Kansas School District Boots Gideon Bible Distribution Following Humanist Complaint

Gideons Bible pdJUNCTION CITY, Kan. — A Kansas school district has decided to give representatives of Gideon International the boot after receiving a complaint from a prominent humanist organization.

An attorney for Geary County Schools USD 475 in Junction City sent a letter to the American Humanist Association (AHA) on Friday to provide “assurance” that the district would no longer permit the Gideons to conduct the distribution at schools.

AHA had written to Superintendent Corbin Witt and Seitz Elementary School Principal Jodi Testa on Tuesday to explain that a parent of a fourth grader at the school had contacted the organization to complain about the Bibles being made available to students on Nov. 4.

According to the correspondence, teachers told students that they could leave the classroom during pack-up time at the end of the day and take a Bible if they wished.

But AHA says that “[t]he Bible distribution made the student feel extremely uncomfortable; she also felt that the school was pushing religion on her.” The girl’s mother subsequently called Witt’s and Testa’s offices.

“She spoke with the superintendent’s secretary, who insisted that the schools are within their rights to have the Gideons distribute Bibles as long as the children are not forced to take them,” the letter outlined.  “The principal indicated that the Gideons would return next year to distribute their Bibles to elementary school children and that the school would not cease this practice.”

AHA then asserted that the allowance of the Bible distribution at the school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and demanded that the district stop providing authorization of the group.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[I]t is beyond clear that the school district violated the First Amendment by assisting in the distribution of Gideon Bibles to elementary school students,” the letter read. “Because the law prohibiting Gideon Bible distribution is well-settled, … not only will the school district itself be liable for this constitutional infringement …, including in the form of the payment of attorney’s fees, but each and every school official and employee involved may be found personally liable in their individual capacities as well.”

On Friday, Mark Edwards, an attorney for the district, replied with a short notice that the Bible distributions would cease.

“Please consider this written assurance that [the district] will no longer facilitate the Gideons in distributing Bibles in our school district,” he wrote.

As previously reported, the first textbook used in the American colonies even before the nation’s founding, “The New England Primer,” was largely focused on the Scriptures, and was stated to be popular in public and private schools alike until approximately the early 1900’s. It used mostly the King James Bible as reference, and spoke much about sin, salvation and proper behavior.

“Save me, O God, from evil all this day long, and let me love and serve Thee forever, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Thy Son,” it read.

Many of the Founders’ children learned to read from the primer.


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
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    It is long past time for those employed by the government to know that it is illegal for them to use government resources to promote their religion.

    • Josey

      Your comment makes no sense whatsoever! The government teaches humanism on the public’s dime to promote that so let’s throw that out too for that is religion.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        I’ve never seen the government teaching humanism. You’re mistaking government schools avoiding the teaching of religion with the active teaching of humanism.

        • Oboehner

          Evolutionism.

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            Evolution is science, not religion.

          • Oboehner

            Calling it science doesn’t change anything.

          • John N

            So do you revoke all science or just the bits of it that contradict your favorite holy book? Like all of biology, physics, chemics, geology, astronomy, …?

          • Oboehner

            Lumping it together with observable, testable, repeatable science doesn’t change anything either.

          • John N

            ‘Observable’ science? You mean the kind of science Ken Ham seems to like?

            Nice example of a scientist you are following there.

            And what in the Theory of evolution do you think is not based on repeatable observations? And more important, what part is not falsifiable?

          • Oboehner

            Attacking the beliefs of others doesn’t change anything either.
            Billions of years? Speciation? Life spontaneously popping out of ooze? Big bang? the list goes on and on.

          • John N

            Where did I attack anyone’s beliefs? Everybody is free to believe what he wants, even if that means he or she wants to remain ignorant about real life.

            Billions of years? So you revoke all of geology and astronomy. Earth his known to be around 4.57 billion of years old, the universe 13.75 billions of years.

            Speciation? Has been observed, and supported by both fossil, anatomical and molecular evidence. But there goes biology.

            Life popping out of ooze? Strawman. I guess you don’t like chemistry either.

            Big bang? Astronomy and physics go down in flames, although both provide good evidence of it.

            As I already expected, you just don’t like science when it is not in favour of your religious view.

            Now it didn’t see any evidence for that yet. Got any?

          • Oboehner

            Q. How do we know the earth is billions of years old?
            A. Using radiometric dating.

            Q. how do we know radiometric dating is accurate?
            A. because the earth is billions of years old.
            – The old circular reasoning.

            Speciation? A fossil only shows some creature existed, it in no way shows it “evolved” into another life form let alone even procreated. Anatomical – nope, doesn’t prove anything “evolved” either. Molecular? Ditto. One has to have faith that any evidence actually points to that.
            If life didn’t pop out of ooze, where did it come from in your religious worldview?
            Strawman? –
            “But according to you, ALL of biology goes out of the window.”
            “I guess you don’t like chemistry either.”
            “Astronomy and physics go down in flames…”

            As I already expected, you just don’t like science when it is not in favour of your religious view. Which is about all of it.
            My view, whatever it may be, is NOT taught at taxpayer expense in government schools as fact – the burden of proof rests solely on you and your religious belief. However I can say there is at least as much evidence of creation as evolutionism, they both require faith.

          • Valri

            “Q. How do we know the earth is billions of years old?
            A. Using radiometric dating.

            Q. how do we know radiometric dating is accurate?
            A. because the earth is billions of years old.
            – The old circular reasoning.”

            No one uses that reasoning, you’re lying. Your first statement is just fine. The second one is just dumb. We know radiometric dating is accurate because there are scientific means of measuring it.

          • The Last Trump

            Please explain more fully.
            Thank you.

          • Oboehner

            In order for radiometric dating to work the earth has to be old enough, apparently you don’t understand how it works, you just have blind faith – someone says “science” and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

          • Valri

            It isn’t my my fault that you neither understand evolution nor accept the universally acknowledged truth of it. That’s why yours is a religion and evolution isn’t.

          • The Last Trump

            Cut Oboehner some slack, will ya? Magic is a difficult concept to grasp. You know, given that it’s unverifiable, unduplicated, untested, unproven, untrue……
            You get the picture, religious one.

          • Valri

            It never even crossed your mind for a second, does it, that all the things you say about “magic” above apply to your faith and not to evolution?

            Radioactive isotope decay is a constant. It never fails. It can be measured and extrapolated.

          • Oboehner

            More empty rhetoric from a frustrated religious zealot who can neither defend their religious belief nor even understand it.

          • Valri

            The irony’s so thick you could cut it with a knife, a man who believes in talking snakes telling me with a straight face that evolution is a religion.

          • Oboehner

            The irony is someone who believes in exploding dots attempting to defend their religion by attacking the faith of others.

          • Valri

            So what is it then, is it pride in your willful ignorance to continue to deny what mankind has demonstrably been able to show since the 1800s? Is it a rebelliousness? Is it the fact that your religion would fold like a house of cards the second you were to admit evolution has been proven?

          • Oboehner

            So what is it then, is it pride in your willful ignorance to continue to deny what mankind has never been able to show since the 1800s? Is it a rebelliousness? Is it the fact that your religion would fold like a house of cards the second you were to admit evolutionism has never been, nor ever will be proven?

          • Valri

            Mankind HAS been able to show it since the 1800s, what craziness are you talking about? You do realize that there are people called scientists, and they work in this field daily, and get paid to do it, and it’s tested and observed? I mean, what the hell is the matter with you? Have your read about the Lensky experiments? Pretty much proves that evolution happens, not to mention nylon-eating bacteria.

            This is the OPPOSITE of religion. There are no talking snakes involved. It’s not written down in a 6000 year old written by iron age goat herders.

          • Oboehner

            Bacteria is still bacteria and when left alone reverts back to it’s original state – just like your messiah’s finches. Typical evolutionist, just like fabricating an entire “caveman” out of a pig’s tooth (Nebraska Man) you people take an adaptation and fabricate a whole series of mythological events that have to be taken on faith (a religion).
            Constantly yammering on about other’s beliefs only makes you look more and more desperate.

          • Valri

            It’s really fascinating watch you dismiss all these accepted facts that you clearly haven’t got the first clue about and then call it a religion.

            https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

            If you don’t want to take the time to read this, er, I mean, run away from it with your eyes shut and ears plugged, let me just sum it up for you: You lose.

          • Oboehner

            At the end of the experiment it was still E. coli, how does that anything”evolved” into anything else? It doesn’t, because a fish was always a fish, and a bird was always a bird. There are no so-called “accepted facts” that prove otherwise.

          • Valri

            Simply because that is not how it works. Your understanding is flawed. You should admit that and then your problems will be over.

          • Oboehner

            Then share your faith, enlighten me.

          • Valri

            I can’t because I don’t have faith. That’s what YOU have. What I have are facts. Evolution explains how living things change over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are. It has nothing to do with origins, as you continually insist, further testament to the fact that you don’t even understand the field you are arguing about. Cosmology and abiogenesis are the subjects you want to be discussing if you’re interested in origins. And if you want to talk about exploding dots, knock yourself out, but that’s not evolution either.

            The Earth has been around for a very long time. By doing research on the layers of rock, we can find out about its past. That kind of research is called historical geology.

            We know that living things have changed over time, because we can see their remains in the rocks. These remains are called ‘fossils’.
            So we know that the animals and plants of today are different from
            those of long ago. And the further we go back, the more different the
            fossils are. How has this come about? Evolution has taken place. That evolution has taken place is a fact, because it is overwhelmingly supported by many lines of evidence. At the same time, evolutionary questions are still being actively researched by biologists.

            Comparison of DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by how similar their sequences are. In 2010 an analysis compared sequences to phylogenetic trees, and supported the idea of common descent. There is now strong quantitative support, by a formal test, for the unity of life.

            The theory of evolution is the basis of modern biology. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”

            Just for you: Five proofs of evolution so simple even a 6-year old could understand, so no one’s going to let you off the hook for these. If you continue to believe in the talking snake after this, no one can help you: Not Ken Ham, not Kent Hovind, not Jack Chick, not Ray Comfort, not Fred Phelps, not Kirk Cameron. All you are left with is willful ignorance.

            http://evolutionfaq. com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

          • Oboehner

            “What I have are facts.” “Evolution explains how living things change over a long time” A time noboby observed, they BELIEVE that’s how it happened – faith, as there are NO FACTS proving that’s what happened. A cow slowly turning into a whale is just a fairytale.

