Presidential Candidate John Kasich: ‘I Don’t Read a Bible to Figure Out What I Think’

KasichCINCINNATI, Ohio — Republican presidential candidate John Kasich stated during an interview that aired nationally on Sunday that he doesn’t “read a Bible to figure out what [he] thinks.”

Kasich was being interviewed by CNN’s Dana Bash for the network’s “State of the Nation” broadcast.

“You talk a lot about that your faith guides you, and specifically it guided you in your decision to accept Medicaid dollars,” Bash stated. “You talk about the fact that when you die, you’re not going to be asked at the pearly gates if you cut enough government spending, but did you help people who need it most.”

“Beyond Medicaid domestically, where else does that principle guide you and your policies?” she asked.

“I think it relates to early childhood education, poor kids [and] people who are in prison—giving them a chance to get their lives back if they want to earn their way there,” Kasich, the governor of Ohio, replied.

He then added a disclaimer that he didn’t need the Bible to come to a conclusion about accepting the Medicaid expansion provision in Obamacare.

“I didn’t read a Bible to decide that,” Kasich said. “I knew that number one, we would save money by taking people out of prison and letting them get a job where they could become a taxpayer. … But secondly, there’s a morality of, why would we want to lock a schizophrenic or a bi-polar person in a prison cell? That’s not what America is.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The Republican presidential candidate then provided further clarification about Bash’s statement.

“I don’t read a Bible to figure out what I think … and I don’t question anybody else’s [motives],” he said. “I just have a heart for people who have been disabled or disadvantaged and I care about them.”

During the interview, Kasich also commented that he believes that Americans need to diversify their battles. He opined that same-sex “marriage” is “kind of off the table” at this point, and so some citizens are now only focused on one issue.

“I think [abortion] is an important issue, but I think there’s many other issues that are really critical: early childhood, infant mortality, the environment, education,” he said. “I think we focus too much on just one issue, and now that the issue of gay marriage is kind of off the table, we’re kind of down to one social issue.”

As previously reported, Kasich, an Anglican, drew concerns earlier this month when he revealed during the first Republican presidential debate that he recently attended the “gay wedding” of his friend, citing “strong faith” and “God’s unconditional love” as factors in doing so.

“Look, I’m an old-fashioned person here and I happen to believe in traditional marriage,” Kasich replied to a question from Fox’s Megyn Kelly about what he would do if one of his children came out as a homosexual since he personally opposes same-sex nuptials. “But I’ve also said that the court has ruled … and I said we’ll accept it.”

He then noted that although he has personal beliefs about marriage, he still attended the ceremony of a homosexual friend.

“[G]uess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay,” Kasich explained. “Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or I can’t love them.”

The Ohio governor said that “strong faith” requires doing so.

“So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith,” he stated.

Kasich asserted that the issue of same-sex “marriage” is divisive.

“Issues like that are planted to divide us,” he said. “I think the simple fact of the matter is—and this is where I would agree with Jeb, and I’ve been saying it all along—we need to give everybody a chance, treat everybody with respect, and let them share in this great in this great American dream that we have, Megyn.”

“So, look, I’m going to love my daughters. I’m going to love them no matter what they do,” Kasich continued. “Because you know what? God lives me unconditional love. I’m going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me.”

/center>

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
  • staad

    and the science teachers know better? o c’mon. unless they were eye-wtinesses to the so-called evolution, it will always remain a fantasy.

    • Jim H

      Moses supposed wrote the first five books of the Bible. He wasn’t an eyewitness to anything in Genesis. Does that mean Genesis is a fantasy?

      • Reason2012

        If they were calling the Bible science, you’d have a point. You only seem to understand what science is when it comes to anything but the mythology of fish to man evolutionism.

        • Jim H

          Have you ever heard of creation science? It calls the Bible just that. The intelligent design movement does the same thing, but it is sneakier about it.
          You seem to not understand evolutionary science at all, because no one who did would characterize it in terms of “fish to man”.

          • Reason2012

            If fish to man evolutoin is science, then any belief about the origin of biological diversity of life could be called science. But the fact is the topic is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

            So you still plead ignorance that they claim fish of the past were our ancestors? “Fish to man” is precisely what they believe (populations, over generations, via amphibians of the past, then reptiles of the past, then mammals of the past and so on). And calling it that makes it clear what we’re addressing.

          • Jim H

            Any belief about the origin of biological diversity could be called science if it relied on empirical evidence and natural, rather than supernatural, causes and explanations. So something like creation “science” isn’t science.

            I do not deny that scientists believe that fish were our ancestors, but it didn’t happen over generations. It happened over hundreds of millions of years. Fish are thought to have appeared 500 million years ago. Modern man emerged about 200 thousand years ago. The transition took close to 500 million years to happen. Talking about a fish to human evolution just seems disingenuous considering the huge time frames involved.

            Google has a timeline of human evolution based on studies from anthropology, paleontolgy, developmental biology, morphology, and from anatomical and genetic. It presents one possible line of evolutionary descent of species that eventually led to humans.

    • Nofun

      Seen Jesus lately….. unless they were eye-wtinesses to the so-called jesus, it will always remain a fantasy.

      Evolution has dated fossils and genetics.

  • TheBBP

    Good on the parents for taking a stand.

    • Nofun

      Fighting reality is pointless.

  • Carol Cantell Moorby

    We who do know God and his son Jesus personally never have to defend that.Dead spirits can NOT understand spiritual things…..Its foolishness to them the bible teaches us. mockers will never listen anyway..don’t waste your precious time on them. If they don’t receive you dust off your shoes and move on God tells us!,It is a fact that we are casting our pearls before swine when we try to explain. All those. Who,deny him and mock him Will miss heaven and burn in hell for eternity.Thats their choice.There will be a judgment day and they will be sorry they made fun of our God! They areole in spirit and lost!

