Satanic Temple of Arizona Files Suit for Not Being Allowed to Deliver Invocation at City Council Meeting

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The Satanic Temple of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the City of Scottsdale for ultimately turning down its request to present an invocation at a city council meeting in 2016.

The group, which is non-theistic and doesn’t actually believe in a literal Satan, but only views the fallen angel as a metaphor for rebellion, is claiming that it is the subject of religious discrimination.

“Various faith groups from the state of Arizona can do an opening prayer or invocation before they get started with city council meetings. We requested to do that, we were given a slot, and then afterwards we were told that we weren’t allowed to speak. So this is clearly religious discrimination, and for that reason we’re going to sue them,” attorney and co-founder Stu De Haan told Fox10 Phoenix.

The group said that co-founder and leader Michelle Short was scheduled to present the invocation on July 6, 2016, but two months prior, the City sent Short an email advising that there had been a change, and that the pastor of First Southern Baptist Church of Scottsdale would deliver the prayer instead.

City officials state that Short’s placement on the schedule was nixed because The Satanic Temple doesn’t have substantial ties to the City of Scottsdale. It said in a statement this week that the invocation was not cancelled because of the group’s “religion.”

“The temple was turned away in 2016, not because of any particular religious affiliation, but because they did not have any substantial connection to the Scottsdale community,” it outlined.

De Haan disagrees, stating that The Satanic Temple of Arizona has members in the city. He did not outline how many. The organization formed in 2016 after likewise being turned down by the City of Phoenix.

  • Connect with Christian News

The Satanic Temple also contends that it obtained email between council members pursuant a public records request and believes that the content proved that the group was unwanted. One council woman reportedly remarked that allowing the organization to present the invocation would be “taking equality too far.”

“By the city council’s own statements, it’s clear that their refusal to allow The Satanic Temple to speak was motivated by their intent to discriminate against a minority religion,” De Haan told the Phoenix Business Journal.

The lawsuit states that only Christians have been approved to deliver the prayer, but spokesman Mike Phillips told AZCentral that the characterization is inaccurate, noting that the Islamic Center of the North East Valley presented an invocation last year.

As previously reported, The Satanic Temple had initially been allowed to present an invocation in Phoenix in 2016, but four city council members, Sal DiCiccio, Bill Gates, Jim Waring and Michael Nowakowski, soon sought to change city policy so that the invocation won’t be turned into what they called a “circus” by atheist/Satanist groups.

The time of prayer was changed to a moment of silence for a season, but weeks later, City Council voted 7-2 to approve a new proposal to bring back the prayers under the stipulation that invocations only be presented by police and fire chaplains.

The Satanic Temple does not meet in an actual temple at all, and its national headquarters are located in the Salem Art Gallery in Massachusetts.

“[W]e do not promote a belief in a personal Satan,” the FAQ section of the group’s main website explains. “To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.”


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • ZappaSaid88

    Get to it Satanic Temple. Show what religious freedom REALLY is! Either everyone gets to do the invocation or nobody does. Those are your choices.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      Prv 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    • manwithnoname

      Your abstract, relativist view of religion and religious freedom has no connection to the Constitution nor the Founders view of these things!

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Says the person who freaks out when Creationism is taught in classrooms.

      • Shaun Anderson

        Apples and oranges. Teaching myths in a science class has nothing to do with religious freedom.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You mean like the evolution myth?

          • Shaun Anderson

            No, evolution is science, creationism is myth. Teach your creation story in a comparative religion class not in science class. Or teach it at your churches Sunday school. Or do both. I personally think kids should learn about the Bible and its stories since its influence is felt throughout western culture. But not in science class.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution is not science. It has no scientific evidence, is a mere theory developed by a racist, and takes a leap of blind faith to espouse. On top of it, the actual scientists like Newton, Pupin, Pasteur, etc., were influenced by the Bible in their scientific discoveries. If you’d read their works, you’d know that.

          • ZappaSaid88

            I’m sorry you’re just wrong. Evolution is science and is supported by vast amounts of data.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you provide some then? Even evolutionists who are scientists will tell you that isn’t so.

          • ZappaSaid88

            The evidence is out there and it’s not my problem you are choosing to ignore it. I’m not wasting my time doing what you refuse to do. At this moment in time evolution is taught in biology class which is science. It doesn’t matter if you disagree whether it’s science or not, it’s categorized as science and belongs in a science classroom. Creationism is biblical and is taught in religion classes and therefore is not science by definition

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thanks for proving you don’t have the evidence. You can’t have it because it doesn’t exist. Even evolutionists who are scientists admit it.

            Great scientists believed in the Bible, studied it, and credited their great scientific discoveries to it. One cannot study Newton, Pupin, Pasteur, Faraday, etc., without reading references to the Word of God and how it led them to their science.

          • ZappaSaid88

            It does exist and you’re wrong. You’re choosing to ignore it. Nothing I can do about that. No scientific evidence for creationism exists, that’s a fact.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it exists, post it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Newton was around before anyone ever heard of evolution. Pupin was a physicist who mainly dealt with telephone communications.

            I just found this quote from Pasteur on talkorigins: “Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to
            humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution
            which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds
            of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of
            producing virulent or contagious diseases — which does not seem very
            likely.” That does not sound very “creationist” to me.

            As for your asking for evidence of evolution, like ZappaSaid88 said, it’s out there, it’s all over the place. Look at talkorigins, read Dawkins’ The Greatest Show On Earth, or even watch YouTubers like AronRa. Heck, read a halfway decent high-school biology textbook. I’ve been down this road before, though, it’s pretty much an exercise in futility to point out any specific evidence for evolution to a creationist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Pupin was a scientist who used Genesis and Psalms to do his science. He quotes very specific Bible verses in his papers. You can read more in his biography.

            Evolution needn’t have been around for Newton to base his work on the Word of God. Read his works. He also quotes the Bible extensively.

            Faraday was a contemporary of Darwin.

            Pasteur was a believer in God. I did not say he was a Young Earth Creationist. Read my words carefully.

            Darwin’s works do not cite science. He cites theories which have no basis in science. In fact, he failed science.

            If you have evidence, present it. If you don’t, one can only assume you have none.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I am not going to try to tell you that those scientists, along with many others, weren’t Christians. I know there were and still are many Christian scientists. (Not necessarily Christian Scientists…lol).

            Pupin was a scientist who used Genesis and Psalms to do his science

            …who didn’t deal with any field that would make him an authority on the validity of evolution.

            Darwin’s works do not cite science

            Darwin made observations and drew conclusions from them that have borne out by the work of other people. That IS science. You can say that his conclusions were wrong, but you’d better have some reasons why if you’re going to do that.

            If you have evidence, present it. If you don’t, one can only assume you have none.