            “We know that living things have changed over time, because we can see their remains in the rocks. These remains are called ‘fossils’.” Hardly, you have faith that whatever you see is not merely an extinct or undiscovered creature, you can’t even prove it procreated let alone “evolved” into anything.
            “So we know that the animals and plants of today are…” No you BELIEVE that’s what happened – faith again. It’s not proven by anything.

            Evolutionism shoves any “evidence” into a preconceived box, and whatever doesn’t fit is tossed out. Two people are in a room and suddenly it goes dark, the evolutionist would claim the other person in the room turned the light out completely ignoring any other possibilities because they are so emotionally vested in believing it could never be the bulb that burned out.

            Yet again exploding dot boy/girl/whatever, ad hominem attacks on others STILL doesn’t prove your religion.

            You website is a laughable joke, “Facts” “This is very strong evidence…” hardly a fact.
            1. The universal genetic code. Could also be “very strong evidence” of a common designer.
            2. The fossil record. I covered that, no proof there.
            3. Genetic commonalities. See number 1.
            4. Common traits in embryos. “all these life forms have gill slits” FRAUD ALERT, it’s folds of skin, humans never had and never will have “gill slits” And they call that crap “science”.
            5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Yet it’s still bacteria which revert back to their original state when the adaptation is no longer needed. If anything it’s proof evolution NEVER happened.
            What else do you have?

          • Valri

            And so what you have just done is take every authoritative source out there used by the world’s greatest scientists, stared every one of them in the face, and called it a “fairytale,” “faith,” and everything else that applies to YOUR OWN belief system but not to scientific method. Your denial is so great you refuse to the use the accepted word for it – evolution, which even its staunchest opponents agree to use. Good thing you DON’T believe in evolution because I don’t think you’d want to know where on the evolutionary scale that mindless, sub-primate thinking places you.

          • Oboehner

            That’s pretty pathetic if that’s the world’s greatest.

            Not worried since the “evolutionary scale” is a fabricated load of crap.

          • Valri

            There is nothing further to discuss. You have displayed fundamentalist Christian zealotry, willful ignorance, , and a rather pathetic
            understanding of the actual process of evolution. I think we’re done
            here.

          • Oboehner

            You have displayed fundamentalist evolutionism zealotry, willful ignorance, , and a rather pathetic understanding of the mythical process of evolution. You were done before you started. Evolutionism is a religion, always has been, always will be.

          • Valri

            There is nothing further to discuss. You have displayed fundamentalist
            Christian zealotry, willful ignorance, , and a rather pathetic
            understanding of the actual process of evolution. I think we’re done
            here.

          • Valri

            “A cow slowly turning into a whale is just a fairytale.”

            Correct, it is. The fact you bring it up shows that you have no clue as to what evolutionary theory actually says.

            “You can’t even prove it procreated”

            Then how the hell do you think it got there?

            “it’s folds of skin, humans never had and never will have “gill slits”

            So now you’re just ignoring facts. Our embryos do indeed have gill slits.

            “Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Yet it’s still bacteria
            which revert back to their original state when the adaptation is no
            longer needed.”

            First, prove that they “revert back to their original state
            when the adaptation is no longer needed,” and secondly, explain how that
            minor change isn’t part of evolution.

            Also,look up “atavistic whale legs.”

            Just to put the cherry on the cake: The ribosome as a missing link in the evolution of life:

            http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0022519314006778

          • Oboehner

            “Then how do you think it got there” The fact you bring it up shows that you have no clue as to what procreating actually is.

            “So now you’re just ignoring facts. Our embryos do indeed have gill slits.” Nope, they do not, that is a fraudulent fallacy debunked years ago when Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings were deemed to be a lie. Talk about ignoring the facts.

            Even Darwin had to admit his finches reverted back when the need for longer beaks was eliminated. Now you can prove how an adaptation somehow creates more complex organisms – save the speculation.

            “atavistic whale legs” are bones that anchor some of the whales organs, they are in no way “left over” legs, that is pure speculative fiction with no proof whatsoever.

            You cake falls flat: “We SUGGEST that the ribosome MAY represent one important missing link…” “suggest” “may” speculation based on the religious belief the evolutionism has a grain of truth, it does not.
            Feel free to try again.

          • Valri

            What we have here is you going “nuh uh” while continuing to ignore science. The wheel’s still turning somehow but the hamster died a long time ago.

            If no embryonic gill slits, how do you explain branchial cysts then?
            https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Branchial_cleft_cyst

            “Suggest” doesn’t mean they are uncertain. It means they are politely telling you without screaming in your face that they know this is how it is.

          • Oboehner

            What we have here is a pathetic attempt to somehow link your religion to science.

            Fish have eyes, fish have brains and nervous systems, fish have blood vessels, fish have this that and whatever, the fact remains – humans NEVER have gill slits at any point, that is a bold-faced lie.

            “We SUGGEST that the ribosome MAY represent one important missing link…”
            Like I said, speculation based on the religious belief the evolutionism has a grain of truth, it does not. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself with that stretch, too bad it didn’t get there.
            Feel free to try again.

          • Valri

            So to admit that one may be wrong is bad, but insisting to be 100%
            right in the face of contradicting evidence is good. I guess in
            Oboehner’s world, every day is opposite day.

            We have the embryonic gill slits. We win.

            http://www.nicerweb. com/sketches/video/NOVA-DarwinNeverKnew/human_embryo.JPG

            The problem is you’re getting your anti-science from other ignorant
            people and religious charlatans. I don’t fail to notice the curt dismissal of an entire field of science chock full of deeply knowledgeable professional researchers and educators who know things fundamentalist knuckledraggers aren’t even aware of, and couldn’t fathom if they were. Then there’s the “evolution is a religion” fantasy to top it off. Impressive, in a profoundly abysmal way.

            Keep it up.

          • Oboehner

            Read it slowly, humans never had, do not now, nor ever will have gill slits – they are folds of skin, nothing more. Fraud isn’t winning it’s losing desperation (no science involved).
            Nice photo showing no “gill slits”.

          • Valri

            Look at the nice pictures. They weren’t planted by Satan, honest.

            https://christophereppig.files.wordpress. com/2014/03/embryo_comparison.gif

            http://faculty.ycp. edu/~kkleiner/fieldnaturalhistory/fnhimages/l19images/gillslithuman.jpg

            I think the honorable thing for you to do now is just admit that you don’t have the faintest clue what you’re talking about and fight evolution because your church demands it.

          • Oboehner

            “They weren’t planted by Satan, honest.” There’s that ad hominem.

            Do you have any bigfoot pictures to share? Read it slowly, humans never had, do not now, nor ever will have gill slits – they are folds of skin, nothing more.
            Haeckel had to manipulate data (Fraud) to conform it to his evolutionary religious beliefs.
            Michael Richardson’s 1997 report revealed that in order to make animal embryos look more similar at a certain early stage of development, Haeckel had omitted limb buds and heart bulges and resized and selected certain creature’s embryos.
            Richardson, M.K. et al. 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology. 196 (2): 91-106.

            There’s another one for you:
            http://s2.dmcdn. net/CukA2/1280×720-XHk.jpg

          • Valri

            “There’s that ad hominem.”

            It wasn’t an ad hominem. You are in the same company as people who think Satan planted dinosaur bones to confuse us. And you KNOW I can provide examples. Probably from people from your very fundamentalist church. So no, not an ad hominem. Me talking DOWN to you? Definitely, but that seems to be the only direction that reaches you.

            You are impervious to facts. It’s pointless to share any more with you. You will continue to live your life believing in magic and talking snakes and calling your FAITH “truth” which it isn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Ahh, yeah it was followed by an asinine assumption – but that all you evolutionist religious types have. Did I ever say dinosaurs did not exist? No I did not. You talking down to me? Just makes you look more foolish.
            You keep claiming facts, yet never have any, the only thing you do is ignore things you have no answer for and post drawings that are supposed to be some kind of proof. How’s it going with the bigfoot pictures? You will continue to live your life believing in magic and exploding dots and calling your FAITH “truth” which it isn’t, trying to prove it by attacking the beliefs of others (which is not being taught in government schools).

          • Valri

            I’m glad you agree there were dinosaurs – that shows progress. Now, how long ago do you think they lived? Do you think Jesus rode on them and they existed with human beings 6000 years ago? Or do you KNOW what the rest of us do, that they existed millions of years ago?

            Bigfoot – your story, not mine. I never mentioned Bigfoot.
            Exploding dots – your strawman, not mine. No one who understands evolution refers to it in such a way.

            Schools teach evolution in science class. They teach Christianity (including the wacky fundamentalist brand you subscribe to) in comparative religion class. You lose.

          • Oboehner

            I know there have been engravings found depicting humans and dinosaurs, the book of Job speaks of them existing at the time of its writing, there are a plethora of old stories of men killing “dragons” and the like. Just because they are now extinct doesn’t mean “millions of years” or were you there and know for sure? Or do you just have FAITH they existed “millions of years” ago? Really amazing that soft tissue and blood samples lasted that long *sarcasm*.
            One of the subjects you are hiding from is what you believe was the beginning, if it wasn’t exploding dots, what exactly was it?
            Schools teach evolutionism in science class. ” They teach Christianity (including the wacky fundamentalist brand you subscribe to) in comparative religion class.”(ad hominem again). That supposed to be some kind of proof? Nebraska Man was “science” taught in “science” class too, You lose.

          • Valri

            “Or do you just have FAITH they existed “millions of years” ago?”

            No, we know it to be true because of things like radiometric dating. And other methods besides that.

            “One of the subjects you are hiding from is what you believe was the beginning, if it wasn’t exploding dots, what exactly was it?”

            If you’re really talking about the beginning, then you’re not talking about evolution at all – further testament that you don’t even understand the subject you’re debating. Evolution is about gradual change over time. It isn’t about beginnings – the war you INTEND to battle there is cosmology and abiogenesis. So, speaking again about science class – how badly did you fail it when you took it?

            “That supposed to be some kind of proof?”

            More than that. It’s the world we live in. Clearly you have your own little world where the talking snakes reign supreme, but that’s religion. Not science.

            “Nebraska Man was “science” taught in “science” class too, You lose.”