  • Kelly Samuelson

    Wow, it amazes me how the one religion athiests fight against the most is one they claim they don’t believe in. Our job as Christians is not to force you to believe in God. Our job is to plant the seed and let you know He is there, and then love you regardless of your choice.

    • Jim H

      Many people who accept evolution identify as Christians and believe in theistic evolution, some even believe it completely natural evolution. Since the majority of Americans (around 60%) accept some form of evolution, and only something like 3 or 4% of Americans identify as atheists. There are a lot of folks out there who believe in both God and evolution.

      • Kelly Samuelson

        I’m not saying there is no evolution. But everything coming from one little single-celled organism is not accurate. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes, for example, can all have the same ancestor. They all look like dogs. A bird and a mouse, however, do not have similar ancestors. And humans DID NOT evolve from apes!!! If we did, why do we not see wild-men walking out of the jungle every now and then? Evolution within its own species is possible, but create a whole new species is not

        • Nofun

          That s Evolution. Evolution is about speciation. The origins of life is abiogenesis … they aren’t the same thing.

        • Jim H

          “But everything coming from one little single-celled organism is not accurate.”

          I don’t think Darwin ever proposed that everything came from one little single-celled organism. Although that might be a logical assumption.

          “Dogs, wolves, and coyotes, for example, can all have the same ancestor. They all look like dogs. A bird and a mouse, however, do not have similar ancestors.”

          Then why do the bird and mouse have common DNA?

          “And humans DID NOT evolve from apes!!! If we did, why do we not see wild-men walking out of the jungle every now and then?”

          You are correct men did not evolve from apes. We pretty much are apes and we share a common ancestors. We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago.
          I’m not sure what you mean by wild-men, but I think the answer is–for the same reason we don’t see wooly mammoths roaming around.

        • Nofun

          Why is that so hard to believe but Adam and rib girl makes total sense?

          We know that amino acids form naturally and have even observed them in space. Amino acids are the building blocks of DNA and RNA.

          Further more we know mitochondria have their own DNA suggesting they were a separate organism.

          Science does not know yet for sure about origins …. but what we don’t know does not invalidate what we do know … The question is beyond science at all.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            You say we are the close-minded ones, but what do you call yourself when you can’t even consider the possibility of a greater being at work?
            So you believe we are here by accident? There is no real purpose for people? When we die, that’s it, we are just dead? That must be terrible to live a life with no purpose, I can’t imagine that feeling. I am so sorry for you. I’ll pray for you

          • Nofun

            I can imagine a lot crazy non-existent things … that doesn’t make them real. When these higher magic higher beings show one piece of evidence of their existence and actually talk, I will listen.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            God talks all the time, you just aren’t listening

          • Nofun

            Not really, hey. So you have actually heard words in your head that were not your normal human duality.

            You attribute things to a god. God answering prays is just apart of the delusion .. you know that isn’t true.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            It’s not so much that you hear some disembodied voice in your head, it’s more a feeling of him talking to your spirit. It’s different for everyone though.

            God has answered many prayers for me, and He is absolutly in the business of doing just that. Now, we can argue from now till the day Jesus comes back and raptures his church and you will never budge from your stance nor will I from mine. God wants you in the worst way, but he’s not gonna chase you or force you, that isn’t his style. You can live your life however you choose and believe what you want, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Amen!

          • Nofun

            A feeling. Well that would attribution wit plenty of priming.

            If you believe that god answers prayers then you are primed to expect that and lo and behold you have a ‘feeling’ that god did.

            But a feeling is not really an answer, What can yo do with a feeling? You can’t use it to decide anything ….which leaves you with seeing how things turn out and again attributing good outcomes to god and bad ones to some failing on your part. That is treating god as a good luck charm.

            You should budge as you are wasting the only life you get pretending to be someone you are not. Being wise after your dead will not help …

            You see god is the least important thing in religion. Its about souls and the afterlife. Take away that and he can’t eternally harm or reward you …..and since he don’t see large faces in the sky or booming voices we know god doesn’t directly act in this world …. so again you are left with seeing how events turn out to see if god approves of your choices or not. Thus again god is reduced to a lucky charm.

            All religion has to do is convince you have a soul. This seeming benign belief posits an afterlife and all the religious rituals and circus acts that get your soul into the good afterlife.

            God is just the ring master of the afterlife circus …. he look like he is in charge but as we know the ring master does nor own the circus.

            The essence of the soul belief trick is more sinister than that though and boils down to one thing … death. A chrisitian who believes in souls, afterlives and gods believes he will live on after his death … which sounds like a good thing right. You are missing the trick though.

            To believe that you must believe that you will experience your own death … that is being torn away from everything you know or love,,, is it any wonder you would want to grab on to ‘their’ god to cushion that horror. As with many things religious .. religion creates a problem that does not exist and posits itself as the solution.

            The good atheist, or rather realist, knows there is no evidence of souls, gods, or afterlives. Thus he knows he will not ‘experience’ his death … the only thing he/she will experience at the end is the last moments of their lives … and life is nothing to fear even if you wanted to.

            You deserve better than wasting the only life you get being someone you are not. Beliefs in souls and afterlives requires you to constantly do things in this life to attain them. In this way the afterlife eats your real life.

            As soon as you believe in an afterlife you real life is devalued to just some temporary place to mark time in before your better and infinitely longer after life begins. That sense of urgency to live your life as yourself dies as immortals are never in a rush.

            The realist treats every moment of the only life he gets as precious .. there is no time to pretend to be someone else or pointlessly mark time. Death is your adviser on all things … the question being ” If were die today would I waste my time doing ‘this”.

