers. Think about that while you claim Christianity is under attack. You can teach values without religion. It is the dogma that religious people love. To me that’s scary.

    • Paul Hiett

      Do Satin worshipers wear satan sheets?

      • BarkingDawg

        Do Statin worshipers have low blood pressure?

      • ValerieWagner

        haha Paul, perhaps. Either way it’s a slippery business.

        • BarkingDawg

          Not for the velourites.

          • ValerieWagner

            Your right, the nap is shorter.

  • ValerieWagner

    One ‘GOD’ to rule them and in the darkness bind them. An unwise principal started this silly debate. “Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus(c.341-to c.270 BC) It is an old debate, religion was created to understand the world and to rule people. Worship as you please, just keep it out of public schools. Our founding fathers wished it and so do I.

    • Richard

      Nonsense. Religion is the quest for the God we all know is real. But man is evil so he tries to make God into the image we want rather than who He really is. Today, people are trying to make themselves God, which is the same reason satan fell. The apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

  • Richard

    Over 2000 years ago, Jesus summed up this situation nicely (and some people say the Bible isn’t true):

    “He who believes in Him [Jesus] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” – John 3:18-20

    • Paul Hiett

      Yeah, well, he also said he’d be coming back. How’d that work out?

      • Richard

        God said he was sending a Messiah almost 1000 years before Jesus arrived. Just because Jesus hasn’t come back yet, doesn’t mean he’s not going to. He is waiting for every possible person to choose him before he returns for the final judgment.

        God also said he was going to punish the Jews for their rebellion. He warned them for hundreds and hundreds of years. People also said, “Where is your God? He’s not coming!” Yet, as God predicted, they did experience the destruction that he warned them about.

        God always follows through on what he says he’ll do. It’s never a matter of if, but always a matter of when.

      • Reason2012

        It worked out by you doing exactly what would happen before He returned:

        2 Peter 3:3-9 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation’.

        For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

        But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

  • Truthhurts24

    Principal can no longer quote the bible from intercom its offensive but teachers can teach children that other beliefs are true and homosexuality is normal. This country is going to collapse big time a house divided against itself shall not stand.

  • Parque_Hundido

    The principal should be fired, it’s as simple as that.

  • Bryan R. Eyman

    Once again a capitulation to a FALSE understanding of the First Amendment. No particular Church, Mosque, Synagogue or Temple was established by this activity. Our schools are NOT atheistic, they are not to be anti-religious expression. Perhaps the Principal should read quotations from our Presidents where they quote from the Bible. Then maybe the fascistic Atheists will have their heads blow up from their high blood pressure

  • Jesop Ash

    let’s be blunt, when a principle quotes a section of the bible that is devoted to Wisdom, namely the book of Proverbs, the only reason anyone would want to silence him is because they can’t stand to hear the wisdom of King Solomon. They are the very sort of self destructive fools that Solomon warns us about in that book and tells us to stay away from. They may have gotten their way but if the students are wise those atheists will not have too many friends.

  • Reason2012

    The places where_islam is taught these “atheists” do not care, proving it’s only the truth of Christ they hate.

    John 15:18-19 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

    • K-9

      If you alert the FFRF to an administrator promoting Islam in a public school, I guarantee they’ll be on that like white on rice.

      • Reason2012

        It’s well known and public record – easier to hear about that then a Ten Commandment display at one school that they go rabid over.

        • K-9

          *sigh* “Link?” he asks, with a sense of looming dissemblance.

          • Reason2012

            Before I show you, are you claiming there’s no such case? You googled islam_school and found nothing? Just want you on record as pretending it does not happen before you’re clearly shown it does and you do not say a word about it.

          • K-9

            I am not claiming knowledge that there is or is not such a case.
            I will Google it only if you provide specific details such as the name of a school, teacher, or location and date that can be used to search.
            If you can show me that a public school in the United States is promoting Islam as a religious faith or teaching the Q’uran or hadiths as objective truth, I will not only admit it, I will be outraged by it and forward the details to the FFRF myself.
            My expectation is that you will point to a school teaching students about Islam, muslim holidays, or the Arabic language and pretend that it is equivalent to the Christian scripture readings described in the article.

          • Reason2012

            I am not claiming knowledge that there is or is not such a case.

            Yet when I said there was your response?