            And was debunked by scientists, not Christian fundamentalists. YOU lose.

          • Oboehner

            Radiometric dating, more assumption and speculation – What was the starting amount of C14 anyway? I know we’ll assume the Earth is bazillions of years old then guess!! That’s science!! LOL.
            There’s more non-answer with the ad hominem tossed in, you don’t disappoint.
            Don’t want to talk about exploding dots, but “talking snakes”… (then you’re not talking about evolution at all). Clearly you have your own little world where the exploding dots reign supreme, but that’s religion. Not science.
            Debunked only after it was called out, just like Piltdown man, Lucy, Haeckel’s comic book drawings, etc. etc. Deliberate frauds when they were paraded around until someone found out – but that’s evolutionism.

          • Valri

            Radiometric dating, more science and facts. Ones you clearly refuse to accept and/or understand. That’s not an ad hominem by the way, because it is PRECISELY what you are doing. If this were a class in school, they would have thrown you out of it for being willfully ignorant and obtuse.

            Talking snakes, yes. Your department. The serpent talking to Eve. And you BELIEVE this. And this is “science” to you.

            No one says exploding dots except you. Have you not noticed that? Does that not scream “strawman” at you in a rather obvious way?

            Science isn’t exempt from frauds and charlatans. However, when they are exposed, it’s science itself that exposes them.

            (Referring to Ray Comfort): “There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.” – Richard Dawkins

          • Oboehner

            No one seems to be able to say anything about your exploding dot (high school “science” textbook), it must be the embarrassment that keeps you and yours from explaining just how it all started.

            Radiometric dating, assumptions and speculation do not equal facts, unless of course you were there bazillions of years ago and can vouch that the test is even remotely accurate.

            You like quotes?

            “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” – Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

            “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University)

          • Valri

            The reason no one says anything about the “exploding dot” is that it is your invention. It’s not a claim made by ANY proponents of evolution, it’s simply an embarrassing dumbing down of a scientific idea misunderstood by hateful and fearful fundamentalist Christians.

            Sorry, but radiometric dating does equal facts. Assumptions do not, but assumptions are what you have, not me. How a person can dismiss a whole body of science simply because it contradicts their fairy tale book is both baffling and hilarious.

          • Oboehner

            The exploding dot thing is in the textbooks, you can’t pull the old “hateful and fearful fundamentalist Christians” fallacy.
            Show me the data from any rock tested as to the starting radiation level at the time the rock was formed, since it is a “fact” as you claim, it should be readily available.
            Now we have the old “you don’t understand evolutionism” fallacy. I understand it is a religion – your little website confirms it.

          • Valri

            What textbook is it in?

            If you can’t show me, and you know you can’t, then you ARE hateful and fearful as well as a liar.

            It is not necessary to go back millions of years to date them accurately. Several people have pointed this out to you but you plug your ears and run away. I call that pathetic in the extreme.

            You DON’T understand evolution. For one thing you refuse to call it by its name, and for another you have demonstrated over and over that you think it deals with origins. It doesn’t, it deals with change over time. So even if your “exploding dot” strawman were real, it’s not even relevant. You are a bad joke.

          • Oboehner

            Ahhh, a “science” textbook.
            Wow you can really dance around a simple question can’t you?
            If I don’t understand your religion, why don’t you tell me how it all began if it wasn’t an exploding dot. I would like to hear some more fairytales.

          • Valri

            Tell me where the exploding dot comes from. It’s not from evolution or science, it’s from a Christian mind that does not understand abiogenesis, cosmology or evolution.

            NO ONE KNOWS how it began, and to say “I don’t know” is perfectly allowable and valid. What’s more, you don’t know yourself.

          • Oboehner

            Like I posted earlier: The exploding dot belief is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state…

          • Valri

            Yes, so you said, and provided not one single example of a modern proponent of science who thinks that way. Your strawman couldn’t possibly be any more full of straw.

          • Oboehner

            Then instead of hiding in fear, why don’t you tell me what the latest “facts” are on how it all started, after all without that there would have been no spontaneous life form to have “evolved” from.

          • Valri

            a) I’m not hiding, and b) talking about “how it all started” has nothing to do with evolution. You STILL don’t know this!

          • Oboehner

            So evolutionism didn’t have a beginning? Poof, there is was!! LOL!!

          • Valri

            Who are you LOLing at, yourself? Your statement makes no sense. Evolution (not evolutionism) means CHANGE. So how can “change” have a beginning? Evolution has NOTHING to do with origins. My God. Why can’t you figure that out? Reach for your dictionary.

          • Oboehner

            Still hiding from a simple question?

          • Valri

            It isn’t a simple question. It’s a nonsensical question you yourself don’t understand.

          • Oboehner

            Still hiding, I get it.

          • Valri

            Ask a question you yourself understand and I will be happy to answer it. Don’t ask about the origins of a verb.

          • Oboehner

            Still hiding, I get it.

          • Valri

            Still a fundie, I get it.

          • Valri

            You like quote mining?

            Your first quote:
            http://www.talkorigins. org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

            Your second quote:
            http://www.christianforums. com/threads/quote-mining.3091280/

          • Oboehner

            Next you’ll try and tell me Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man is real science.

          • Valri

            They were hoaxes, and scientists revealed them to be. Unlike your talking snake book which claims to never ever be wrong about anything.

          • Oboehner

            They were deliberate hoaxes put forth by other “scientists” in a feeble attempt to somehow prove their religion.

          • Valri

            I realize that you’re big into conspiracy theories, but no, scientists were not out to deliberately lie to one another. Even you must realize how completely daft that sounds.

          • Oboehner

            Daft as it might sound (no more daft than evolutionism) it was a deliberate hoax. How many links would you like me to post backing that up? It is common knowledge, perhaps you should get a clue before making yourself look the even bigger fool.

          • Valri

            So what? Aren’t most hoaxes “deliberate”? Was it a hoax played on the entire world by the entire scientific community? No. It wasn’t an attempt on an entire body of science to hoodwink the common man which is how you’re making it out to sound which is bizarre in the extreme.

          • Oboehner

            It was a hoax to try and get people to believe evolutionism, they do the same today but are more stealth at it.

          • Valri

            Oh my God. And you’re serious, aren’t you.

            Who was behind this hoax? Science as a whole? A few scientists? Satan?

          • Oboehner

            No there genius, it must have been the pope.

          • Valri

            Of course. Not fundie enough for you. Even though the Catholic faith was around first.

          • Oboehner

            Ahhh, no it wasn’t.

          • Valri

            And what’s this. ANOTHER subject you flunked out of in school? Never heard of the Protestant Reformation? Never wondered what they were protesting?

          • Oboehner

            Protesting the twisting of Christianity by Constantine and the RCC.

          • Valri

            Tell me, do you believe in ANYTHING that isn’t a completely insane and utterly disprovable conspiracy theory?

          • Oboehner

            Tell me, do you research ANYTHING for yourself, or do you blindly gobble up every morsel of BS anyone with an impressive sounding name serves up? You are the salesman’s dream. Evolutionism is completely insane and utterly disprovable, I don’t believe that.

          • Valri

            Yes, I research everything, and when science tells me they know how something is and they have proof and they display that proof in articles, books, journals, websites and everywhere else they can display it, I believe them. I don’t bury my head in the sand or in my Bible and pretend it isn’t there. That is exactly what you’re doing, and I think it’s high time you admitted it. You DON’T know better than science, you haven’t studied it, and you don’t even know the difference between evolution and cosmology.

          • Oboehner

            Again, read it slowly – there is NO proof, none. Evolutionism is NOT science, it is a religion seeking to explain our existence (through whatever means necessary) by excluding anything they don’t want to believe. And yes your head is buried in it, that is plain to see when you attempt to claim any fossil is “transitional” when all that amounts to is pure speculation based on a world view.

          • Valri

            Why? YOU read it, as slowly as you like, since it’s your own self-delusion you’re trying to sell to other people. The rest of us believe scientists and don’t get caught up in huge ridiculous hateful conspiracy theories. Hell, you don’t even consider Catholics, the largest group of Christians in the world (and one of the oldest) to be Christians at all so you’re even opposed to your OWN KIND. The wheel’s turning in there somehow but the hamster died a long time ago.

          • Oboehner

            Accepted this, self delusion that – yet nothing on how it all began, how that life magically popped out of the ooze, no proof of any kind.
            I’m not catholic, so I am not opposed to my “own kind”.

          • Valri

            You are Christian. Catholics are Christians. Ergo “your own kind”. You can’t even learn to play in the sandbox with your fellow Christians.

            There is nothing on how it all began because THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION. As you’ve been told HOW many times now? that’s abiogenesis/cosmology.

          • Oboehner

            Christians live by the Bible, catholics live by the pope – two different beliefs.

          • Valri

            Not quite. The Pope is just the leader of the Catholic church, just like YOUR church has a human leader.

            Christians live by the Bible. That’s true. Substitute Ken Ham or Kent Hovind for the Pope in your statement and see how equally it applies to yourself.

          • Oboehner

            My church does not have a human leader, nor does it blatantly violate the Word of God.
            Not even close.

          • Valri

            You are either lying or you are naive. It is not possible for a church to materialize without a human being founding it.

          • Oboehner

            You lack of understanding is showing.

          • David F Mayer

            The IGNORANCE is strong with this one.

          • Oboehner

            The ignorance, and epithets with zero substance is strong with this one.

          • Valri

            That’s not evolution, that’s abiogenesis. You don’t even understand the field you’re arguing about.

          • Oboehner

            By any other name…

          • Valri

            Abiogenesis deals with origins. Evolution does not. So when you think you’re dealing all these savage blows to evolution, you’re not. All you’ve done is show that not only do you not UNDERSTAND evolution, you are incapable of defining it.

          • Oboehner

            by any other name… still religious belief, whether the beginnings or what supposedly followed.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, magic is difficult to define.
            I would agree. Certainly very difficult to prove too, isn’t it Valri?
            Whenever you’re ready with those facts you keep mentioning…but not providing…ever.
            Did you lose them somewhere?
            Let me know if I can help you find them.
            I can google “magic” for you. Bound to get some great sites on evolution.
            Or try “unobservable”. “Unverifiable”. “Unduplicated”. “Unseen”. “Unproven”. “Fantasy”.
            You get the picture.

          • Valri

            No such thing.

      • gizmo23

        Where is a humanist church?