            Here endth the lesson … Ahhh men ….and women.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            You certainly fight very hard against something you don’t believe in. You don’t believe in Santa, but I bet you don’t go around telling every toddler he doesn’t exist either. Why such an attack against God if He’s not real?

          • Nofun

            Actually given the chance I would tell every toddler to not believe in things without evidence. Faith in things without evidence should be discouraged from infancy. It is a bad thing.

            Unfortunately his followers are real and they tend to meddle in govt, science, education, civil rights, medicine and law …. and use their god an excuse … at such times it must be pointed out to them that their god does not exist and that their bible is morally realtive.

            I don’t attack faith constructs … what would be the point. I do try to save people from wasting the only life they get, pretending to be someone they are not. That realization usually comes just before the end …when its too late ….. its worse than a 1000 hells.

          • Ken Campbell

            I suspect that I could dissuade you from a belief in this god. I also suspect that you would not want to even suggest such a thing

          • Kelly Samuelson

            There is no way I would ever denounce my God

          • Ken Campbell

            I’m not suggesting denouncing your god. That would still indicate that your god exists. I could however, help you eliminate the belief.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Hit me with your best shot. God is on my side. He doesn’t lose

          • Kelly Samuelson

            The very idea I would denounce God is absurd. I watched a video today about people being killed in other countries for their belief in God. If Christianity is so fake, why are people so against it? Why do people kill others because they believe in God?
            We, here in America, are still (mostly) free to worship and spread the word of God without risk of being killed for it, and so many people just throw that away and refuse to believe it. We live in a true consumerism society. We are all about ‘me’, but that won’t get you anywhere except Hell. It needs to be all about Him

          • Ken Campbell

            I agree that people all over the world are doing crazy things in the name of their religion. That is not my point. My point is a challenge that I could dissuade you from a belief in this god. That would allow you the freedom to act without the confines of theism

          • Kelly Samuelson

            You can try whatever you like. I will NEVER reject my God

          • Ken Campbell

            You misunderstand. this is not about rejecting God. Many people think that non-theism is a rejection of a god. In fact it is the simple concept of understanding that a god does not exist. It is no different then the understanding that the earth is not flat and that gnomes do not exist.

            There are two concepts required for recognizing that there is no god. The first involves the evidence for a god (such as books and legends) and the ability to explore these rationally. The second part of this process involves an anthropological investigation into the value of religion in the development of human society. This is the part where we look at why people are willing to die for their god and how a god helped human society develop. Once you begin this journey, all of the pieces fall together

          • Kelly Samuelson

            That doesn’t sound very interesting to me. If you would like to explain your belief, I would be open to hear about it, but don’t expect me to adopt it

          • Ken Campbell

            I totally understand, and I completely respect your right to chose. It is my ‘belief’ that people need to explore before they chose

          • Meepestos

            This is why it seems easier to indoctrinated children that are raised in an environment where they are limited to explore and choose other religions/beliefs.

          • Ken Campbell

            This is true. It is also why children are almost universally the same religion as their parents. It is, of course, the parent’s job to indoctrinate their children. Some of these children move on to different ideas, but most continue to adhere to their parent’s beliefs regarding religion and politics

          • Meepestos

            A clergy member once mentioned to me years ago that it was better to put more energy into indoctrinating little girls more so than boys in a world where there are more single mothers because mothers raise children and this would keep the faith going for generations.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe Jesus was a real person? And if so, do you believe he was born from a virgin and that he performed miracles. Since you don’t believe in God, who do you believe Jesus was? And I know ‘no fun’ and ‘meepestos’ may respond too, and their input is welcome. I am interested in all of your views.
            Oh and btw ken, I like the brave little toaster profile pic your rocking there 😉

          • Nofun

            It is unknown but there is no first century proof of such a person. But the Jesus story comes from Egyptian Horus myth and the Mithra myth. The Jesus story is an exact retelling of these myths.

          • Ken Campbell

            I suspect that Jesus was a real person. I also think that King Arthur was a real person. Legends generally have an origin in truth. Jesus may have been a compilation person, which would explain the two birth dates (6 BCE and 8 CE). The ‘born of a virgin’ is not true as this is not biologically possible. This part of the story aligns with other legends including the legend of Mithra and Ra. There is some issue about the ‘purity of women’ that led to this story. Overall it is quite misogynistic. The ‘miracles’ were probably the same as the miracles of Merlin (events that took on miracle status with retelling.

            I think Jesus was a rebel and may have been a militant. I can’t think of any other reasons for the Romans to be interested in him. They certainly would not have tried to help out the Jewish clergy. The crucifixion is an odd event since the story of the crucifixion of Jesus differs from the usual practice.

            Thanks for the comment on my avatar.

          • Meepestos

            “Jesus may have existed, but there’s no reason to believe he did”. This statement by Hitchens, for me, is an honest statement as no one can honestly say they know if a historical Jesus existed or not.

          • Ken Campbell

            I like the concept of legends. It is said that King Arthur may have been a Roman Centurion. It is said that Robin Hood was based on someone real. The existence of a man named Jesus that did good things and preached kindness while fighting the Romans is a nice concept. The growth of this into a religion is somehow sad, as it takes away the human side of this person.

          • David Cromie

            Firstly, it is impossible to believe in any supernatural entity for which there is no proof. 2) There were several self-professed man-gods around at the time the so-called JC was said to be alive. Indeed, there were examples of such ‘prophets’ both from before and after JC’s time. There are no original documents extant from the 1st cent. giving any hint of the alleged JC, or his miracles.

            Virtually everything we know of the alleged JC comes from the 4th cent., as recounted in the Codex Sinaiticus, which has been altered and added to over the centuries to become what we now know as the King James Authorised Version. The Dead Sea Scrolls have their part to play in the history of the so-called bible, particularly the Jewish sects that were around at the time.