            I told you exactly where you can find it, presented by people who can explain it far better and in more detail than I can, at that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are quite mistaken about what Pupin studied.

            Darwin made observations but he did so with a predisposed conclusion, heavily swayed by personal biases and racism. That’s not science. That’s bigotry.

            You haven’t shown me any evidence, nor have you shown me where to find it. Do you know why? Because there is none. Even evolutionists who are scientists will tell you that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You are quite mistaken about what Pupin studied.

            I’d honestly never heard of the guy before. You’re talking about the Serbian physicist Mihajlo Pupin, right? From Wikipedia: “Pupin is best known for his numerous patents, including a means of greatly extending the range of long-distance telephone communication by placing loading coils (of wire) at predetermined intervals along the transmitting wire (known as “pupinization”).”

            Darwin made observations but he did so with a predisposed conclusion, heavily swayed by personal biases and racism.

            No….he observed what he observed. If you’re saying his conclusions were biased, remember what I said: They’ve been borne out and confirmed by many other scientists (including quite a good number of Christian ones) since then. It’s a common misconception, but our understanding of evolution did not end with Darwin’s work. (you could say it has evolved)

            And if you want to talk about people who are biased, just look at creationists! Actual quote from Answers in Genesis: “In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected.” They come right out and admit their bias! They try to say scientists have just as much bias, but that’s just a lie. The quote goes on to say “The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected.” What they’re missing is that if you have a non- “naturalist explanation”, you’re not doing science. It’s like saying “science is biased towards science.”

            You haven’t shown me any evidence, nor have you shown me where to find it.

            A website, a book, and a series of videos doesn’t count as “where to find it”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Re. Pupin, read the full wiki page, not just the intro blurb.

            b.) No one has confirmed Darwin’s observations, but plenty of people have built their racism on his works, like Margaret Sanger who wanted to abort all black babies, or Hitler who quoted Darwin to justify anti-Semitism. In fact, science has proven evolution to be untrue, which is why some science textbooks are constantly revised within mere months of being released.

            c.) You haven’t mentioned a website, a video, or a book. You’ve just said “they’re out there”. I can assure you that I’ve read and viewed much of that in class over the years. It doesn’t pan out. Even evolutionist scientists will tell you that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            a) OK, he studied physics and mathematics. Still, I don’t think that would make him an evolution expert. It reminds me a little of that “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” list, where quite a lot of the people who signed it weren’t in fields relating to evolution.

            b) Yes they have confirmed his conclusions, repeatedly, and okay, so some people have used his work (wrongly) to justify racism. That doesn’t make his work any less valid. Haven’t there been people, probably MANY MORE people, who have used the BIBLE to justify racism? Even if Darwin himself was a raging racist (and he actually wasn’t), that still doesn’t make evolution invalid. And, textbooks are revised because new information is found, and new conclusions are reached. That’s just the way science works. Please show me one textbook that says “scientists have proven evolution to be untrue”.

            c) Yes I DID mention those things. Read it again. And please give some quotes from these “evolutionists” who say “it doesn’t pan out”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) I am not talking about evolution in regards to Pupin. (He did study evolution though. Darwin was considered hot stuff then.) I am referring to the fact that he believed in God and was a Creationist. As far as Dissent from Darwinism goes, it’s impossible to study any form of science nowadays without being subjected to Darwinism. I learned about Darwinism in Grade 3 or 4. When did you learn about it in school?

            b.) People cannot rightfully use the Bible to support racism since the Bible teaches the OPPOSITE of racism. In fact, it was Christians who overturned slavery by using the Word of God. Research it. The Bible, our hymns, our teachings, all revolve around man being one blood, one kind, and all equal in God’s sight. Pretty much every book on evolution will tell you that it has not been proven. Some will maintain that it will be proven, but it has not been yet.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I am referring to the fact that he believed in God and was a Creationist

            Well, kinda like I said before, I know there were many scientists who were Christians and/or creationists. I’m not disputing that. I don’t see how that alone is supposed to be some sort of support for creationism, though.

            it’s impossible to study any form of science nowadays without being subjected to Darwinism.

            First of all, it’s evolution, not “Darwinism”. That’s what I said before, it’s just not accurate to pretend that the study of evolution ended with Darwin. And, it’s probably a bit of an exaggeration to say that it touches every field of science, but it does indeed have a wide-ranging impact, at least in pretty much anything related to biology.

            I learned about Darwinism in Grade 3 or 4. When did you learn about it in school?

            I don’t remember what grade it was, but I do remember that when I first really got the idea of evolution by natural selection, really knew what they were talking about, I was just struck by how simple and just intuitive of a concept it was. Now, there are many things in science that are definitely not like that (try relativity or quantum mechanics….I guess that’s why they don’t try to teach those things until you’re a little older!) but evolution ain’t one of them. It just made sense, in other words. That’s kinda why I’m honestly baffled by how many people who are opposed to it, but fail to understand what it actually means. It’s not really a hard thing to understand.

            People cannot rightfully use the Bible to support racism

            I wasn’t saying it was right to do so, I was saying people have done so. The whole idea that evolution somehow justifies racism is wrong on multiple levels.

            Pretty much every book on evolution will tell you that it has not been proven.

            Science doesn’t really deal with “proofs”, for one thing…because it’s always open to the possibility of some new information coming along and changing the understanding of something. But, we do have theories that are very well supported by observations, and evolution is most certainly one of those. (the joke is that proof is for mathematics and alcohol.)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I didn’t say that because many major scientists believed in Creationism that it proved Creationism is real. I was merely pointing out that being a scientist does not mean one is not a Creationist, and that all scientists are not evolutionists.

            If someone uses the Bible to justify racism, they are making up things since racism isn’t in the Bible. However, if someone uses evolution to fuel their racism, well, that is what evolution is based upon. It surely isn’t built upon science.

            Evolution has never been proven. Even evolutionists will tell you that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution is not “based on racism.”. It’s an observable fact. It’s based on…well, facts. Observations.

            Evolution has never been proven.

            Sigh…read what I said about “proofs” in science again.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Darwin based his theory upon racism. That’s a fact. If you read his books, you’d know that. Evolutionists themselves admit that evolution has never been proven. Science, without observable proof, is not science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ll say it yet again: Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. What you should be talking about is evidence, and there’s plenty of that for evolution. And I told you where to look for it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nope. Science admits it cannot prove evolution. They keep looking but in all these years since Darwin foisted his fairy tale upon the scientific community, they’ve yet to fine it.

            This is from Merriam Webster. It proves your assertions wrong:

            Definition of science
            1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
            2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

            the science of theology

            b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

            have it down to a science

            3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
            b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
            4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

            cooking is both a science and an art

            5 capitalized : christian science

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Nope. Science admits it cannot prove evolution

            All right, you’ve said that several times now. Give me some actual quotes where scientists have said that.