      • gizmo23

        How do you define humanism?

  • The Last Trump

    Imagine living in a country that supposedly guarantees you the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
    And then imagine that a single complaint can do THIS!
    Yeah, something’s a little off with the math here.

    You are supposed to be free TO GIVE OFFENSE and to BE OFFENDED.
    Those protections are there to protect ideas that are unpopular. Or it really isn’t freedom, is it?
    Welcome to socialism folks. Historical times indeed.

    • Cady555

      People have freedom of religion. Public schools do not.

      Your child has the right to attend public school without some group using the school as a way to get to your kid and hand out the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

      And every other children gets to attend public school without being targeted by religious proselytizing.

      That is what freedom of religion means.

      It should not take even one complaint for school employees to follow the law and protect all students from religious coercion.

      • Oboehner

        “And every other children gets to attend public school without being targeted by religious proselytizing.” Unless of course it’s evolutionism.

        • Cady555

          Evolution is science and makes no comment on the existence of God. It is just evidence and facts. Many Christians accept the truth of evolution.

          In the same way schools teach Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of Plate Tectonics and Christians have no problem learning those topics while believing in God.

          The evidence for evolution is every bit as solid as the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease. Pick up a solid discussion of evolution, like Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Or read the Wikipedia article Introduction to Evolution. It is no more or less atheistic as a multiplication table.

          • afchief

            Evolution is science???? Don’t make me laugh!!!! Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance. Explain to me HOW that is science????

            Darwinian evolution is a belief system based largely on faith. It is the religion of the age. Professor Louis T. Moore, a vocal evolutionist, said:

            “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” (8, pg. 50)

            “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

            —G. Chesterson

            Evolution is science?!?!?! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Cady555

            What sources written by biologists did you study before making that conclusion?

            Note, any source that has a “DONATE” button on its website is most likely a religious organization not a science organization.

            Those supporting creationism / ID claim there are no transitional fossils. Scientists claim there are thousands upon thousands. There are transitional fossils supporting the evolution of every major species. Scientists can describe them, classify them, and show them to you. “They don’t exist” v “Thousands upon thousands exist and you can see them.” What source have you read to determine for yourself if what the scientists claim is true?

            Then there are all the other areas of evidence. Genetics, geodiversity, vestigial traits, embryology, and more.

            DNA evidence alone supports evolution even if there was not one other piece of evidence. Can you explain what the DNA evidence shows and your basis for rejecting it?

            Many christians accept evolution. There is nothing pagan about it. It is no different than Atomic Theory or the Germ Theory of disease. It is merely science supported by mountains of evidence.

          • afchief

            The Problem of Sexes

            Advanced organisms have two sexes. Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one sex of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, “…we can’t even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one sex.” (14, pg. 41)

            The Problem of the Kanapoi Elbow Fossil

            This fossil, known as KP 271 is strikingly like modern humans. It is the oldest hominid fossil ever found to date, dated at 4.5 million years ago (on the evolutionist’s time scale). This puts it before any other supposed “ape-men,” including the australopithecines (“Lucy”). If this is true, evolution cannot be true. As put by Lubenow, “The concept of human evolution decrees that it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines—even though the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise—because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines.” (9, pg. 57) While Lubenow’s conclusion about KP 271 being human is questioned by some evolutionists, it is just another example of how the evolutionists are now constantly trying to swim upstream against the evidence challenging their theory.

            The Problem of Geologic Catastrophes

            Evolution demands long, uninterrupted spans of time. Yet the geologic record is one of catastrophes that interrupted life on earth. Gould admits that these “great dyings” are a problem because “our strong biases for gradual and continuous change force us to view mass extinctions as anomalous and threatening.” (5, pg. 57)

            There are numerous evidences from geology that support the biblical flood account. Examples are petrified logs and polystratic trees (extending through several layers of strata). Indeed, the mere existence of fossils confirms the flood account. If the Bible, or at least the young earth creationists’ view of the Bible, is accurate as to history, what we would expect to find is billions of dead things found in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Indeed, that is precisely what is found. (4, pg. 26)

            The Problem of Young Earth Evidence

            Probably a majority of creation scientists accepts an old earth view. But some believe in a relatively young earth. While we at Faith Facts lean toward the old earth view, the young earth view is worth considering.

            In either case, the evidence presented shows that evolution could not have happened no matter how much time we give it. But here is another problem for the theory. Evolution requires huge amounts of time. Of the hundreds of dating methods or evidences of the age of the earth, “young earth creationists” are convinced that the preponderance of evidence supports a young earth—at least far too short amount of time for evolution to have happened.

            Some of the evidence offered includes: the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, influx of minerals and sediment into the ocean via rivers, decay of natural plutonium, decay of lines of galaxies, the slowing rotation of the earth, the moon’s recession rate from earth, the amount of atmospheric helium, pleochroic halos, the existence of comets and meteors, population growth, the “Poynting-Robertson effect”, the existence of star clusters and super stars. (See Morris’ book in the Resource List.)

            An interesting piece of evidence came from the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption, the most extraordinary geologic event of the Twentieth Century. When one looks at strata of rock layers, for example in the Grand Canyon, evolutionists assume that each small layer of rock was laid down over millions of years. But scientists witnessed similar layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water flooding and lava flows caused by the Mount St. Helens eruption-proving that it doesn’t require millions of years, but merely hours in catastrophic conditions. (See 13, video listed in Resource List.)

            Young earth scientists argue that some popular dating methods that evolutionists use to suggest an old earth are subject to critical analysis, as they often give questionable and inconsistent results. For example, carbon 14 dating, contrary to popular belief, is only workable for a few thousand years of age. Radioisotope dating gives inconsistent results and is subject to various questionable assumptions. (12, Chapter 5)

            There is strong evidence that the much quoted age of the sun of 4.5 billion years is a number not based on adequate science, but rather is a biased number based on how much time the evolutionists feel they need to support their theory. When “unacceptable” dates for rocks are encountered, geologists use their evolutionary assumptions about the presumed age of the fossils in the rock layers to date the rock. Since the rock layers in turn are used to date the fossils they contain, this is circular reasoning. (See chapter 18 and the appendix of Lubenow’s book for a fascinating description of this problem.)

          • Cady555

            Quite the impressive Gish Gallop.

            During the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, Behe claimed the human immune system could not have evolved. When presented with dozens of peer reviewed papers and college text books describing the evolution of the immune system, he admitted that he had read none of them. He just concluded it was impossible and stood by that conclusion.

            There are peer reviewed papers and college textbooks describing the evolution of sexual reproduction. There is evidence in all of the areas you listed here.

            It is like standing on a mountain of evidence. A person comes up and picks up a single leaf and says “This is a leaf. It isn’t a rock and it isn’t part of the mountain. See I’ve proved the mountain doesn’t exist.”

          • John N

            ‘Evolution: in the beginning there was random chance…’
            Now that’s a strawman as we haven’t seen one for a long time. No understanding of the theory of evolution, and proud of it!

            And there is your friend professor Moore again. Dead for ages but that won’t stop you from abusing him. When was the last time you actually read a book on contemporary science?

          • afchief

            As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

            We will NOT believe in lies.

          • John N

            afchief (putting hands on ears): ‘No! No! I will NOT believe in reality!’

          • Valri

            Good, then you must believe in evolution, because it’s a proven fact.

          • afchief

            LOL! Fact is believing in “random chance” and that everything started with a big “puffffff”????? Was that hot air or cold air? LOL!

            You are making me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Valri

            Hey, I was just curious. Do you know what “science” means? How about “evidence”? “Proof”? Any of those words mean anything to you?

          • afchief

            Ok, let’s just think about this. A few billion years ago our planet came into existence by a big bang. Our planet happened to be within inches of burning or freezing if it moved to or away from the sun. Next, a cell, a piece of bacteria or whatever just formed out of nowhere. It had perfect conditions to grow. No heat, cold. snow. It had air and everything it needed to grow. After millions of years it grew into a monkey and other thousands of species whom were ALL asexual. Now ALL due to random chance a female and male monkey formed at the same time. Each developing reproduction systems that were made to come together.

            This was all by random chance!!!! Do you realize how DUMB and idiotic this sounds???? That two animals formed at the SAME time to reproduce????? Oh wait, I know they were asexual and the female popped out a male and female to mate. Oh brother, what a lie!!!!!

            It takes MORE faith to believe in this garbage than to believe there is a creator who created us all.

          • David F Mayer

            Your ignorance is truly profound. You are totally wrong in every detail. That must be some sort of a record. I suppose you get your science knowledge from reading comic books.

          • afchief

            Then explain to me how life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process — POOF — life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity

          • David F Mayer

            Clearly you don’t know a damned thing about Thermodynamics either. The Second Law states that any decrease of entropy at one place must be compensated by an increase elsewhere. If the Earth had no source of Free Energy (available for work, in the Gibbs sense), what you said would be correct. However, energy and negative entropy are supplied by the SUN. So long as there is an input of free energy from the Sun, entropy on Earth can DECREASE, and does.

          • Joe Soap

            Don’t be silly. The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun. The idea that if it was a few inches nearer or further away would have some kind of dramatic effect on the climate is absurd. It would need to be millions of miles one way or the other.

            Also it did not come into existence at the beginning of the universe. The universe was approximately 9 billion years old when the earth and the rest of the solar system began to form.

            The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It formed when gravity brought together the dust and debris left over from the birth of the sun and formed it into the various planets that orbit the sun today.

          • afchief

            Where’s the proof?

          • Joe Soap

            If you enter a darkened room and say “let there be light” does the light come on? No. Yet if I flick the light switch the light does come on. Science did that and that’s all the proof I need.

            I have no intention of explaining the overwhelming body of evidence regarding the age of the universe or the solar system to you since it would fall on deaf ears.

            Believe what you like. But remember this. My version of the birth and age of the universe is what is taught in schools, colleges and universities right around the world not yours. My version will continue to be dominant and increasingly so because it is correct. Your version will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

          • afchief

            I am afraid you don’t know what you are talking about. If true science is a quest for knowledge, how about considering that the reason humans are 98.5 genetically similar to chimpanzees is because of a common Designer? The is no design without a Designer!