            The subject is much more complicated, and fascinating, than this mere outline, but a good place to start is with the newly collated Codex, and the number of scribes identified as involved, and a comparison with the KJV. It should be mentioned also that the Codex contains gospels not in the KJV, while the latter has important alleged details not in the Codex, for example, and added much later.

          • Meepestos

            Why is it not interesting to you? Are you not interested in how your religion came to be and its beliefs and influence on society?

          • Kelly Samuelson

            And I have faith. Faith is believing without seeing. So you can rationalize things all you want, but I don’t need to see things to believe they exist. Besides, I already see the amazing works and effects of my God every day. Like the wind, you can’t see it, but you know it’s there cuz you can see the effects of it

          • Ken Campbell

            You are absolutely correct in your view that belief through faith does not need evidence. Again, this is not my point. If a person is comfortable with their faith, there is no reason to challenge it. If they want to see what is behind the curtain, there is information available

          • Meepestos

            What effects do you see or feel that contribute to your
            belief in a god? How can you honestly say you know 100% that it is due to a deity especially your deity, but not someone elses?

            You cannot see the wind because it is air and air is
            transparent to our eyes because we have evolved retinas that are sensitive to the very wavelengths of light that pass through it unobstructed – otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see anything at all.

          • Meepestos

            Never is a long time. For decades I have know Christians just as devoted as you that “found the truth” and converted to Islam, Judaism, or some other religion. Saying that you will never budge from your stance seems premature by looking at your youthful image.

          • David Cromie

            You cannot reject something that does not exist because there isn’t any proof that it does. So all you can do is reject the idea of a supposed sky fairy, in the absence of that proof.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            In case you haven’t realized yet, I haven’t responded to any of your statements. My reason being you seem like a huge and pompous ass. Please go bother someone else. I will not respond to you again.

          • Meepestos

            Considering it only “seems” to you; just go ahead and respond at least once then make a judgement.

          • David Cromie

            Perhaps your reluctance to reply to my posts, is that you are not able to do so, presuming you understood in the first place.Thank you for not responding!

          • Meepestos

            By the way I don’t find you irritatingly grand or self-important.

          • David Cromie

            Thank you 🙂 I do my best not to suffer fools gladly, which some people find very annoying!

          • Meepestos

            Do you think it is highly probable that if you were brought up in a different part of the planet and indoctrinated by a different religion than you have now, you would be praising another deity or at least not believing in the Abrahamic god?

          • David Cromie

            Until you produce a proof for the real existence of your particular sky fairy, there is nothing to denounce. The reification of the mental construct of a supernatural entity does not bring it into existence, no matter what you believe, or how fervently you believe it.

          • Meepestos

            May I ask what prayers were answered and what prayers were not?

          • David Cromie

            What of the many more times when your supposed sky fairy did not ‘answer’ your prayers? Would that not be a coincidence too?

          • rationalobservations?

            So you believe our recently evolved species of ape is here only as an experiment for Yahweh? That the only reason for human existence is to adopt the taboos and prejudices decreed by men who speak for Yahweh and to discriminate against all who adopt other taboos and prejudices or dismiss it all as anti-humanitarian? You believe when we die we will be judged by a god who loves us, but will send some of us to eternal torment, agony and torture?
            It must be terrible to live a life of fear with so little self respect, humanitarian purpose, or love for mankind. You have my sincere sympathy and best wishes that you will escape from the death cult that enthralls you.

            Here are 20 short quotes from real life atheists – each of which is crushingly at odds with the standard stereotype of the purposeless, angry, selfish godless scrooge.

            · “Knowing there is a world that will outlive you, there are people whose well-being depends on how you live your life, affects the way you live your life, whether or not you directly experience those effects. You want to be the kind of person who has the larger view, who takes other people’s interests into account, who’s dedicated to the principles that you can justify, like justice, knowledge, truth, beauty and morality.” – Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist

            · “In the theater you create a moment, but in that moment, there is a touch, a twinkle of eternity. And not just eternity, but community. . . . That connection is a sense of life for me.” – Teller, illusionist

            · “We are all given a gift of existence and of being sentient beings, and I think true happiness lies in love and compassion.” – Adam Pascal, musician and actor

            · “Being engaged in some way for the good of the community, whatever that community, is a factor in a meaningful life. We long to belong, and belonging and caring anchors our sense of place in the universe.” – Patricia S. Churchland, neurophilosopher

            · “For me the meaning of life, or the meaning in life, is helping people and loving people . . . The real joy for me is when someone comes up to me and they want to just sit down and share their struggle.” –Teresa MacBain, former minister

            · “Joy is human connection; the compassion put into every moment of humanitarian work; joy is using your time to bring peace, relief, or optimism to others. Joy gives without the expectation—or wish—of reciprocity or gratitude. . . . Joy immediately loves the individual in need and precedes any calculation of how much the giver can handle or whom the giver can help.” – Erik Campano, emergency medicine

            · “Raising curious, compassionate, strong, and loving children—teaching them to love others and helping them to see the beauty of humanity—that is the most meaningful and joyful responsibility we have.” – Joel Legawiec, pediatric nurse

            · “Anytime I hear someone say that only humans have a thoughtful mind, a loving heart, or a compassionate soul, I have to think that person has never owned a dog or known an elephant.” – Aron Ra, Texas state director of American Atheists

            · “I find my joy in justice and equality: in all creatures having opportunities for enjoyment and being treated with fairness, as we all wish and deserve to be treated. . . . While I enjoy the positive feelings of self-improvement, this fire pales compared to the feeling of joy that comes from having contributed something to the greater good.” – Lynnea Glasser, game developer

            · “You’re like this little blip of light that lasts for a very brief time and you can shine as brightly as you choose.” – Sean Faircloth, author, lawyer, lobbyist