            “Link?” he asks, with a sense of looming dissemblance

            You’re being disingenuous.

            I will Google it only if you provide specific details such as the name of a school, teacher, or location and date that can be used to search.

            I.e., you’re back to pretending it doesn’t exist. So you admit it happens?

            Google islam public school – be flooded with citations.

            It’s even in the textbooks. So where’s your rage?

            Notice that the FFRF does NOTHING about it. Why is that?

          • K-9

            I am not claiming knowledge that there is or is not such a case.

            Yet when I said there was your response?

            “Link?” he asks, with a sense of looming dissemblance

            Yes. You made an assertion I found unlikely. I asked you for evidence your assertion was true.

            You’re being disingenuous.

            How so? I have asked you to back up a claim. I am reserving judgement until I see evidence of your claim.

            I.e., you’re back to pretending it doesn’t exist. So you admit it happens?

            I cannot follow your line of thinking here.
            I am not pretending anything. I am not admitting anything. I do not know if the situation to which you alluded has happened or not. I would be very surprised and upset if it did. I would very much like to know.

            Google islam public school – be flooded with citations

            Firstly, a Google search returns text string references from public web servers, not citations. Secondly, I will not pore over results from the search of three generic terms and attempt to tease out the event to which you are referring. Please, tell me where this is happening and who is doing it. I will take up the search from there. This should not be an onerous task if, as you say, “it’s well known and public record.”


            It’s even in the textbooks.

            What is the name of this textbook? In what schools is this textbook being used?


            where’s your rage?

            Notice that the FFRF does NOTHING about it. Why is that?


            I expect that the explanation for the FFRF’s inaction is the same as that for my lack of outrage. Neither it nor I have any reason to believe it is happening.

            If we are mistaken, by all means, convince us otherwise.

          • Reason2012

            Yes. You made an assertion I found unlikely. I asked you for evidence your assertion was true

            So as I said, you think it’s not true and please ignorance of it. As you said:

            I am not claiming knowledge that there is or is not such a case.

            Again you’re being disingenuous.
            So you do the search see the links and still pretend it’s not happening.
            And no, FFRF is doing nothing about it – islam is making it’s way into schools and textbooks while Christianity is being hatefully attacks, which exposes the real motive here having nothing to do with some fake claim of being again religion – they are against only ONE thing: Christianity.

          • namelessghost

            Yes, the public schools teach about Islam. They also teach about Judaism, Greek and Roman mythology, Brahmanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reason. It’s called History / Social Studies class, and it’s very different from proselytizing the beliefs of ONE religion over the school’s PA system.

          • Reason2012

            No, they are teaching about islam, what it says, it’s claims. If you do that in classrooms with Christianity, outrage ensues. And it’s far more than that – fascinating how you defend them teaching islam in school and have them practicing it as well.

            Oh, so now it’s only bad if they use the “PA system”. Great -we’ll start putting the gospel in text books and teach it to all kids and just remind them to not use the PA system.

            http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/11/colorado-public-school-girls-must-wear-hijab-on-field-trip-to-mosque/

            http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/09/colorado-public-school-forces-girls-to-follow-islamic-dress-code-on-a-school-field-trip-to-a-mosque/

            Let’s dress kids up as nuns and have them go on a field trip to a church – and imagine the outrage.

            Yet here you are defending them teaching islam in public schools, going on field trips to mosques, getting hten to dress like muslims -but you are perfectly fine with it.

            Thank you for proving my point: religion is not the issue: it’s hatred of Christianity, Christians, Christ and God.

            Your behavior contradicts your words: you support islam being taught in schools and the FFRF does nothing as well. Keep supporting those field trips to mosques dressed as muslims too, then tell me you think religion does not belong in public schools.

            Take care – you clearly have no interest in being honest on the topic – but others will see the hypocrisy of atheists and the FFRF foundation and for that I thank you.

          • namelessghost

            Way to go off the deep end there, Reason. Wow.

            Please pry yourself from the ceiling, take a deep, calming breath and try to pay attention. I’m going to explain something to you so if you could refrain from going into hysterics that would be great.

            First of all, I’m not “defending them teaching Islam in public schools and practicing it as well” because that’s not what they’re doing. If they were, I’d have a problem with it, so stop pretending you know anything about me.