            If you remember, I mentioned Richard Dawkins’ book “The Greatest Show On Earth” earlier. I’ll give you a quote from the very first page of the preface, the first words in the book:

            “The evidence for evolution grows by the day, and has never been stronger. At the same time, paradoxically, ill-informed opposition is also stronger than I can remember. This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the theory of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’” (K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich; Darwin’s Three Mistakes, Geology, vol. 14, 1986, p. 534)

            Yeah, you quoted whack job Dawkins who ran away from debating William Lane Craig and who, while claiming there’s tons of evidence for evolution, has never produced any. 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Never produced any? What do you think the book I quoted (which I’m guessing you’ve not read) was about?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve read Dawkins. He’s a tool. While he contends there’s evidence for evolution, he’s yet to produce any, just like all evolutionists. 🙂

            You do know he thinks he came from ET, don’t you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You do know he thinks he came from ET, don’t you?

            Sounds more believable than creationism, if you ask me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            For good reason God says, “The fool hath said in his hear, there is no God.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’” (K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich; Darwin’s Three Mistakes, Geology, vol. 14, 1986, p. 534)

            Ah, I should have known this sort of thing was coming! Classic creationist quote-mining, at its best. Or worst. You guys should really look at that “talkorigins” site I mentioned, they have a whole list of these.

            The quote-mined article says elsewhere: “The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin’s mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection.” So, Hsu isn’t disputing evolution at all, he’s arguing about the mechanism by which it happens. This is the kind of thing I was talking about. Work on evolution didn’t by any means end with Darwin, so someone can dispute things about it, and it doesn’t mean they’re saying “evolution cannot be proven.”

            And from talkorigins’s commentary on the article: “Hsü certainly
            points to items in which Darwin was wrong; items which are
            important to contemporary paleontologists. But it would have been shocking if someone living today (or 1986 when Hsü’s commentary was published) could not point to many things wrong in a scientific work from 1859….Certainly, Hsü’s take on Darwin is nothing out of the mainstream of modern evolutionary theory.”

            Notice what they said at the end. “Modern evolutionary theory”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, he said “modern evolutionary theory”, and he still believes in evolution, but he is admitting that there are problems with evolution. Just like I told you he would. Evolutionists admit that there is no proof for evolution. That was my only contention.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            but he is admitting that there are problems with evolution

            No, he’s not, actually. He’s not disputing the fact that evolution takes place. At all.

            In science, theories are changed, refined, and improved all the time. It doesn’t mean that what they explain (remember, a scientific theory is an explanation of how something works) does not exist, or is being put in doubt. Gravity is a good example of what I’m talking about. Einstein’s theory of general relativity is essentially a new theory of gravity. He changed our understanding of how gravity worked. That didn’t mean that he was saying gravity was not or could not be proven to exist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should post your own words instead of relying upon others’. Cut-and-paste jobs are obvious.

            Science doesn’t change. If it changes, it wasn’t science to begin with.

            You keep arguing as though I’m saying things that I am not. Please read my posts carefully prior to reply and then I won’t have to correct you so much. I’m the one who pointed out that evolutionists (which means they believe in evolution) say that evolution has yet to be proven, and that they still believe in it even though there are problems with the theory. How do you not know that?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m the one who pointed out that evolutionists (which means they believe in evolution) say that evolution has yet to be proven

            Yes, you have been continuously said that, and so far you gave me one example where the person quoted actually was not saying that.

            The vast majority of scientists around today will tell you the same thing I quoted Dawkins as saying: Evolution is a recognized fact of science, as much as relativity or gravity or whatever you can name. You keep talking about “proof”, but that’s either ignorance, or intentionally confusing the issue on your part, because science doesn’t deal with “proof”. And you say “there are problems with the theory”….you know what “theory” means in science, right? It’s an explanation of something, how something works. There could be 10 million problems with the theory of evolution, Darwin could have been completely wrong about how it worked (not that I am saying that that is the case), and it wouldn’t mean that evolution is any less of a fact. Like with the gravity example, maybe someone comes along tomorrow and says “nope, Einstein was completely wrong about it, it’s like this”, but that doesn’t mean he’s casting doubt upon the existence of gravity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, but the person WAS actually saying what I said he was. Evolutionists will still cling to their theory even though they have no proof. They’re quite open about it. Even Dawkins, though he claims to have written a book with “proofs” in it will admit he doesn’t have irrefutable evidence, and speculate that he is a product of ET even though there is no evidence that that is so.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m sorry, but the person WAS actually saying what I said he was

            No, however much you might want him to have said that, he just wasn’t. Nowhere was he putting any doubt in the existence of evolution. And, of course, like I keep saying, he wasn’t talking about proof, and Dawkins was not either.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, but you can’t make up things because you don’t want to be proven wrong. There are plenty of quotes by evolutionist scientists who admit there is no evidence for evolution. Here’s another one:

            “One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school’.” Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Quote from Patterson discussing the address with someone from talkorigins:

            ” The famous “keynote address” at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the “Systematics Discussion Group” in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on “Evolutionism and creationism”; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.”

            Also, from the 2nd edition of his textbook on evolution, published in 1999:

            “Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories
            as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate ancestry for
            humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting
            out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. … I learned that
            one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications,
            lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist
            campaigners with ammunition in the form of ‘quotable quotes’, often
            taken out of context.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All you’ve done is further proven my point that an evolutionist has admitted there’s a problem with evolution. 🙂

          • james blue

            What scientific evidence is there for creationism?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We’ve been through this before, so I know your question is insincere, but for those who are thoughtfully reading this, I will cite communication via light (beginning of Genesis in the creation story) and Pupin’s scientific studies which were based on those verses. If you want more info, pick up Pupin’s autobiography.

          • james blue

            The question is absolutely sincere. NOBODY has EVER produced ANY SCIENTIFIC evidence to support creationism. All we have is faith that God is there.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Even the Bible calls faith itself evidence. As far as there not being any scientific evidence of Creation, you are quite wrong. The Book of Romans cites some, as do some scientists who are Christians. You should read some of their writings before going off like this.

          • james blue

            Then offer an example. Because I’ve looked and cannot find any scientific evidence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like all the science that was based upon Bible verses? The ones I’ve already cited? Why not pick up the writings of the scientists I’ve cited, and then come back?

          • james blue

            Bible verses are not scientific evidence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what I said, but let’s go with it: Pupin based his science upon what God said in Genesis and Psalms concerning communication via light. Matthew Maury built his science upon what God said the paths of the sea. The book of Job contains many scientific facts that weren’t discovered by the scientific community until modern times.