            · “Play hard, work hard, love hard. . . .The bottom line for me is to live life to the fullest in the here-and-now instead of a hoped-for hereafter, and make every day count in some meaningful way and do something—no matter how small it is—to make the world a better place.” – Michael Shermer, founder and publisher, Skeptic Magazine

            · “I hope to dissuade the cruel parts of the world from their self-imposed exile and persuade their audiences to understand that freedom is synonymous with life and that the world is a place of safety and of refuge.” – Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, writer

            · “I look around the world and see so many wonderful things that I love and enjoy and benefit from, whether it’s art or music or clothing or food and all the rest. And I’d like to add a little to that goodness.” – Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist

            · “I thrive on maintaining a simple awe about the universe. No matter what struggles we are going through the miracles of existence continue on, forming and reforming patterns like an unstoppable kaleidoscope.” – Marlene Winell, human development consultant

            · “Math . . . music .. . starry nights . . . These are secular ways of achieving transcendence, of feeling lifted into a grand perspective. It’s a sense of being awed by existence that almost obliterates the self. Religious people think of it as an essentially religious experience but it’s not. It’s an essentially human experience.” – Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, philosopher and novelist

            · “There is joy in the search for knowledge about the universe in all its manifestations.” – Janet Asimov, psychiatrist

            · “Science and reason liberate us from the shackles of superstition by offering us a framework for understanding our shared humanity. Ultimately, we all have the capacity to treasure life and enrich the world in incalculable ways.” – Gad Saad, professor of marketing

            · “If you trace back all those links in the chain that had to be in place for me to be here, the laws of probability maintain that my very existence is miraculous. But then after however many decades, less than a hundred years, they disburse and I cease to be. So while they’re all congregated and coordinated to make me, then—and I speak her on behalf of all those trillions of atoms—I should really make the most of things.” – Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics

            All quotes are from “A Better Life: 100 Atheists Speak Out on Joy and Meaning in a World without God.” by Chris Johnson

        • Ken Campbell

          The reason we do not see wild men or other human species wandering around is that our species won the war. This is how evolution works.

          Dogs and wolves are one species in that they can and do produce viable offspring. Horses and donkeys also look alike but are not the same species and cannot produce a viable offspring. However, I don’t think anyone would deny that these two creatures have a common ancestor. The same can be said for cats and tigers. They have a common ancestor but have evolved into different species

        • Meepestos

          Of course humans did not evolve from apes. We share a common ancestry with apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees and we all look like Hominidae.

          “If we did, why do we not see wild-men walking out of the jungle every now and then?”

          This statement alone shows you need to brush up on your understanding of evolution. You could start by learning how species diverge into two separate lineages. The University of Berkeley has a great informative site on the subject and could help you make better informative replies on the subject.

    • Nofun

      You are confused ….Atheists don’t believe in anything without evidence. No religion has any evidence for their supernaturals gods. Its the atheist’s job to plant the seed of doubt in people with closed minds.

    • Ken Campbell

      It is equally my job to plant the seed that there is no god or gods and that the concepts of theism are simply ancient superstitions in modern garb

      • Meepestos

        To think there are still places you could be arrested, jailed or even executed for making a statement such as yours.

  • Mitch

    Right, sort of like in a court room when the prosecution makes a statement that gets objected to and then withdrawn, the jury still heard the point and it still makes a psychological impact (typically in the case of “dirtying up the witness” to discredit)… Sure, you can apologize and vow to never use it again, you’ve already done the damage.

    Actually, it reminds me a lot more of what Hamas does. Stirs up conflicts in Israel, waits for the media to blame Israel and then, after everything has been cleaned up, they take responsibility for it with no requirement to make restitution. This isn’t education, it’s indoctrination via educrats.

    Grace & Peace

  • crusader51

    Evolution and the Big Bang can still not prove order from chaos as this fundamental pillar of their theory is 100% impossible. Everything in the Heavens and the Earth are perfectly balanced and interdependence with complete ecosystems that could have never evolved from chaos and goo.

    I admire the faith of the Evolutionist as it takes much more faith to believe something came from nothing than to believe in a Creator.

    • Jim H

      “I admire the faith of the Evolutionist as it takes much more faith to believe something came from nothing than to believe in a Creator.”

      Why does it take more faith to believe something came from nothing, than it does to believe a Creator made something come from nothing? Both actually believe something can come from nothing. A Creator, who also comes from nothing, just inserts a middleman and creates an additional something from nothing you must have faith in.

    • John N

      >’Evolution and the Big Bang can still not prove order from chaos …’

      Why do you think it needs to?

      >’Everything in the Heavens and the Earth are perfectly balanced and interdependence with complete ecosystems that could have never evolved from chaos and goo.’

      Unless you can show us your ‘Heavens’, this is meaningless. Why do you you think the Big Bang was chaos?

      And why do you think scientists believe ‘something came from nothing’? That is creation what you describe. No scientists believes that.

    • Ken Campbell

      you are mixing your terms. Perhaps you can state your theory and we can discuss it

      • crusader51

        Well there is an excellent dissertation that is the most published work in the history of mankind. Star in Genesis Chapter 1 vs 1 and finish up in Revelations. It is an excellent and very educational journey through the history of everything.

        • Ken Campbell

          So let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that the actual story of Genesis is a better fit for the existence of life? Is it completely accurate? How does it explain the existence of Kangaroos for example? Why is the material used to create humans the same as the material for creating other animals? Why are the design errors built in? What can you predict based on this model?

          • crusader51

            You didn’t finish the whole work it ends in Revelations…..when you are through then lets chat.

          • Ken Campbell

            I’m just wondering if this satisfies you for an explanation of life and all things. Is this enough?

  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show the human race ever seeing an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what is science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

    • Jim H

      “Here’s what is science.”
      97% of those who actually practice science, and who might actually be qualified to comment on it, disagree with you.