            “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork” – Psalm 19:1

            Next time you’re making love with your loved one, ask yourself how natural selection could have designed such a marvelous means of emotional intimacy, bonding, and procreation with another human being. How did the male organ know how to evolve to fit hand in glove with the female organ? They would both have to know what the other was doing. To believe it happened by chance is to believe nonsense, absolute nonsense. And if that is your belief, it also makes it your religion. The car you drive is a product of design, not chaos. It was once only a concept in the mind of the Designer. So were you.

            Evolution is a boldface LIE!!!

          • David F Mayer

            There can be no design without a designer. Right! However, the term “designer” means only some entity that supplies negative entropy to the process. Evolution supplies, via natural selection, negative entropy to the underlying designs of living organisms. The designer exists all right. It is Evolution.

          • Elie Challita

            If you ever meet a scientist that actually explains astrophysics, abiogenesis, and evolution in terms as inaccurately simplistic and blatantly irrational as those you just used, you have my permission to knee them in the ‘nads.

            Fortunately, nobody but a creationist would use that strawman in a serious conversation.

          • afchief

            And I will repeat….evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell!!!

          • Elie Challita

            That’s a very well-researched and reasoned position. I’m sure you should get a Nobel prize for this.

          • afchief

            It is sooooo true, I will repeat it again………..evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Yes, you tend to repeat yourself quite often

          • afchief

            I like to repeat truth!

          • Elie Challita

            Now now, didn’t one of the commandments state “Thou shalt not lie”?

          • afchief

            The truth always offends! Does it not?

          • Elie Challita

            Sure it does. Which is why you got kicked off of Charisma, and probably a dozen other sites, isn’t it?
            It says something when even other Christians can’t stand your particular version of the “truth”

          • afchief

            You have NO clue why I was kicked off.

          • Elie Challita

            Really, chief? Does this ring a bell?
            Hello afchief

            We had removed your account in an attempt to try and bring some civility back into our comments section. You were only one of multiple people removed in this effort. It worked. Although there is still bickering and disagreeable people the level of vitriol is down and the number of conversions that remain civil through to the end is up significantly.

            You had a tendency to pick fights, inject yourself into other people’s conversions (degrading them into arguments) and belittling or mock people who you didn’t agree with. You were almost always in “attack mode” and that’s not what we’re looking for. If you only posted once in while we might have been able to ignore it but you were so prolific in your posting that you often seemed to take over the comments section of some articles, driving away people who just wanted to have a real or civil conversion without being attacked.

            The thought of restoring your access makes me (and the other moderators) nervous. We don’t want to give up the gains we’ve made our community. We are developing other steps to further stress the need for civility.

            This is one of those situations where if we were to restore your access it would require that you make a commitment to change how you act and treat others on our sites. This would require not only that you don’t do what you did before but also that you don’t let others drag you down (ie, if someone you disagree with tries to pick a fight, you don’t bite, you take the higher ground, even if that means ending/ignoring the conversion). Only you know if you can make that sort of change and only you can decide if it’s worth it.

            Drew Glaser
            Internet Manager
            Charisma Media

          • David F Mayer

            And I will repeat that you are a scientific ignoramus.

          • The Last Trump

            Not if he’s gone to your “science” classes in public schools.
            They’re a little short in these areas today.
            (Who am I kidding! They’re A LOT short in these areas today! Hell, they’re even preaching global warming from their “scientific” pulpits these days! Brother!)

          • Valri

            Yeah I know…reality…such a hard thing to grasp, eh?

          • The Last Trump

            Only to liberal extremists.
            Well! Look who I’m talking to! 🙂

          • The Last Trump

            Please provide the proven facts.
            We’ll wait.
            Thank you.

          • Valri

            Already done, not just by me, but by scientists. Go look it up. We’ll wait.

          • The Last Trump

            I’m back. And after extensive research (25 years, just now, and counting) I still haven’t been able to locate any actual evidence of these PROVEN FACTS (!?) whatsoever. Not a single shred!
            Just countless and continual speculation, opinion and guesswork. You know, mindless drivel.
            Which caused me to personally abandon evolution as “science” years ago on account of this problematic void of any actual proof whatsoever. Makes it hard to debate, doesn’t it?
            Makes sense though. If it was actually proven as all of the God loathing liberal extremists here falsely assure, it wouldn’t still be called a THEORY now would it?
            Hee hee! It’s almost unfair debating you desperate trolls. So woefully unprepared and lacking.
            Keep up the good work Val. You must driving people toward Christianity in droves! 🙂

          • Valri

            Poor sweet baby! Did all those nasty difficult scientific words go sailing clear over your blissfully unenlightened head? Were the PROVEN FACTS which the rest of the world’s known about since the 1800s just a little bit TOO difficult for you to understand when the talking snake makes so much more sense?

            How do we know radiometric dating is accurate? Because nobody has ever observed the half-life of an isotope varying. It is based on unchanging physical constants, which you’d have noticed if you’d actually taken the time to read any of it rather than ran away with your fingers in your ears as you always do.

            You just don’t like science when it is at odds with your religious zealotry, pumpkin. And the world can see it.

          • The Last Trump

            I really must thank you. After looking for any evidence of proof whatsoever for the magical fantasy of evolution and failing completely, ONCE AGAIN, my faith in the Biblical account of Creation is now stronger than ever, what with actual science backing it up and supporting it fully.

            Thank you so very much for leading me away from the mythology of evolution and towards the scientifically supported Biblical account!
            You’re the best, Val! You’re doing God’s work, sister! 😉

            And I encourage anybody who is on the fence regarding evolution to really check it out. Enjoy the opinions, conjecture, assumptions and complete guesswork but absolute absence of evidence. Like, AT ALL!
            Nothing will drive you away from it and into the arms of God faster! Happy researching everybody! 🙂

          • Valri

            May I ask you a question?

            Do you know what evolution means? May I ask why you think it has anything to do with origins?

            Is it not PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that you don’t understand what evolution IS, since you keep comparing it to abiogenesis and cosmology?

            Let’s see you “hee hee hee” your smug way out of this one, chumpy.

          • David F Mayer

            What caused you to abandon Evolution was your total ignorance of the topic.

          • David F Mayer

            You have obviously never read a book on the subject, but get your information from crackpot websites. Sorry about that. But your arguments hold no water. We have the fossils, so we win. You have only hot air, so you lose.

          • afchief

            “In the beginning, God didn’t create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!”

            This doctrine of delusion has become the general theme of modern so-called science, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the “great principle” of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

            There is no proof for evolution! It has to be believed, therefore it’s a faith, therefore it’s a religion! Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in God. Therefore it is a LIE!!!

          • Oboehner

            There is no truth to evolutionism, it is a belief system nothing more – a religion.

          • Cady555

            There is evidence for evolution in multiple scientific disciplines.

            Many Christians accept the truth of evolution. It is not a question of religion versus non religion any more than Germ Theory of Disease, Plate Tectonics or Atomic Theory. The evidence is overwhelming. The Theory of Evolution is central to the study of biology and important to several other scientific disciplines. If the US is to compete in the global economy, we cannot deny our children knowledge of one of the most important fields of science.

            Read about evolution from reliable sources. Get an understanding of what it actually says, the extensive evidence for it and the lack of evidence against it.

          • Oboehner

            Many Christians are apostate and ignorant. Any evidence you mentioned is explainable by multiple conclusions, it is in no way exclusionary to evolutionism and is far from proving it. Lumping evolutionism together with real science doesn’t cut it either. We SHOULD deny our children the lie the evolutionism is anything more than a religious belief.
            I have read about evolutionism from whatever source, how do you think I know it’s a religion?

          • Valri

            Evolutionism, a made-up word, might be a religion, but evolution is not. It’s real, it’s science, it’s what is taught in schools, and only morons refute it. Sorry, you lose.

          • Oboehner

            Only those who have a complete lack of anything intelligent to say use verbiage like: “only morons refute it. Sorry, you lose.” Whatever you choose to call it, it is still a religion not science, no matter how much you stamp your feet and call it such.
            There is NO proof, no exclusionary evidence.

          • Valri

            Right. Except for the fact that science uses it every single day, it’s factual, it’s got more evidence to back it up than you can possibly imagine. But you’re NOT a moron. I see.

          • Valri

            The term “evolutionist” is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. Sometimes the word changes to ‘evilution’ to indicate that belief in evolution is, in some creationist opinions, evil and of the devil. Both “evolutionist” and “evolutionism” refer to scientists and others who accept that the evidence-based theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields). Often, the term just gets thrown around to refer to anyone else they’re disagreeing with at the time, such as atheists or liberals. To compound this stupidity some creationists even argue that “evolutionism” is a secular religion leading to sexual freedom and other supposed failings of present day society. All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of fundamentalist garbage.

          • Oboehner

            The term “creationist” is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of evolutionism. Both “evolutionist” and “evolutionism” refer to scientists and others who accept that the atheistic-based religious belief that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields because if they don’t subscribe they are blacklisted, marginalized, and often fired). To compound this stupidity some evolutionists even argue that “creation” is a fairytale religion taking away “sexual freedom” and other supposed benefits of present day society. This while believing in an exploding dot and random chance to arrive at all of the complexities known and unknown. All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of atheistic garbage.

          • Valri

            Oh, what an absolute 24-karat gold TURD you’ve released here. This is too good not to share.

            And you deserve it, too. It should teach you by now that simply quoting back things people say to you replacing their words with yours only ever results in a cesspool of stupidity.

          • pyro

            Both “creationist” and “creationism” refer to people who accept that the religious belief that God is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all politicians because if they don’t subscribe they are blacklisted, marginalized, and not elected). To compound this stupidity some creationists even argue that “evolutionism” is a fairytale religion taking away morals and other benefits of present day society. This while believing that everything must have a beginning, and therefore that the only way to explain the existence of everything is to posit a human-like intelligence that has no beginning. All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of religious garbage.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionists in their desperation to explain life and its origins without any supernatural elements whatsoever, cook up far fetched fairytales such as exploding dots and miraculous and spontaneous life which somehow arrived at the known and unknown complexities purely by random chance completely ignoring the ever mounting shortcomings (like soft tissue found in dinosaur remains said to be millions of years old) and pressing on with “evidence” such as Piltdown man (fraud) Nebraska man (fabricated from a single pig’s tooth) Lucy (10% bone – from a baboon, and 90% imagination) claiming radiometric dating proves the earth is billions of years old (when there is no constant, nor measurement of how much radiation it had to begin with or any clue as to anything that may have affected the amount of radiation, and can’t even come close to aging a volcanic rock of known age) and on and on ad nauseam. This while believing that everything must have a beginning, and therefore that the only way to explain the existence of everything is to posit some mythological “big bang” in which everything magically arrived from nothing. All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of religious garbage.