            That said, my argument was that in order for there to be a Creation, there must first be a Creator. That’s just common sense.

          • james blue

            Science is not based upon what is written in the bible. Science doesn’t start with a conclusion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding. That’s why evolution isn’t. It starts with a conclusion. As far as the Bible goes, you clearly haven’t read it the way great scientists have. For example, when Maury read about paths in the sea, he decided to search for them himself.

          • james blue

            How does evolution start with a conclusion?

            By the logic of the argument you are making the story of Jack and Rose from the film “Titanic” is confirmed as true because we found the Titanic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have trouble staying on topic. I can’t tell if it’s because you’re really stupid or if it’s because you are futilely trying to deflect.

            Evolution was based upon the conclusion that some people are substandard, specifically dark skinned people. If you read Darwin’s works, you’d know that. He was a bigot.

          • james blue

            Well that’s just complete tosh.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you got nothing.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            God left so much scientific evidence through His creation. He said he has looked and can’t find any scientific evidence. It’s sad that he can’t find it. I pray God will open his eyes and his understanding to the truth of God’s Creation.

          • james blue

            All that is is evidence that stuff exists, not scientific proof of how it came to be.

          • Sally Edwards

            If faith is evidence, it doesn’t take very long to kill that theory when you apply it to other things. If I have faith in a pink unicorn it hardly stands up as evidence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what faith is. That’s what blind faith is.

          • Sally Edwards

            And in the case of religion, what is the difference? Unless you’ve died and experienced the religion you lived, your faith IS blind.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. It’d be stupid to believe in something you’ve not been able to confirm.

          • Sally Edwards

            Well, no one’s been able to confirm your faith. That’s why it’s called faith, see?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No. I have been able to confirm what I believe in. Others can see what I believe in by how I live. Faith is something very visible. It has to have evidence or else it’s fake.

          • Sally Edwards

            Why’s it called faith, then? There isn’t a shred of proof in it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what faith is. Biblical faith is defined in the Bible as being evidence. You’re a fool if you believe something that can’t be proven.

          • Sally Edwards

            Yes, and the Muslim faith is defined in the Koran as being evidence, and the XXXX faith is defined in the YYYY as being evidence. You all make identical claims, but at the end of the day what you have is faith, no one’s proven God.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No. The Qur’an never claims that faith is evidence of things unseen. That’s only a Christian thing.

            Has anyone every proven Julias Caesar?

          • Sally Edwards

            The Qur’an demands belief in it otherwise you will die. The Bible demands belief in it otherwise you will die. What does Julius Caesar have to do with anything?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Qur’an can demand anything it wants. Doesn’t make it true.

            Answer my question about Julius Caesar and then I’ll tell you what it has to do with the topic at hand.

          • Sally Edwards

            Not interested in games, thanks. Either you will make your point or you will not.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not a game. You know that it will prove what I’ve been stating, and so you are avoiding it. Be honest.

          • Sally Edwards

            Speaking of honesty, maybe you could show a little when you make a claim that Christianity is not a matter of faith. Sure you want to go with that, because I can find, oh, about a thousand resources that say otherwise. Without blinking.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I said it’s not a matter of BLIND faith. The Bible never calls for BLIND faith. Show me one verse where it does.

          • Sally Edwards

            All religion is blind faith, and yes, Christianity is a religion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t get to make up definitions to suit your agenda. Blind faith is stupid. If you can’t prove something, you’re a fool to believe it. That’s why only fools buy into the theory of evolution.

          • Sally Edwards

            We can observe evolution, we cannot observe matters of your faith. No one’s making up definitions. If you’ve got religion, what you’ve got is blind faith.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You cannot observe evolution. If you can, show me one iota of such an observation.

            Meanwhile, you can clearly see evidence of a Christian’s faith by how he/she walks, talks, and acts. If someone prays and you see a miracle as a result of that prayer, than you’ve seen evidence of that faith.

            There is nothing in the Bible about blind faith. There is plenty about proving God, reason with God, and interacting with God. No other religion has that because no other religion has a living, breathing God.

          • Sally Edwards

            We do observe it. There is the fossil record. That’s not just an iota, that’s practically a movie. And let’s not get into Christian behavior. While I don’t deny there are very good Christians out there, I have personally encountered murderous ones, and if you think that’s hyperbole, check out the videos of Pastor Steven Anderson sometime, who would gleefully murder homosexuals simply because they’re homosexuals.

            If you’ve got a living, breathing God, all you’ve got to do is demonstrate him. You’d wipe out atheism worldwide as a bonus.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The fossil record proves the Great Flood, not evolution.

            By referring to Christian behavior, I was referring to those who are truly born again and who walk that way. You can spot them by the kind of fruit they have.

            The living breathing God was demonstrated when Jesus Christ, an historical figure, walked the earth. He is alive to this day, and seated on the right hand side of His Father. You can talk to Him any time, read His works in the greatest Book (and world’s bestseller) to this day. He still does miracles, answers prayers, and forgives sins. If you tried Him (tested Him, proved Him, sought Him), you’d be blown away.

          • Sally Edwards

            No, the great flood is a physical impossibility and several online resources will explain why.

            If it were a matter of just being able to “spot” the “truly saved” science would have reported on it by now.

            I spent many years speaking to Jesus and realized eventually that he doesn’t answer because he’s not there.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Great Flood is one of the most easily proven events in world history. The Grand Canyon, fossils, coal, etc., are all proof of a worldwide flood.

            You may have received an answer from God and not liked His response. Or perhaps He couldn’t answer you because there was something in between yourself and Him.

          • Sally Edwards

            No, if it were possible to prove God, atheism would disappear in a heartbeat. You’ll notice that it hasn’t.

            The internet is so awash with debunkments of this that I’m not going to comment further, but I will say that I smile at the idea of penguins travelling to the ark from Antarctica, and kangaroos hopping there from Australia.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Atheism exists for 2 reasons (which really all comes back down to one): 1.) People don’t really want to believe in God because they don’t want to have to do what He tells them to, and 2.) they are fools. 1 and 2 really merge into the same thing. Only a fool denies God.

          • Sally Edwards

            You’re leaving out the major one, which is that there is no evidence. If you’d only provide some there would be a lot less atheists all of a sudden.

            And your #1 is kind of ridiculous, because there’s not a single reason to believe that a God, if He existed, would require us to be subservient to Him.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There is all kinds of evidence, including the fact that Jesus Christ, an historical figure, confirmed the Bible to be true.

            If God is God, He has no choice but to be worshipped. That’s what God means.