    • John N

      Reason, making up your own definitions again I see?

      >’Ask evolutionists to show the human race ever seeing an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish’

      No, scientists don’t claim that. The Theory of Evolution says no such thing. This has been explained to you before. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.

      And if anything has never been observed, it is special creation – so according to your own words, your bible is ‘a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.’

      • Reason2012

        > No, scientists don’t claim that. <

        You're right – only evolutionists do.

        You honestly have no idea evolutionists claim fish of old are our ancestors? Not sure how you try to defend something you so un-knowledgeable of.

        And no, I'm not calling my beliefs science. Huge difference. Why is it you only remember what science is when it comes to beliefs you reject?

        • John N

          No they don’t. They claim fish and humans have a common ancestor.

          Morphing is for people who like to watch cartoons.

          ‘Evolutionists’ must be one of your own inventions as well. Scientists who work on the theory of evolution are called biologists.

          • Reason2012

            I said “fish of OLD” – I didn’t say modern day fish.

            And to go from populations of fish in the past, to then amphibians, then reptiles, then all mammals and eventually human beings is morphing of mythological proportions, which is what evolutionists believe in.

            They also believe human beings and banana plants have the same great………great grandparents.

            You can’t “work” on the fish to man mythology of evolutionism when it does not happen and you can only come up with reasons to believe in it.

          • John N

            No, it is not what biologists believe in. Blind believe is something for religuous fundamentalist – by the way, they think it is better than knowledge, isn’t it?

            It is what we actualy see – in the fossil record, in the anatomy and in the DNA of these animals.

            Now how do you explain this?

            By the way, nobody says humans descent from fish, old or not. Please read a book on evolution.

          • John N

            Your idea of morphing animals makes it clear you have clearly no idea what evolution is all about. Before you start attacking an idea, you really should look at what it actually says.

            Well ok, keep your eyes and ears shut and hold fast to your belief, maybe one day it will become true.

            Meanwhile the rest of the world has accepted the theory of evolution, and is moving on.

        • Nofun

          Jesus hates your lies.

        • Ken Campbell

          The creatures that are the ancestors of modern ‘fish’ and modern ‘mammals’ were probably fish-like in that they lived in the ocean. This is the current theory of how life populated the earth.

  • Reason2012

    Science starts with something the human race actually sees happen and goes from there. Fish to man evolutionism starts with a made up belief that contradicts observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact, gives you reasons to believe in it, calls those reasons ‘evidence’, then attacks anyone who dares point this out. It’s anti-science indoctrination, nothing less.

    • Jim H

      And you are qualified to dictate to science based on what exactly?

    • John N

      >’Science starts with something the human race actually sees happen and goes from there. Fish to man evolutionism starts with a made up belief that contradicts observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact’

      These definitions are rubbish. Science requests evidence to be testable and falsifiable, not observable and repeatable. The Theory of Evolution is compliant with both these requirements.

      Where did you get your scientific education?

    • Nofun

      You can see fossils. You can date them. You can examine genomes.

      Have you seen any supernatural beings creating animals or plants.
      Where is your visual evidence?

      • Reason2012

        Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        (repeat)

        It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

        Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
        “How do you know it does?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

        Fish to man evolutionism is about as anti-science as one can get.

        • John N

          Reason, you keep coming back with this morphing-thing. You must be a real Pokemon-fan, don’t you?

          So, how do you explain fossils? Did your creator put them up high in those mountains to trick scientists to believe into evolution? Of course not, , because nobody would believe in such a deceiving deity, would he?

      • Evolution is a fact

        I dated a fossil once. Not as much fun as I thought it would be. ***crickets***
        I’ll leave now.

  • Jim H

    “Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it’s just something someone guessed at, remember that they’re using the non-scientific meaning of the word,”

    Some facts:

    “Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, “Humans and other living things have evolved over time” or “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.

    That means that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution.
    That is simply a fact. It does not matter what anyone here thinks about it. Since it was a science class that was a completely appropriate and true statement. A science curricula should reflect the latest consensus of scientists.

    “If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better,” it asserts. “In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.”

    That is not science. it is commentary and did not belong in a science class. Although it is likely true, if one assumes the person saying it is in any way scientifically literate and understands the technical use of the term “theory”.

  • Reason2012

    Jim H says > Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while only 61% of the public agrees, That means that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. That is not science. it is commentary and did not belong in a science class. <

    Ironic since your only support of the fish to man evolution is the commentary from scientists that claim to also believe in it.

    Here's what is science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.

    What is it you have against this observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact?

    Why do you think the beliefs of evolutionists nullify what IS observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact?

    • Nofun

      So expressions of faith are worthless … seems that would make faith in jesus worthless.

      No, faith is required. We have fossils which can be dated, geology, archaeology and genetics which all support Evolution and have done so for 150 + years.

      Creationism is not the biblical creation belief … it is just phony science that no one is obligated to believe.

      Evolution is a observable, repeatable, biological reality that will never ever be prayed away. Accept it. And believe in biblical creation if you must. But never accept the lies of creationism.

      • Reason2012

        No, their not worthless. If you wish to believe your great……..great grandparents of the past were fish, have at it. Just pointing out science is not about things people can only believe in and then give reasons to believe in it, which is all fish to man evolutionists can do.

        Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        (repeat)

        It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

        > Evolution is a observable, repeatable, biological reality <

        Really? Then by all means ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations ('evolving' they call it) eventually into animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing. Your claim that it's anything more than a belief is flat out false.

        • Ken Campbell

          Are you suggesting that there has never been an observed evolution of a species?

  • Taylor the Sturdy

    Why are Christians so afraid of people who challenge their beliefs?

    • Nofun

      They have put all their eggs in one basket. The fight to keep out reality is relentless.