          • pyro

            Creationists, in their desperation to explain life and its origins in a way that does not change their existing explanation in any way whatsoever, cook up far fetched fairytales such as a changing speed of light constant and miraculous and spontaneous creation of the universe appearing to already be billions of years old and a layer of water just floating above the earth’s surface and super-fast evolution after a large-scale extinction event completely ignoring the ever mounting shortcomings (like the obvious contradiction of completely fictitious celestial events with “never lies”) and pressing on with “evidence” such as pieces of Noah’s Ark (all frauds) fossil layers (which don’t actually support the idea of a global flood) Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve (who didn’t even live in the same generation) claiming radiometric dating being used on too-young sample proves it wrong and on and on ad nauseam. This while believing that everything must have a beginning, except the one thing that characterizes their beliefs. All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of religious garbage.

          • Oboehner

            There is no desperation with creation, they have faith just like evolutionists – it’s just that evolutionists are desperate to hide that fact. BTW the speed of light thing didn’t come from creationists.
            Super fast evolution? Ahhh… no.
            Contradictions? No again.
            Fossil layers support a global flood FAR more than evolutionism, sorry. There have been sea creature fossils found on mountain tops.
            Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? Making crap up are we?
            Evolutionism – religious garbage attempting to hide behind science.

          • pyro

            There is no desperation with science, their beliefs change like creationists – it’s just that creationists are desperate to hide that fact. BTW the changing speed of light thing didn’t come from scientists.
            Super fast evolution? How do YOU explain the huge variation within species when the ark only took 2-7 members of each one; I’m just reiterating the explanations I’ve heard from other creationists.
            Contradictions? We actually FIX them when we find them. Same way frauds like Piltdown Man were uncovered; by scientists, not by idiots. Fossil layers do not support a global flood, sorry. A global flood would create a mess of non-stratified fossils, not layers. Sea creature fossils on mountain tops does not mean there was a world-wide flood; it could just mean the ground moved.
            Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? Genetics stuff; everybody’s mitochondria is descended from one woman’s, and every man’s y chromosome from one man, which is where the name comes from. But a bunch of people read too much into the names.
            Creationism – religious garbage attempting to call itself science.

          • Oboehner

            I can’t speak for your world, but in mine the creation belief doesn’t change.
            Variations in the species perhaps? Unlike evolutionists, I don’t claim to know exactly how things transpired – I wasn’t there.
            As it has been stated before, creation isn’t being taught at taxpayers expense in the government schools, your religion is, so you can leave that alone, it doesn’t help your cause.

          • pyro

            I can’t speak for your world, but in mine changing your beliefs is a sign of strength. You already admit to variation within species, so what’s so hard about changes becoming big enough to make interbreeding impossible? Unlike creationists, I don’t claim to know exactly how things transpired – I don’t have a book of all the answers. it has been stated before, creation isn’t being taught at taxpayers expense in the government schools because Congress shall make no law supporting an establishment of religion. Throwing the word “religion” around like an insult doesn’t help your cause

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is most certainly a religion based on faith and speculation, speculation based on one’s religious view. There is not one shred of proof – nothing.

          • pyro

            Creation is most certainly a religion based on faith and speculation, speculation based on one’s religious view. There is not one shred of proof – nothing.

          • Oboehner

            Again, it’s not being taught at taxpayer expense and is irrelevant to proving your religion so give it a rest.

          • pyro

            Again, whether it’s being taught at taxpayer expense and is irrelevant to proving your religion so give it a rest.

          • Oboehner

            Wrong, if one religion is banned, ALL religions are banned – even evolutionism.

          • pyro

            Wrong, if one religion is banned, ALL religions are banned – including creationism.

          • Oboehner

            Including evolutionism.

          • pyro

            Including creationism.

          • Oboehner

            It’s already out, when is evolutionism being removed?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And your evidence is…the ferocity with which you can stomp your foot?

          • Oboehner

            Like I said before, there is NO proof nor exclusionary evidence anything anywhere ever “evolved” – NONE.

          • Valri

            Except that you’re wrong, because the rest of the civilized world uses it daily. You’re guilty of living life with blinders on.

        • gizmo23

          So are you opposed to teaching biology? How about Earth science?

          • Oboehner

            Opposed to teaching religion, since there is no proof or exclusionary science involved in evolutionism, taxpayer funded schools should stick to testable provable repeatable science – not a religious belief system.

          • gizmo23

            So we shouldn’t teach about gravity, atomic structure, or geology?

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, evolutionism isn’t science by association.

          • Valri

            Sorry, yes it is.

          • Oboehner

            Ahhh, no, neither does standing in a garage make you a car.

          • Valri

            Evolutionism is science, as evidenced by the dictionary. You going to fight with the dictionary too?

          • Oboehner

            That’s all you have, the dictionary said so? How about the term “gay” what does the rock-solid dictionary say about that 50 years ago and today?

          • Valri

            Well, there’s the dictionary, plus a veritable mountain of textbooks, papers and data, but of course that counts for nothing, right?

            Incidentally, the word “gay” – another one you clearly have a hard time with – still means what it did 50 years ago but has grown a bit archaic, and it just happens to have taken on a second meaning. You know, like “thick”.

          • Oboehner

            Rock solid.

          • Valri

            I think you’re going to find you’re the sole voice in the wilderness screaming about schools teaching evolution which is proven facts, bub.

          • Oboehner

            Saying “proven facts” over and over doesn’t make it true, there is NOTHING (read it slowly) N-O-T-H-I-N-G about evolutionism that has been proven. Evolutionists take minor adaptations and stretch it out to some wild dreamed up fantasy about common ancestors and missing links.

          • Valri

            This is, in essence, what you are saying.

            “There is NOTHING (read it slowly) N-O-T-H-I-N-G about grass being green in color that has been proven.”

            Even though you can go out and see for yourself that it’s green, there are pictures in books that show it’s green, there are explanations about what makes it green in science texts.

            All those same things can be done with evolution. We observe it, we have the evidence, we know it is a fact. Its proven. One little fundie stomping his feet doesn’t change what the rest of us don’t guess at but actually KNOW.

          • Oboehner

            Empty rhetoric, like I said – Saying “proven facts” over and over doesn’t make it true, there is NOTHING (read it slowly) N-O-T-H-I-N-G about evolutionism that has been proven.
            I can see the grass is green, do you see monkey’s turning human in your world?

          • Valri

            Nothing empty about it. You’re right, saying “proven facts” doesn’t make it true, the actual proven facts people are describing DO make it true.

            Monkeys don’t turn human. That’s not what evolution is, and explains very well why you are fighting so hard against it – you simply don’t understand it.

            Ask yourself this question, are you qualified to be having this discussion on a public forum?

          • Oboehner

            Another empty reply, there are NO proven facts – period.

          • Valri

            Apart from the ones the field of science works with daily, of which there are thousands. You’re not going to win this one.

          • Oboehner

            You empty claims mean I already have.

          • Valri

            Nothing empty about them. Take it up with scientists, not with me. And if you don’t like evolution being taught in SCIENCE classes in public schools worldwide and not in RELIGION classes which you insist it is, take it up with your psychiatrist.

          • Oboehner

            Then let “scientists” handle it and stumble back into you blind religious beliefs.

          • Valri

            I find it interesting how a person who (obviously) failed all of his/her Science courses, who has never read a book on Evolution in his/her lifetime, who has no general education
            worthy of the name, has the unmitigated gall to criticize a branch of Science that is generally accepted and has been accepted since 1859.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionist playbook: appeal to authority arguments “branch of Science that is generally accepted and has been accepted since 1859.” and ad hominem attacks “a person who (obviously) failed all of his/her Science courses, who has never read a book on Evolution in his/her lifetime, who has no general education worthy of the name, has the unmitigated gall” That’s all you have and all you’ll ever have, face it your belief in evolutionism is faith based, not on proof as there isn’t any.

          • Valri

            Um, no. When you’re citing facts, you’re not “appealing” to anything except someone’s ability to accept the truth.

            It’s you with the talking snakes. Not us.

          • Oboehner

            Right, it’s the exploding dot and make-believe “cavemen” – taught at taxpayer expense.

          • Valri

            And I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about in either case. You ARE extremely fond of saying exploding dot but it’s hard to imagine a bigger strawman. I’ve never heard a single believer in evolution say that.

          • Oboehner

            Then do enlighten me as too how the whole “evolution” fallacy got started.

          • Valri

            I can’t do that, because it’s not a fallacy, it’s real.

          • Oboehner

            Or because you can’t is more accurate.

          • Valri

            Oh, all the bazillion sources I cited are all lying, like one great conspiracy theory? Is that what you’re saying?

            How is it that MOST Christians, the more reasonable ones, have no issue with evolution?

          • Oboehner

            There’s that appeal to authority. Still can’t huh?
            If they believe in evolutionism, perhaps they are not Christian – one can’t serve two masters.

          • Valri

            Wrong, in the same sense that it’s not an appeal to authority either when you look up a word in the dictionary. It’s a query from an accepted resource.

            Evolutionism doesn’t teach that if you disbelieve in it you will be tortured in hellfire for eternity, either. One of many things that makes it NOT a religion.

          • Oboehner

            Hardly the same, you are trying to get me to believe something without one shred of proof, by merely because somebody said so.

            “Evolutionism doesn’t teach that if you disbelieve in it you will be tortured in hellfire for eternity, either. One of many things that makes it NOT a religion.” Other religions are irrelevant to evolutionism being a religion. Merriam-Webster states a religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” That fits.

          • Valri

            There is, and many people have told you this and it’s about the most easily verifiable fact there is, FAR more than a mere “shred” of proof. Don’t you know this is a field of science that people make their livelihoods in? What, do you think they sit around all day long and think of new ways to lie to and deceive people?

            Merriam-Webster states a religion is a “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” No. That fits Christianity, it fits Islam, it fits anything else that hasn’t been proven to this day, but one does not BELIEVE in evolution. One ACCEPTS it. The fact that you have not makes you a lot of things, none of them good.