          • Sally Edwards

            The Bible came after Jesus Christ died, so how could he have confirmed the Bible to be true?
            God doesn’t mean “demanding of worship”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it did not. It was written prior to Him coming to earth as man (at least the Old Covenant part of it), and the rest was recorded afterwards. While He was on earth, He confirmed the Old Covenant part, and after He rose from the dead, He confirmed what was to come.

          • Sally Edwards

            No proof.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just choose to deny the proof that’s obviously there. To deny God is to deny yourself, since He created you and a creation is proof of a Creator.

          • Sally Edwards

            I’ve told you, if it was obvious there would be no atheists. You haven’t provided actual tangible proof and neither has anyone else. My existence isn’t proof of the God you choose to believe in.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Look, you come here under different names and give the same arguments. You are successfully refuted each time, yet you come back with the same drivel. The problem isn’t that there is no existence of a Creator or a creation, but that you don’t want to accept such evidence. Be honest with yourself.

          • Sally Edwards

            You accuse everyone you disagree with of coming back here under different names, and you never have proof, so that accusation is worthless. The “problem” as you put it is that you HAVE no evidence. Look all over the internet – the argument is exactly the same, it doesn’t change. Your evidence is nonexistent.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You say the same thing every time I address one of your new personas. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            No I don’t, because your paranoid delusions are irrelevant and incorrect.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just like Pavolov’s dog, there you go again.

          • Sally Edwards

            Well, when you’re wrong, you’re wrong…what do you want me to do about it? Stop being wrong.

          • Sally Edwards

            It’s Pavlov. Not “Pavolov”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s a typo. You know, the one’s you make quite a few of. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Do you know what Pavlov was known for?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, do you? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Before I answer that, why don’t you first explain what I did that was “Pavlovian”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you just bark some more, “Sally”?

          • Sally Edwards

            I’m sorry you are getting flustered, little man, but your dodges don’t help you. Answer what is put before you, do it honestly, and maybe a real conversation will happen. You have to make an effort. 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve yet to be flustered. 🙂 I suspect you’re projecting. 🙂 You don’t even know or understand the terminology you are using, and you are too easily triggered. Perhaps cool off and try again? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Maybe you don’t know enough about the subject you’re discussing to be having the discussion in the first place? How many people have to present you with proof you’re wrong before it dawns on you that you actually are? I mean, I never expected to ask this question to someone who is presumably an adult before, but do you know what the word “understand” means? Why don’t you show us you do by using it in a sentence? 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL

          • Tim Matter

            @guest- “The Great Flood is one of the most easily proven events in world history.”
            Maybe you should ask someone who went to college to learn geology about that, not someone who went to learn theology. Or just as a historian what was happening in the ancient world before, during, and after when the flood was supposed to have happened about 2348 BC. Newsflash. The flood didn’t happen.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Respectfully, your post made me laugh out loud. Many greats in science (degrees, discoveries, awards, publications, etc.) all know that the Great Flood is one of the most easily proven events in world history. Every culture has its own flood story recorded in history as well. You can’t deny the obvious because you don’t like it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Now, that’s exactly the reason I don’t believe in a god.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You shouldn’t believe in God if there is no evidence for Him. You’re a fool, however, if you can’t find any evidence of Him, particularly since He made you in His image.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t think I follow that. How can faith itself be evidence? If you have faith in something, that’s not, by itself, evidence that it’s true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Biblical faith is different than how you’ve come to regard faith. For example, when one calls out to God and God answers in a miraculous way, the miraculous response is evidence that faith is real and justified.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            God answering would be evidence that your faith is justified, just like you said. But it still doesn’t follow that faith itself is evidence of anything.

            If Biblical faith isn’t what I think it is, then just what is it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If someone answers you, doesn’t it prove that that someone exists? If I have faith that someone will do something and then that person does it, doesn’t it justify the fact that I had faith in him to begin with?

            Biblical faith has to be backed up. It has to be proven. It has to be evidence of something. God uses words like “prove”, “reason”, “think”. He asks us questions. He never wants us to have dead, inactive minds. Quite the opposite. He wants us to examine things for ourselves to see if it’s so, not to just blindly swallow claims. If one’s faith isn’t real, proving real results (like miracles, answers, signs, ) then it’s not Biblical faith.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I suppose what you’re saying “Biblical faith” is, is what I might call something like “justified belief”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s evidence. If it doesn’t produce something real, it’s not real.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, you’re saying, more or less, if you have a belief in something, that is justified, or confirmed, that belief itself is evidence? Sounds a little like circular reasoning to me. Or at least, unnecessary, because if something is true, if there is evidence, why should I need to use someone’s belief as evidence? Let the evidence be the evidence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you think circular reasoning is? What do you think evidence is?

          • James Flaherty

            Circular reasoning is, “The Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible which is the word of God because it says so in the Bible which is…”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey, another invention of yourself, huh? 🙂 No one has said the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible. However, many atheists (the Bible calls them fools) have said that evolution is real because evolutionists say it is. 🙂

          • James Flaherty

            I don’t know who you think you’re talking to, but I’ve never spoken to you before and have no intention of doing so again, because you’re a blithering asshole.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort when one cannot hold an argument. 🙂 Do you want to address the circular reasoning your colleagues have used (let’s pretend you just happened by here with a new account when the last one got banned), or do you just want to bitterly name call? 🙂

          • Nick Halflinger

            “but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”. Matthew 5:22

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            In context, “Nick”, in context. Do you think David is in danger of hellfire for saying, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1) And, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 53:1) How about Solomon when he said, “The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.” (Proverbs 10:8) Is Jesus in danger of hellfire because He said, “Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?” in Matthew 23:17? Or Paul because he said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” in Romans 1:22? So obviously Jesus Christ could not have meant that quoting HIS Word puts someone in danger of hellfire, now could He?

          • Sally Edwards

            But no one has answered you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure they have. You just have. God does all the time.

          • Sally Edwards

            Why don’t you tape record it, you’d be famous.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like recording it for all the world to see? You mean like in the Bible?

          • Sally Edwards

            The Bible, written by human beings who wanted people to believe they were writing on God’s behalf? No, I mean when you get your proof of God, capture it in such a way that it can be reproduced so your claim can be justified.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible is an historical record. Look up what constitutes an historical record, and you’ve got it. It’s also the living Word of God by which He communicates with us.

          • Sally Edwards

            The Bible is PART historical record. As for being the living word of anything, once again I think you’ve got some evidence to provide. Ask yourself again why there are atheists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible is all historical record. Not one word of it is not true. The living Word has been proven to be true again and again when one reads the Bible and has to check if the ink is dry because it’s so relevant to today. There are atheists because there are stupid people. That’s how the Bible categorizes atheists, as fools.