            Now, about your links… those field trips were not mandatory. Parents had to sign a consent form if they wanted their children to attend. If they had a problem with it they could have easily said no. And they weren’t only visiting a mosque; they were also visiting a Greek Orthodox Church and a Jewish Temple. Fascinating that you’re not outraged about either of those parts of the field trip. And you say atheists are the hypocrites…

            By they way, atheists don’t hate Christ and God; they simply don’t believe in Christ and God.

          • Reason2012

            Pointing out the truth is going off the deep end? How so?

            It seems you need for me to be upset. Unfortunately for you, I’m not upset at all – just pointing out what you ignore and exposing the double standard you have.

            No, you’ve been shown how they’re teaching islam and how you don’t do anything about it, but in fact how you stumble over yourself to justify it: double standard you have.

            They dress kids up in their religious garbs, take them on field trips to mosques, have them pray. And again you say nothing.

            “If they were, I’d have a problem with it” – you’ve been shown that they are, and you have yet to even express that you have a problem with it – in fact you defend it “Well, it wasn’t mandatory” “Well, they could say no”

            And yet if people even mention God or the Bible, people like you will rage, which just exposes the utter hypocrisy.
            Thank you for proving my point by spending part of your post justifying them teaching islam, justifying it being ok to have field trips to mosques, having them wear religious clothing, having them partake in prayer. You were shown it’s in textbooks and you ignore that as well.

            It’s not surprising you’re being disingenuous and I didn’t expect you to admit it – but others will see the blatant hypocrisy and that’s the reason I post it.

            Take care.

          • namelessghost

            Pointing out the truth? lol The only thing about truth that you’re pointing out is your inability to recognize it. You may not like what I’m saying, but I haven’t said anything to you that wasn’t true.

            “You were shown it’s in textbooks and you ignore that as well.”

            I think you must be confusing me with someone else. In the two comments you’ve made to me, you haven’t said anything about textbooks.

            And yes, I’d call your reaction to my initial post “going off the deep end.” You immediately got all snarky and defensive and then started telling me what my views and motivations are, as if we’d been going back and forth about this for weeks. And all because I said that public schools teach about many different religions as part of History / Social Studies class. Which they do.

            Here’s an example of what they teach about Christianity in grades 6-8 (from the California Department of Education website):
            * the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (e.g., belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).

            * read and discuss stories about the Creation, Noah, the Tower of Babel, Abraham, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, Ruth and Naomi, David, and Daniel and the Lion’s Den; selections from the Psalms and Proverbs; and the Hebrew people’s concepts of wisdom, righteousness, law, and justice.

            * the rise and spread of Christianity and of its origins in the life and teachings of Jesus.

            * the teachings of Jesus such as the Sermon on the Mount and the parables of the Good Samaritan, the lost sheep, and the Prodigal Son.

            * Christianity’s belief that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled Old Testament expectations of the Messiah; and its faith that in His Crucifixion and Resurrection, Jesus Christ reconciled the world to God so that, through forgiveness of sin, the eternal life of God could now flow into the lives of human beings.

            And here’s an example of what they teach about Islam:
            * the origins of Islam and the life and teachings of Muhammad

            * the significance of the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the primary
            sources of Islamic beliefs, practice, and law, and their influence in
            Muslims’ daily life.

            * the social structure of the Ottoman Empire and the geographic conditions that facilitated the expansion of Islam.

            * Islam’s belief that God’s will has been given final expression in the Koran in words revealed to the last and the greatest of the prophets, Mohammed; and its observances of the “Five Pillars of Islam”

            Feel free to look it up for yourself. You’ll also be able to see what they teach about the other religions that I mentioned. Or you could just keep pretending that you already know everything.

          • Reason2012
  • Orhan Orgun

    What a wonderful result! A win-win. The only bit of sadness is that this is somehow seen as a victory for an atheist organization, instead of something great for all of us.

  • FoxFireInferno

    As it should be! Separation of church and state, people. A school is for education, not indoctrination, and not for telling stories from a book of fairy tales!

  • Mark

    Pastafarians should rule in school. All kids love spaghetti.

  • Jesop Ash

    As I said before I was deleted, the only sort of person that would complain about listening to Proverbs is the sort of person that is offended by a book that is devoted to Wisdom, to wit a fool by default of opposition. That book warns us about those who hate Wisdom as being the sort of self destructive influence that you want to avoid.