          • Oboehner

            I see you’re still holding to your religion with ardor and faith. But since it is a verifiable fact, do verify – spare me the lengthy cut and paste as well as the boring websites rife with religious speculation, just give me one fact. Then I’ll be happy to show you how it is anything but factual.
            BTW how did your light go out?

          • Valri

            There is nothing further to discuss. You have displayed willful ignorance, fundamentalist Christian zealotry, and a rather pathetic understanding of the actual process of evolution. I think we’re done here.

          • Oboehner

            You have displayed… nothing. No proof, no facts, not even a compelling argument. Be happy with your religion.

          • Valri

            There is nothing further to discuss. You have displayed willful
            ignorance, fundamentalist Christian zealotry, and a rather pathetic
            understanding of the actual process of evolution. I think we’re done
            here.

          • Shifty

            So you’re moderate on abortion? I’ve been told by both sides that it isn’t possible to be moderate about it.

          • The Last Trump

            Please list.
            Thank you.
            (Thousands is a little vague, yes? We Christians tend to deal with specifics, facts, details and such.)

          • Valri

            Will 152 be suitable?

            http://www.goodreads. com/list/show/9417.Best_Books_on_Evolution_

          • The Last Trump

            Ooooh! Swing and a miss! So close. We’ll give you an “E” for effort, however minimal. But Oboehner asked for PROOF Muffin. Not everyday books about opinion, conjecture and complete guesswork. AND, out of your 152 books many were written by the same authors. Oooopsy!
            And thousands equates to 152 where you’re from huh? Some kind of liberal extremist math? Common Core perhaps? Yikes!
            Good to know eh folks? For future Valri “statistics”. Have your math converters ready!
            No worries, Muffin. We know you had little to work with, on account of having no actual evidence whatsoever. We empathize with your unenviable position – what with defending an indefensible case.
            And I mean, really! If we were just going by the total number of books written about God and Christianity versus the religion of evolution, well, we know who would win THAT particular battle hands down! Don’t we!
            (I’ll give you a clue – it’s NOT evolution Muffiin! You’re welcome 🙂

          • David F Mayer

            I find it interesting how a person who (obviously) failed all of his/her Science courses, who has never read a book on Evolution in his/her lifetime, who has no general education worthy of the name, has the unmitigated gall to criticize a branch of Science that is generally accepted and has been accepted since 1859.

          • Oboehner

            The evolutionism dogma: Appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks.
            It’s a religion, face reality.

          • The Last Trump

            Proven facts?
            Thank God you’re here! Please provide your proven facts for all to see.
            Thanks again.

      • The Last Trump

        Public schools can do as they please. They are not government. They do not make laws. Establishment Clause says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
        Get a grip. You see laws being passed here by Congress, do you?
        But we sure see “prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF” don’t we!
        You’re welcome.

        • Cady555

          Read the entire Constitution, including Article III and the 14th Amendment. The Biil of Rights applies at all levels of government and the Supreme Court has authority over all Constitutional questions.

          The first amendment applies at the state and local level, including public schools.

          • The Last Trump

            And yet, for over 200 years Christianity has permeated every level of government and American society. Bibles have been used to take oaths to swear in government leaders, presidents, and the same Supreme Court judges you referenced yourself. Bibles were used to teach from in classrooms and Christmas and Easter were established as government and public school holidays.
            Only in the last generation has all of this suddenly become “illegal”!
            Weird huh? Exactly.
            Try as you might bud, you just can’t change facts and established history.
            Sorry it seems to bother you so much. 🙁

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And your point is…?

          • The Last Trump

            Over your head.
            Apparently.
            Once again.
            Willfully blind, huh?
            Common problem for you Christian loathing fact deniers.
            Fortunately, the historical record completely demolishes your twisted views on the well established Judeo-Christian principles that were involved in America’s founding and subsequent greatness, so I don’t have to.
            Gotta love history books, eh blind one?

          • gizmo23

            I also read the history that said Christians used God to justify slavery and the genocide of natives

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, the historical record shows we did things wrong for a long time, but it’s being corrected now, thankfully.

            Just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it’s good.

          • gizmo23

            Then we should never had had slavery or native genocide

        • Ralf Spoilsport

          Public schools can do as they please. They are not government.

          These schools are.

          They do not make laws.

          You got one right.

          You see laws being passed here by Congress, do you?

          No, I see government schools acting outside their authority and violating the “no establishment” clause.

          • The Last Trump

            Get glasses.

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            Learn some court opinions.

        • gizmo23

          Cool! I can teach my middle schoolers pagan chants and witchcraft. If parents complain, oh well Freedom of Religion.

          • The Last Trump

            Already happening.
            Google it.
            Pretty scary what’s going on in public schools these days.

          • gizmo23

            Where? When? By whom?
            I google witchcraft and paganism in public schools, nothing. Isn’t there something about bearing false witness in the Bible?
            If you are going to make silly statements be ready to back them up.

          • The Last Trump

            You must be doing it wrong.
            Remove your “anti everything but your own view” coloured glasses and try again. Look for topics like Islam taught in American schools, Allah declared the one true God, Sun god worship, chanting and the like.
            Seriously. It’s not rocket science. It’s just google.
            You’re welcome.

          • gizmo23

            Whers is Islam being taught? Learning about something is not being taught it

      • Angel Jabbins

        If public schools are supposed to be ‘free of religion’, then how come children as young as kindergarten are being taught ‘mindfulness’ and other meditation practices that originate directly from Buddhism. Such practices violate of my Christian faith and I would not want my children to be forced to participate in such activities. It will be mainstreamed into all the schools before long…under the guise of calming the students, helping them focus and cope with stress. But is nothing more than new age religion. You cannot separate the practice from the religion. The very concept and practice of mindfulness is religious; mindfulness is the seventh step in the Buddhist Noble Eight-fold Path. So much for your idea of freedom from religion in public schools. Other religions are also esteemed and accommodated in the public schools (prayer rooms and prayer rugs for Muslim students)…. but Christianity…heavens no!

        “New in schools: ‘Mindfulness’ helps kids focus”:

        http: //www. lohud. com/story/news/education/2015/09/11/students-taught-present/71926800/ (loose spaces)

        Goldie Hawn is a big promoter of getting this practice into more public schools and wants it to start with the youngest children…even preschool. Hawn in a practicing Buddhist.

        • Cady555

          I don’t know the circumstances of this situation. On some level, taking a deep breath and being calm is not religious. Even the Bible says “Be still and know that I am God.”

          But there is a line. If they get into any sort of religious instruction, I agree with you, it is illegal.

          • Angel Jabbins

            You don’t know the circumstances of it? I just told you it is a practice right from Buddhism and gave you a link to read about it. You can find more if you google it. It is much more than just taking deep breaths to get calm. It is transcendental meditation…going into an altered states of consciousness… and that is new age religion and is being promoted by people who are themselves Buddhists. See?…if it is anything that has to do with Christianity, it is definitely out! But these other teachings are making their way into our schools under the radar, and well…we just ‘don’t know the circumstances of it’ and don’t take the time to even investigate it. What blindness and what hypocrisy! And you never addressed the special accommodations being made for Muslim students.

            The Bible does NOT teach mantra meditation….repeating a word or phrase over and over while emptying your mind and going into a trance. The Bible teaches using your mind to think (meditate) on the truths of scripture so we can apply them to our lives and grow closer to God.

            “Be still and know that I am God’ is taken out of context. Go read it in its full context in Psalm 46. It has nothing whatever to do with just ‘being calm’. It is about trusting in God when the world around you if falling apart…trusting that He is in control and will work even hard and difficult things for good according to His will. It is a Psalm that applies so clearly to our present day with all that is happening in the world. It is not about calming ourselves by escaping into a tranced state. It is about God being in control. It is about trusting Him so we need not worry or fret.

            The schools claim it is not religion they are teaching, but you cannot separate the practices from the religion. Even devout Hindus and Buddahists will tell you that.

        • gizmo23

          Praying is part of pagan worship. Maybe Christians should stop that ? Sports coaches, business, trainers all teach and use mindfulness. Nothing religious about it, don’t get hung up on a word

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Jesus Prayed and taught us how to pray. He was NOT a “pagan”. Because Jesus Prayed than we as Christians are to Pray.

        • TheCountess

          Agreed.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Thanks so much!

      • jennylynn

        Public schools have been teaching the religion of atheism/humanism and I don’t see people complaining. If you want to remove religion than remove atheism/humanism/ evolution which is all a believe system that takes faith!

        • Cady555

          Not true. Schools must remain silent on religion, neither promoting or disparaging it. Schools should respect the religious diversity of students without taking sides.

          If my kIds told me a teacher at their school told the clasd that religion was false, I would complain. You see, I value the Constitution and the first amendment. So even if the teacher violated the law to say something I agreed with, I would defend the Constitution because the Constitution is greater than my personal beliefs.

    • afchief

      You are correct!!! However, where are the churches? WHERE ARE THE PASTORS? Where are the Christian lawyers who will expose the lie that courts can’t make laws? Why do we follow such foolishness? It is time that somebody, somewhere told the courts and the ACLU to go pound sand.

      Christians pay for the schools, yet Christian prayers are not permitted. All across the fruited plain, Islam is being invited into the schools with Halal meals and prayer rooms. Is it just me, or is there no separation between Islam and state? We could ask Hussein 0lawless, but then again we know where he kneels on the issue.

      Since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie. Religious liberty is absolute in America. If the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square.

      There is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law. Abortion has never been made legal. Homosexual sodomy is still a crime. Homosexual marriage can never be legal because it violates all Natural and Christian laws.

      Courts cannot make law. They merely offer opinions. Christian values have been removed from America by tyrannical courts.

    • Valri

      I’d love to see what shade of crimson your face would turn if it was the Qu’ran they were handing out in schools. Hypocrite.

      • The Last Trump

        It wasn’t the Koran that made America the envy of the world.
        Judeo-Christian values, Christian churches on every street corner and Bibles in every school house, court house, government office and hotel room dresser drawer made America “that shining city on a hill”.
        Guess the embarrassing mess Bizarro America has become is just some kind of amazing coincidence since rejecting those Christian values the country was founded on. Uh huh. Riiiiight. Koran he says!? Koo koo!