          • Sally Edwards

            Plenty of it is not true. Snakes and donkeys cannot speak. The world is not flat. Bats are not birds. The sun cannot have been created after there was light on the earth. There are atheists because you haven’t got a single definite bit of proof of your God. If you did, atheists would disappear, all of them, and all at the same time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible never says the earth is flat. That’s the Qur’an. The Bible also talks about supernatural things happening, not every day donkeys and snakes talking. There are light sources other than the sun, you know (like the moon, the stars). There are atheists because thee are fools.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There are light sources other than the sun, you know (like the moon, the stars).

            The moon is not a light source.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it is a dark night and you look up into the sky, do you see the light of the moon?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No. I see the sun’s light, reflected off of it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you see light when you look at the moon, regardless of where it came from?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sally was talking about how there couldn’t have been light on the Earth without the sun. There would not have been any light from the moon without the sun.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s false since light was created by the sun. “Sally” is working on the false assumption that the sun is the only light, which I’ve already told him is false.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Light was created by the sun? That doesn’t make sense. Other stars existed before the sun.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sorry, should read “before the sun”. I’ll go edit.

          • Sally Edwards

            The Bible talks about the four pillars of the earth, which suggests it is flat. The Bible talks specifically about a talking snake and a talking donkey, two physical impossibilities. The moon is a light source because the sun shines off it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No offense, but you show a basic lack of understanding of geometry. The problem isn’t with the Bible, but with you. The Bible always says the earth is a circle, and circles can have corners. The pillars refer to what the world is based upon, not the earth. The Bible says the earth hangs upon nothing. The Bible talks about one specific talking serpent and one specific talking donkey. It specifies the supernatural in the latter. As far as light goes, there are many different types of light, and not all light is visible. Light doesn’t only come from the sun.

          • Sally Edwards

            Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with your fellow flat-earth Christians who use that very argument to state their reasons for a flat earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There’s no such thing as a flat-earth Christian. The flat earth theory is in the Qur’an. It’s part of Hinduism, too.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Philip Stallings

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s nice, and he may have said he was a Christian, but Christians support the Word of God, and the Word of God says the earth is sphere.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Ah, the no true Scotsman, err, I mean Christian fallacy.

            Mr. Stallings provides much scriptural support for his position. You seem to be of the mindset that you have the only true interpretation of Scripture.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know that the true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t apply if you change the definition, don’t you?

          • Sally Edwards

            Yes, but your kind is also known to say that Catholics aren’t Christians either, so there goes your credibility.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I will cite communication via light (beginning of Genesis in the creation story)

            Explain that…what are you talking about exactly and how is it evidence for creationism?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was listed as evidence for Pupin using the Bible to do his science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was listed as evidence for Pupin using the Bible to do his science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was listed as evidence for Pupin using the Bible to do his science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What is the “communication via light” in Genesis you’re talking about?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nope. I gave it as evidence that Pupin was a Creationist.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, okay, fine. I wasn’t arguing that. I don’t think that really proves much, though.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The original contention was that scientists can’t be Creationists. I proved that claim to be bogus.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I never saw anyone here making that claim. At least, I wasn’t.

            I will say this, though, since we’re on that topic: With the understanding of things like astronomy and biology that we have now, any scientist who has anything to do with those and calls himself a creationist (especially a YEC) is either ignorant or a liar.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have no science degree. How can you claim what a scientist should or should not know? We’ve already established that there is no proof for evolution, and far more for Creationism, so it’d be more logical to conclude that scientists who call themselves evolutionists are either ignorant or a liar.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you’re going to grill me on my credentials, I guess it’s only fair to ask you: Do you have a degree in science? At any rate, though, nothing I’m talking about here is any kind of advanced topic one would need a degree to understand. It’s more or less high-school-level science stuff, really. And, by the way, we certainly have not established that there is more support for creationism. You’ve asserted that repeatedly, but I haven’t seen you even really try to back it up. (Mentioning past scientists who were creationists doesn’t cut it.)

            Do you believe in “young-earth creationism” yourself? That’s really what I was talking about there, I probably should have specified that. (well, I guess I kinda did) There are just so many things that are evidence against the Earth being that young.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes.
            Yes. I am not alone either. There are many present-day scientists who believe in YEC, including the inventor of the MRI who is very much alive and well today.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, I’m curious now, what field of science?

          • Sally Edwards

            I think his “yes” was in response to your question “do you believe in young earth creationism”. But since he does, then your question is answered: He does not have a degree in science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hmm….I thought the rest of it kinda implied that he had a degree, but now that I read it again, I’m not too sure.

          • Sally Edwards

            After reading everything else he’s said, there’s no way he would have passed an elementary school remedial science class.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I never answer anything personal on forums because I got stalked before. I will say that I started university when I was 14 years old, studied more than one field, and was in the Master’s program by the time I was 18. I will gladly discuss living scientists who have multiple degrees, multiple publications, awards, etc., who are YEC.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I was only asking what particular field your degree was in, I really don’t think that’s too personal of a thing to share. Also I was wondering just how relevant your field was to discussing things about evolution, as well.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s very relevant. 🙂

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are claiming “science” ….. that is BASED on evidence ….. but you can do nothing to prove you assertions ………… okay ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            bull roar …. we all have the exact same evidence ….. there is no your evidence and my evidence …… it comes down to who is VIEWING the evidence …… and what that persons worldview is ……

          • Sally Edwards

            Are evolutionary biologists just involved in a global scam then?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How so?

          • Sally Edwards

            Well, they are gainfully employed in a scientific field that works directly with evolution. Are they all lying, in your opinion, or what?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How do you define their particular field?

          • Sally Edwards

            It doesn’t matter how I define it. The way it IS defined is studying and researching
            biodiversity, the way in which life on Earth has evolved and how
            organisms interact.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Definitions always matter. That’s why one cannot have a philosophical debate (in the academic sense) without first defining their terms.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s a big part of the trouble with debating creationists about evolution. They often define evolution in ways only they do.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know that evolutionists have defined evolution, don’t you? And we were talking about a very specific field that has a very specific definition within the field.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What? Of course “evolutionists” define evolution; they’re the ones who discovered the dang thing, after all. My point is that when creationists talk about evolution, they often give it meanings it just doesn’t have, like they’ll say it deals with the Big Bang and/or the origin of life. I don’t know if you’re one of the ones who do that, so if you’re not then never mind, I guess.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t understand what evolution is, do you, or what the differing theories there are amongst evolutionists, do you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Any “differing theories amongst evolutionists” are about the mechanisms by which it takes place.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They all agree that they can’t prove it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I suppose I might as well ask this:. What do you think the definition of evolution is?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” (Oxford)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, at least you got that right.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t understand the significance of it, do you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Tell me then: What is this significance that I’m apparently missing?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “are believed to have”. No proof.