    • Reason2012

      Has nothing to do with belief in God. Has everything to do that fish to man evolutionism is anti-science.

      Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.

      Why are evolutionists so afraid of this observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact?

      • Nofun

        Evolution is observable, repeatable, falsifiable and is backed by a 150+ years of hard real world evidence.

        Where is your real world evidence of supernatural beings making animals and plants?

        • Nidalap

          Ha! Well, at least you admit that it’s falsifiable! 🙂

          • Ken Campbell

            Of course it is falsifiable. Anything that is defined as true MUST be falsifiable.

          • Nofun

            Don’t know what that means do you.

      • Taylor the Sturdy

        Do you think that evolution says a monkey gave birth to a man?

        • Reason2012

          Hello. Read what I wrote again: “populations” and “over generations”. is what evolutionists claim.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            Right, so there was never a fish that gave birth to a man. Get it? Try a college class.

          • Ken Campbell

            I don’t think it is Taylor that is confused

          • Ken Campbell

            you really should say ‘large populations’ and over ‘over hundreds of thousands of generations”. then we can talk

      • Nofun

        You are obsessed with fish. Get an education, then have an opinion. Not the other way around.

      • rationalobservations?

        “First it’s important to note that accepting the reality of evolution is not a devotion to atheism.
        The former head of the worldwide Anglican communion the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recognizes that humans evolved from other animals.
        Pope John Paul II openly recognized the realities of evolution in 1996.
        President John F. Kennedy had no problem with evolution. In fact, one of his speeches discussing our origin from the sea was played during a Super Bowl XLIX commercial for Carnival Cruise Lines.

        There are those who keep a liberal interpretation of their religion that allows compatibility with modern science. This has allowed millions of Christians and people of other faiths to contribute to advancements in medicine, sanitation, food supply, transportation, and other fields that have greatly increased the standard of living for mankind.

        And then there are those who keep a dogmatic interpretation of their religion that only leaves room for an 18th century understanding of the universe. Ironically these same people use computers and iPhones. They have no problem using technology that was made available by modern science while keeping their antiquated views of reality.

        Someone who dogmatically believes that disease can only be cured by god and prayer will never create a vaccine that will ultimately be responsible for saving millions of lives.

        Imagine a child arguing that the earth is not spinning because we don’t feel it or crash into things when we jump straight up. The best thing to do would be to explain the supporting scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates that the earth is spinning and relativity to understand why it doesn’t seem to be from our perspective.

        But what if the child refused to listen and simply kept repeating that the earth doesn’t rotate. That is one obnoxious child that refuses to listen or learn. Now let’s suppose the child is 40 years old. We would need to conclude that the adult was mentally challenged, delusional, or extremely gullible and being persuaded by ignorant people.

        When creationists argue that we never see a cat turning into a dog, the ignorance is staggering. What makes it worst is they often say things like that with a smug grin. Not only do they have no idea of how a species is classified or how evolution works, they are proudly and shamelessly ignorant. They have no desire at all to read a book and actually learn the subject matter.

        A species should never be understood as some giant sudden leap from elephant to tiger. There is no magical point in time where a biological divide causes separate species classifications between animals. This understanding is critical to understanding evolution. The evolution of species isn’t about a sudden giant horn, long neck, or trunk. The most basic species classifications are about the ability to mate.

        When the separation of animals occur such as when one group of animals is gradually divided into separate land masses by water through continental separation and drift, and that separation continues to the point where if rejoined the two groups would no longer be able to biologically mate, or when that possibility is extremely low, they would then be classified as different species.

        But once again, there is no magical point in time and the definition isn’t perfect. We classify Neanderthals as a different species from our own, but we now know that there was interbreeding between them and our ancient ancestors. Once again, the species classification isn’t based on a magical point in time.

        The split between a singular group of animals into different groups in different physical locations which cause them to follow different evolutionary paths is critical to understand. Often a creationist will say if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys. That’s like saying if British people colonized North America, why do we still have British people. And we didn’t evolve from modern monkeys which makes the creationist cliché even more painfully ignorant.

        Even the most dogmatic creationists have to admit that the attributes of an animal can be dramatically modified and guided through breeding. Humans have accelerated the process through artificial selection where we modify the traits of plants and animals through selective breeding and cause change to happen far more rapidly than natural selection. And now we have the technology to genetically modify plants and animals.

        Creationists in admission to small gradual changes try to separate what they call micro-evolution and what they call macro-evolution. They claim to believe that adaptation and breeding can cause small changes, but not big changes. But if you believe in small changes, a big change is simply a cumulating of small changes. If you believe in small changes, you believe in big changes.

        But these changes take a tremendously long time to happen. Creationists often demand that millions of years of evolution be demonstrated in their lifetime. It doesn’t work that way. The fossil evidence clearly shows evolution over a long period of time is what occurred on earth. Simple life forms evolving into complex life forms. In terms of time, even the so called “Cambrian Explosion” of rapid evolution was a time frame of tens of millions of years.

        We now have DNA evidence which corresponds to geological evidence and fossil evidence. Some creationists are trying to classify what happened before our lifetimes as “historical science” which they say requires faith to believe in. This is absurd. If you dig into the ground and find a riverbed of lava, you can conclude an active volcano created it even though you were not there when it happened. That’s not faith, it’s evidence, common sense, and logic.

        And how hypocritical for creationists to argue against knowledge of what happened before our lifetimes based on science and then claim truth in absurd myths said to have taken place before our lifetimes.
        Their argument is akin to:
        You can’t claim that lightning had the same causes it does now 2,500 years ago. You weren’t there.
        Zeus caused lightning 2,500 years ago. We know this to be true because someone wrote it in a book.
        Any modern scientific explanation for lightning requires the same amount of faith as “Zeus did it.”