        • Valri

          What that sounds like to me is an opinion. You are a Christian only because you were born in the US. If you were born in Iraq, you’d be a Muslim, and probably with equally as much fervor as you do for Christianity now.

          Also, the USA was in no sense founded on Christianity.

          • The Last Trump

            It’s called history, Junior. Established fact.
            No matter how desperately you wish it wasn’t.
            Look it up. Or not. Doesn’t change the reality that it is what it is. Sorry 🙁

          • Valri

            You’re right, Sparky, it IS called history. Why haven’t you learned it?

            Here you go. See? I looked it up, and everything! Real education at last!

            http://www.freethought.mbdojo. com/foundingfathers. html

            Do you want, oh, I don’t know, about 96 more sites just like it that all say the same thing?

            You are so cute! Your naivete is just adorable!

          • The Last Trump

            Aww, Muffin! Did you really just link to one of your kooky, liberal revisionist, Christian loathing websites as a historical reference!?

            You DID!?
            Talk about cute and adorable! 🙂

            And you say there are at least 96 more WEBSITES that spout the same biased and unsubstantiated drivel?
            WELL THAT SETTLES IT!!!

            Hee hee! ….what can I say folks.
            Kids today and their “it’s on a website so it just HAS to be true!”
            And THESE are your historical references!

            MY naivete! 🙂
            Sooo precious! Don’t ever change little buddy!

          • Valri

            Oh my God, don’t YOU ever change, Trumpy. Your statements are always so completely loaded with denial and conspiracy theories so thick you’d expect them more from people who wear special helmets to keep from hurting themselves.

            Tell you what though, we’ll play this fairly. You give me a site – any site – that proves conclusively that the USA was founded on Christianity and I will acquiesce.

            WHAT’S THAT? YOU CAN’T FIND ONE?

            Gee! I wonder why not! LOL
            You are HYSTERICALLY funny! More! MORE!

          • The Last Trump

            A site? I’ll do you one better than that.
            How’s every library everywhere. The history section.
            Look for every book written about American history.
            You’re welcome little buddy! Happy reading.

            He’ll acquiesce he says! TO UNDENIABLE ESTABLISHED HISTORY!
            🙂

            No worries, loather of truth that flies in the face of your nasty little revisionist version of history. You are not required to acquiesce.
            In fact, your posts serve a very important purpose here at the Christian News. They reveal just how desperate, dishonest, and devious the liberal left is to distort known facts to further their disgraceful agenda.
            Heck, you’re probably repelling people away from your cause and driving them towards Christianity, anti-abortion & pro traditional marriage and family.

            Keep up the good work!

          • Valri

            That’s what we in the business call BS, Trumpy. And although you wear it so well, it’s still complete crap.

            Try this quote on for size, from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (feel free to Google it):

            “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

            Or this:

            “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohameddan nation.” – John Adams

            Or this:

            “I would not dare dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible) – Thomas Paine

            How about this:

            “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

            Another one!

            “I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of church and state.” – Theodore Roosevelt

            What library are you using? Jack Chick’s? HEE HEE HEE! Adorable! Keep your head in the sand there a while longer Sparky!

          • The Last Trump

            You’re in the BS business you say?
            We know Muffin. We know. We’ve read your posts.
            There’s just no refuting established fact and known history. Sorry it bothers you so much. 🙁
            It’s like debating whether water is wet. Or that liberal leftists are delusional liars.
            You either accept it or you don’t. But your denial just doesn’t change the truth of the matter.
            No matter how hard Christian loathing revisionist truth deniers try to tell you it isn’t.
            Sooo cute watching you try though! Perhaps you could find some more minority quotes? 🙂

          • Valri

            Isn’t that precious? I post several actual quotes by the country’s forefathers and all you can scrape together by way of a response is to turn your smug up to 11 and call me muffin and make wild non-sequiturs about liberals.

            Established and known history you say. Cute. You mean like the several examples above by John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc., who have conclusively proven that the US was not found in any sense on Christianity?

            You don’t like that, do you, cupcake? Well suck it up and put on a helmet, because it’s fact.

  • afchief

    I’m amazed at how many people don’t understand what the word “establishment” means. It means that Congress cannot ESTABLISH an official state religion to which all must adhere under threat of punishment by the state. You know, like Secular Humanism today. That was the state of affairs in Europe at the time of the founding of this country. Our Founders were determined that that would not happen here. Therefore we have ” Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. It was never meant that a football coach at a public high school couldn’t join his players in a prayer before the big game. In fact, the Constitution guarantees that he can.

    The First Amendment has been tortured and twisted to fit a “Progressive” vision wherein they are the only “Higher Authority”.

    • Ralf Spoilsport

      It means that Congress cannot ESTABLISH an official state religion to which all must adhere under threat of punishment by the state.

      Here’s what an actual supreme court justice said, which covers quite a bit more than just establishment of a state religion:

      “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'”
      Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

      By the way, if the founders intended to only forbid establishment of a state religion, they would have written “establishment of a state religion” instead of “establishment of religion”.

      • afchief

        The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. Does that register? It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

        Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

        In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

        As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

        If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

        Thomas Jefferson saw that clearly when he wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Likewise James Madison: “The belief in God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”

        All were implicitly echoing the statement by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, a century earlier: “Unless we are governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

        The Declaration of Independence makes clear that God, not government, is the source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity. They are preexisting in us, before there ever was any government. So the Constitution does not grant any of that; it simply guarantees them for us and prevents government from interfering with it.

        Therefore it is perfectly legal, constitutional and (in the view of our Founders and Framers) right for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, and others. That includes the military; one of George Washington’s first acts when he became Commander of the Continental Army in 1775 was to create the Chaplain Corps for the benefit of his citizen-soldiers. At the same time, Congress itself often held church services in the Capitol and also has had a chaplain since 1774.

        • BarkingDawg

          It applies to the states as well, afchief.

          We’ve been over this before. Your continued insistence otherwise is tedious.

          • afchief

            NOPE! That is a boldface lie! Congress does not = states!!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            You are wrong, and, even more importantly, no one really cares what you think.

          • afchief

            You are on a Christian site! We know that you are deceived. We know that you follow lies. We know you cannot see the truth!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

          • BarkingDawg

            Your constitutional argument failed, so now you start to attack me based on religion?

          • afchief

            Sorry, but you are liar and have proved nothing. You are decieved and there is no truth in you.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If every the Supreme Court rules that the law is X, every lower court agrees thereafter to rule that the law is X, every state and federal body enforces that the law is X, and every legislature abides by the ruling that the law is X, how is that different from the law is X?

        • Balerion

          It applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.

          • afchief

            LOL! Silly liberal, the 14th Amendment was specifically proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Nothing else. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues it has been since cited for with lots of creative interpretations.

            The 14th amendment was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to separation of church and state or homosexual’s marriages or ANYTHING ELSE!!.

            LOL!

          • Balerion

            Wrong again. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) to the states. So, to put it in a nutshell, if some backward red state decides it is going to try to establish a state religion, the courts are going to smack it down.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Liberalism, it such a mental disorder!!! Ok, show me how the 14th applies to the 1st amendment???? Wait I’ll paste for you and again show me HOW the 14th applies to the 1st amendment stating “Congress shall make no law”????

            Waiting…………………………………………………….

            AMENDMENT XIV

            Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

            Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Section 2.

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

            Section 3.

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            Section 4.

            The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

            Section 5.

            The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      • BarkingDawg

        Logic makes right wing heads explode.

        Some people want Christian sharia

    • gizmo23

      Starting tomorrow I’m leading my middle school kids in pagan chants and I think I will teach them to cast spells….Freedom of Religion

      • afchief

        You can do that! But I guarantee you the parents will pull there kids out of that school.

        • gizmo23

          I believe I should be fired if I really did that.

    • Nofun

      There are no higher authorities.

      The govt has to be neutral. Thus a wall of separation exists between church and state. Christians who treasure religious freedom should want to maintain this wall more than anyone.

    • HelenaConstantine

      Your talk about the bill of rights not applying to the states is quite nonsensical, and your quoting of the text of the 14th amendment with your unlearned understanding it quite uselss. Gitlow vs. New York (1925) and subsequent supreme court decisions is the controlling case law.

      Also, the problem wouldn’t be a coach praying with his players. How would you like it if your son’s Muslim football coach told the team they had to bow down towards Mecca and pray to god?

      Given the disparity in power between a coach and his players, there is no way that his actions (even if were the right kind of bible-thumper for you) could not be coercive.

      • afchief

        You are quite wrong!!!!

  • crusader51

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
    Seems they forget the second half of the sentence….“prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” sounds like removing Bibles is prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF….

    • Ambulance Chaser

      No, we understand just fine. If governments were taking Bibles out of private homes, you’d have a point, but that’s not what’s going on.

      • crusader51

        Christians pay taxes that fund those schools….don’t see any limitations specified about where. Just evil Godless people sold out to Satan in our corrupt judicial and political systems.

        • BarkingDawg

          The schools receive tax money’s from atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Scientologists, Hindus, etc

          How about we have tables for all their stuff as well?

    • BarkingDawg

      Two different, independent clauses

      • crusader51

        Who is the Creator we get our rights from?

        • Nofun

          If you are an atheist that accepts the reality of Evolution, which is change mediated by the environment then the environment, earth or universe is The Creator.

          That is why they chose those words so it applies to all religions and secularity. The didn’t say god or Jesus on purpose.

          • The Watcher

            I can understand if you don’t believe in religion but your virulence reveals a deep psychosis.

          • Nofun

            You can only disbelieve … there is no degree in which to disbelieve.
            You can believe in a trillion degrees of zealotry.

  • TheCountess

    I have to laugh. What are they afraid of? That people just might get saved and start living a decent, Holy lifestyle? Stop spending all the money that drugs, gambling and alcohol rake in? God forbid. Think for themselves as with ‘unalienable rights’ established by way of our Constitution and maybe get off the dole in government funding? Live honest, decent lives, raising decent hetero children, educated with good paying jobs? Stop letting government do their thinking for them? Demand honest laws that promote the ‘general welfare’? Do the ‘commanding’ of lawmakers and not the other way around.
    It’s the only thing I can think of as to why all the hub bub. Otherwise, it is just what athiests think it is; fantasy.
    God is Who He says He is, no matter what anyone says, including me.

    • Nofun

      You have no right to force religion on other people’s children.