            However, I wasn’t referring to the definition of evolution in my conversation with Sally. I was referring to the definition of evolutionary biologists because it involves the study of all humans coming from the Mitochondrial Eve (which is a scientific term, not a Biblical term, but it’s still significant for our discussion purpose).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Mitochondrial Eve” doesn’t mean what you think it does. It doesn’t mean the first woman to exist, like Eve in the Bible, it’s the first woman that all humans living today are matralineally descended from. It actually changes over time. There’s also the concept of “y-chromosomal Adam”, the male version of the same thing, and scientists think he might have not even been around at the same time as “mitochondrial Eve”, most likely before.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you read my comment, you would see that I already specified that Mitochondrial Eve is not a Biblical reference. Do you not bother to read posts to which you reply? You didn’t have to pull up a poor cut-and-paste job.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You said “all humans coming from mitochondrial Eve”. I assumed you mean “all humans” as in “all humans that have ever lived”. If that’s not what you meant, if you actually did mean “all humans living today”, I apologize.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I mean all humans who ever lived, and that’s what evolutionary biologists also believe.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Mitochondrial Eve is not the ancestor of all humans who ever lived. If that’s what you think evolutionary biologists believe, you’re just wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are clearly misunderstanding what I am saying, and in doing so, you are accusing me of saying quite the opposite of what I have stated. My point is that Mitochondrial Eve is the theory that all human beings come from one mother, hence the name “Eve”. They are not talking about the Biblical Eve in their synopsis.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Let me make sure I’m getting this straight, then. Are you saying “Mitochondrial Eve” is the name scientists have given to the first woman to ever exist, the ancestor of all other people who have ever lived?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s the name scientists have given to the common ancestor of today’s people.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Still not quite right, but closer at least.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m pretty sure you don’t have a science degree. 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t take one to understand one fairly simple concept.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like Creationism?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hey, if there’s something about creationism I’m getting wrong, go ahead and correct me. I’ve never claimed to be an expert in theology (which would be more appropriate than science for dealing with that)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My point is that Creationism is easy to understand and is a fairly simple concept, unlike evolution which must jump through hoops and ask its subjects to suspend disbelief in order to accept it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Like I said before, when I first learned about evolution by natural selection, I was struck by how simple and elegant of a concept it was. I don’t see what “jumping through hoops” or “suspending disbelief” is needed; what do you mean by that? What’s so unbelievable about it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution has never been proven, whereas with Creationism, there’s all sorts of proof, like scientific theories contained in the Word (communication by light, paths of the sea, etc.) that have actually been proven in the scientific community.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Enough with this stuff about “proof” already….

            “In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information
            about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’
            an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.” – Karl Popper

            But, anyway….so your evidence, or proof, for creationism is basically what I’ve seen described elsewhere as the “scientific foreknowledge” in the Bible? In other words, that the Bible describes things that were unknown to science until later? First of all, even if those are right (which I ain’t buying), it’s not necessarily proof that creationism is true. You’re basically saying “the Bible was right about X, so it must be right about Y”. No, let’s judge those claims on their own merits.

            And I’ve seen those kind of claims of “scientific foreknowledge” before, and like I said, I ain’t buying them. Even if I gave you those two things you mentioned (not that I really know what you’re talking about since you haven’t explained them) they would still be vastly outweighed by things the Bible says that we know now that science flatly contradicts.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Name one thing the Bible says that science contradicts.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “Name one thing the Bible says that science contradicts.
            (1) That the stars could ever fall to Earth
            (2) That the whole Earth was flooded about 4400 years ago.
            (3) That only a single pair (or several pairs) of each kind of animal was alive and located in the middle east about 4400 years ago.
            (4) That only 8 humans were alive and located in the middle East about 4400 years ago, and about 100 years after that all humans were still gathered near one tower, speaking the same language.
            Those are just a start.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            1.) Give a Scripture verse and ask your question in context. Then I’ll answer you.

            2.) There is ample evidence of a worldwide flood, as cited in other posts.

            3.) The Bible uses the term “kind”. “Kind” doesn’t mean that there were hundreds of types of each species in the ark, but rather only a single pair of each kind For example, coyotes, wolves, dingoes, jackals, domestic dogs, etc., are all one “kind”. Noah only had to have approximately 1,500-7,000 “kinds” on the ark in order to produce the species we see today. If you go to Kentucky, you can see a replica of the ark built. It shows it’s quite possible to do.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “Give a Scripture verse and ask your question in context. Then I’ll answer you.”

            Matthew 24:29 ” Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”

            Mark 13:24-25 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
            25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.”

            Revelation 6:13 “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.”

            Revelation 8:10 “And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;”

            Let me add Joshua’s long day, when the Sun stopped in the sky for about a day, and the best explanation is that that the writers of the Bible thought the stars were small compared to the Earth, and that the heavenly bodies revolved around us.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are speaking of events that have yet to happen as far as every Bible verse goes that you gave.

            As far as your reference to Joshua, you are misreading what happened. The sun could only stand still in relation to the earth by stopping the earth’s rotation. There is also mention of hailstones which would suggest atmospheric disturbances. It was a miracle.

          • Tim Matter

            “The sun could only stand still in relation to the earth by stopping the earth’s rotation.”
            We know that today. What makes you think the writer of Joshua knew it? Why did those that used the Bible to guide them fight the Idea that the Earth went around the Sun until the 1800’s?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible was inspired by the Holy Ghost and as such is true through and through. God made the earth. He very well knows how everything works. 🙂

            You do know that Galileo was a Christian, don’t you? He was persecuted for his science. Those persecuting him did not use the Bible as their guide. They still don’t today.

          • Tim Matter

            You know, those who persecuted Galileo were Christians too.

            “Those persecuting him did not use the Bible as their guide.”
            It’s funny how you can use the Bible to support almost anything. Geocentrism and heliocentrism. A flat Earth and a round Earth. Slavery’s rightness or wrongness.
            Did you ever notice that it is after science discovers something to be true that Bible verses are found to have predicted the discovery thousands of years ago. Islam does the same thing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Galileo was a Christian. Those persecuting him were not. They were the same ones who burnt Christians at the stake for spreading the Word of God. Check your history.

          • Tim Matter

            I believe they all belonged to the same sect of Christianity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Galileo believed the Word of God. Those persecuting him did not.

          • Tim Matter

            Galileo believed the evidence he got by observing the physical world. The church believed the word of God.

            1 Chronicles 16:30 “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”

            Job 1:5 “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

            Psalm 93:1 “The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.”

            Psalm 96:9-10 “O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.”

            Psalm 104:5 ” Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Church believes the Word of God, but the catholic cult does not. Galileo’s observations confirm the Word of God. That’s why he was persecuted.