        But what about changes in higher classifications of species? It all comes down to small changes leading to bigger changes.

        A lemur is classified as a Strepsirrhini. An African monkey is classified as a Catarrhini. Both of these sub classifications roll up to Primate. Dogs and cats belong to different sub classifications that roll up to Carnivora. When a separation of species continues to the point where significant changes in classification attributes occur, a different classification is created. Once again, small changes accumulate and eventually lead to big changes.

        What is the difference between a cat and a dog which leads to different classifications or what creationists often refer to as different “kinds?” A cat has retractable claws. Dogs are pack animals. Cats are carnivores while dogs are omnivores. Cats can climb trees while dogs cannot. Dogs run down their pray, cats stalk. There are physical, dietary and behavioral differences between the two. They both have attributes that are common to a specific classification.

        If a group of cats or dogs was to become isolated and over a large amount of time evolved to lose certain attributes related to its’ specific classification or gain certain attributes that were outside of its’ specific classification, a new classification would be created. A dog would not evolve into a cat nor would a cat evolve into a dog. They would eventually evolve into a new subcategory of Carnivora. And enough changes to a subcategory would lead to changes of higher categories.

        So what’s the big deal? Why not allow creationists to poison science education and molest the knowledge that was won with great sacrifice by our ancestors? The issue is human problems require human solutions. The wellbeing of future generations rely on our scientific competency today. Creationists want to hold us back in scientific understanding and education at a critical time for our species to move forward.”

        -James Kirk Wall

        • Reason2012

          > President John F. Kennedy had no problem with evolution. There are those who keep a liberal interpretation of their religion that allows compatibility with modern science.<

          You start with the assumption that the belief populations of fish could (and did) evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Here's what isscience: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

          (a) Ignore that scientific fact

          (b) Make up a belief contrary to that scientific fact_

          (c) Where that belief never happens and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact._

          Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

          > This has allowed millions of Christians and people of other faiths to contribute to advancements in medicine, sanitation, food supply, transportation, and other fields that have greatly increased the standard of living for mankind. And then there are those who keep a dogmatic interpretation of their religion that only leaves room for an 18th century understanding of the universe. Ironically these same people use computers and iPhones. Imagine a child arguing that the earth is not spinning because we don’t feel it or crash into things when we jump straight up. The best thing to do would be to explain the supporting scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates that the earth is spinning and relativity to understand why it doesn’t seem to be from our perspective. When creationists argue that we never see a cat turning into a dog, the ignorance is staggering. There is no magical point in time where a biological divide causes separate species classifications between animals. When the separation of animals occur such as when one group of animals is gradually divided into separate land masses by water through continental separation and drift, and that separation continues to the point where if rejoined the two groups would no longer be able to biologically mate, Even the most dogmatic creationists have to admit that the attributes of an animal can be dramatically modified and guided through breeding. Humans have accelerated the process through artificial selection where we modify the traits of plants and animals through selective breeding and cause change to happen far more rapidly than natural selection. But these changes take a tremendously long time to happen. Creationists often demand that millions of years of evolution be demonstrated in their lifetime. It doesn’t work that way. The fossil evidence clearly shows evolution over a long period of time is what occurred on earth. We now have DNA evidence which corresponds to geological evidence and fossil evidence. Some creationists are trying to classify what happened before our lifetimes as “historical science” If you dig into the ground and find a riverbed of lava, you can conclude an active volcano created it even though you were not there when it happened. And how hypocritical for creationists to argue against knowledge of what happened before our lifetimes based on science and then claim truth in absurd myths said to have taken place before our lifetimes. You can’t claim that lightning had the same causes it does now 2,500 years ago. You weren’t there. Zeus caused lightning 2,500 years ago. We know this to be true because someone wrote it in a book. But what about changes in higher classifications of species? It all comes down to small changes leading to bigger changes. So what’s the big deal? Why not allow creationists to poison science education and molest the knowledge that was won with great sacrifice by our ancestors? The wellbeing of future generations rely on our scientific competency today. Creationists want to hold us back in scientific understanding and education at a critical time for our species to move forward.” <

          No, evolutionists are perverting science and holding progress back. For example, because scientists believe the lie that some organs are vestigial, they no longer investigate their actual use and scientific medical progress is hindered.

          Fish to man evolutionism is about as anti-science as one can get.

          • rationalobservations?

            My goodness! What a long and ridiculous stream of guff and bunkum.

            “Fish to man evolutionism is about as anti-science as one can get.”??

            You assert that ridiculous nonsense because you have not studied the EVIDENCE for evolution.

            Creationists and Scientific Logic

            “Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

            Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

            They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

            Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

            The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories – science is a unit.

            To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories – a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world – would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

            We’ve been through that before – it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”

            – Scott Anderson

          • Reason2012

            > You assert that ridiculous nonsense because you have not studied the EVIDENCE for evolution. Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago … the universe was magically created, They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. <

            All populations of rodents remaining rodents no matter how many generations go by remains a fact. Adaptation remains a fact. The mythology tacked onto such things by evolutionists is all that has to be thrown out.

          • rationalobservations?

            Cutting and pasting nonsense fails to make a case for magic and supernatural entities. Or for the magical “creation” from nothing of the infinite 13,820,000,000 year old universe.

            All of your pathetic assertions are contradicted by evidence.

            All your ridiculous straw men burn.

            Even in backwards USA – the delusional and primitive minded creationists dwindle in number year on year.

            I honestly don’t care how ignorant you are. I only join the informed and educated majority in resisting your pathetic attempts to curtail education and to spread your particularly silly form of ignorance.

            It may be that you will go and join boko haram since their views and aims so closely mirror yours. Or is that the club to which you belong already?

          • David Cromie

            Why don’t you just save time, and spell it out plainly: ‘Do not trouble me with facts or evidence, my mind is made up’!