          • Tim Matter

            Not good at reading comprehension, are you? The church was quoting the Bible to prove a stationary Earth. Galileo was contradicting what those quotes said.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            catholicism did not quote the Bible. If they did, they would know the earth is a sphere. 🙂 Read Newton’s writings on it.

          • Sally Edwards

            Catholics are Christians.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Christians, by Jesus Christ’s definition, follow His Word all the way to the end. catholicism does not do that.

          • Sally Edwards

            In your opinion. History would disagree with you, as would most Christians.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The important point is, Would Jesus Christ agree with me? Jesus Christ’s definition isn’t something my opinion can or cannot change. Since He formed Christianity, He gets to define it. By the way, many Christians do not count catholicism as Christianity. Check out what Spurgeon, Dave Hunt, etc., had to say about it.

          • Sally Edwards

            The important part is, would Jesus Christ agree with you, or would Jesus Christ look at thousands of years of recorded history in the form of books, documents, etc.? Would he look at the Protestant Reformation and ask the very simple question, a question so simple you could (and should) ask it yourself: “What were they reforming against?”

            Dave Hunt was a Berean. Do you know what that means? Are you quite sure you want to be agreeing with a Berean?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There was a Church long before the catholic cult or Protestant Reformation. Read some history.

            Of course I know what Berean means. Do you? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            No. You do not know what a Berean is. Your own cult sprang from Catholicism – a reading of history would benefit you but revisionist history, which you seem to prefer, is inaccurate and worthless. As I’m certain many theologians have corrected you about many times.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bereans are first mentioned in the Bible. Dave Hunt is of the Brethren faith. His publication was named Berean Call. You show your ignorance again and again.

            The early church was Jewish. Then Greeks and Romans and other nations believed. Later on, the catholic cult was formed. Spurgeon and others called them antichrist.

          • Sally Edwards

            The Bereans are a cult. I know you are just name-calling in the case of the Catholic Church, but it is both too old and too large to qualify as s cult.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what you are talking about. 🙂 Dave Hunt was a Brethren. Do you even know what that is? The Berean Call he ran was a reference to the Bible verse about Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so.

          • Sally Edwards

            How old are the Bereans?
            How old is the Catholic Church?
            Do you know what a cult is?
            If you were a member of a cult yourself, would you even recognize it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why are you rambling on about the Bereans? Are you referring to the Bereans in the Bible, who were praised as being noble? Or are you talking about Dave Hunt, who was not a Berean, but a Brethren, just like Watchmen Nee and Paris Reidhead?

          • Sally Edwards

            Because they are not to be taken seriously, and Dave Hunt was a proud member. He’s an old school anti-Catholic and all his arguments are PRATTs (previously refuted a thousand times).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Berean Call is a publication which took its name from a Bible verse. Dave Hunt was a Brethren member. You keep repeating falsehoods, and I’m politely trying to correct you, but either you are intentionally being duplicitous, or you are very, very stupid. Neither one bodes well for you.

          • Sally Edwards

            Google “who are the Bereans”. The answer will surprise you. Hint: It’s not just one answer. You don’t need to keep running away from these challenges, you will learn from your mistakes this way and benefit 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly have no clue what you are Googling or how it pertains to Dave Hunt. 🙂 He was a Brethren member, as was Watchman Nee, Paris Reidhead and others. I knew Dave. He was as sound as they come.

          • Sally Edwards

            Dave Hunt was a Berean. Do you have Google? Do you know how to use it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re just trolling. Here you go:

            “Hunt’s Christian theology was evangelical dispensational and he was associated with the Plymouth Brethren movement.”

            I knew Dave Hunt very well.

          • Sally Edwards

            No True Scotsman fallacy.
            They don’t become any less Christian just because they did something you disapprove of.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know that True Scotsman doesn’t apply if you change the definition, don’t you? 🙂

            Jesus Christ defined a Christian in the Book of John. catholicism does not follow that definition.

          • Sally Edwards

            Do you know what No True Scotsman means? Let’s hear it. I’m putting it on the table right now that you don’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh come on, “Sally”. We’ve had this discussion before, and I had to explain it to YOU because you misuse the phrase all the time. It’s hilarious when you atheists throw around these logic terms without ever having taken a basic logic course, either applied or symbolic. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Here’s what No True Scotsman means, “Guest”, since you clearly don’t know.
            No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a
            universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition
            in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

            What this means is that every single time you disparage a group of Christians for doing something you don’t personally like, you say they aren’t Christians at all.

            Hilarious, is it? Yes, I’m certainly having a good laugh over here 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You cut-and-pasted that and proved, once again, that you don’t know how to use the expression, nor what it means. 🙂

            It doesn’t work when you change the definition. You don’t get to redefine Christianity to suit your agenda.

          • Sally Edwards

            You were given both a actual definition from a Wikipedia as well as the practical and convenient example you yourself provide. No definitions have been changed. Christianity isn’t being re-defined, you merely do not possess the authority to define it on a whim. Believing you do changes nothing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You cut-and-pasted and didn’t even understand that what you pasted proved my point. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            I gave you both. A cut and paste of a textbook definition and an example. Both of which prove I know what I’m talking about, so are you not just tossing out random insults now? Is this all you have left?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You merely showed your ignorance. Again.

          • Sally Edwards

            With demonstrable facts? Come on, you aren’t even trying now. If it’s that difficult for you to acknowledge that you were caught with your hands in the No True Scotsman cookie jar, even after having it proven to you, maybe you aren’t cut out for public discourse.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Look, you’re embarrassing yourself, and this is getting tiresome. You misuse words all the time, and when corrected, try deflection. Stop moving the goalpost.

          • Sally Edwards

            And not a single example, just s blanket and hominem. Pathetic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            An example of what? You mean the topics you keep bringing up and then drop because you don’t know what you’re talking about? 🙂 You really should stay away from atheist sites. They know very little about both science and the Bible, and thus make huge fools of themselves.

          • Sally Edwards

            If I were dropping subjects, we wouldn’t still be having this conversation, sir. You take the evidence given to you and ignore it. That’s not ME who’s running from things I don’t know about, that’s you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are talking in circles because you have no substance to your arguments. 🙂 You didn’t even know what you cut-and-pasted from an atheist site. Here’s a tip for you: read actual scientific material if you’re going to comment on science, not an atheist site. Then you won’t look so ill informed. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            What I cut and pasted from another site was a clinical definition, which I provided along with an example. I stand by both of those things, and understand them just fine. I don’t look ill-informed, that’s you attempting some mind games and falling on your face for the umpteenth time. I see right through you; a toddler would. 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re intentionally misrepresenting facts again. You left out the full definition, which you cut and pasted from Google, leaving out the most important part of the definition. I gave you the full definition from an evolutionary biology textbook, which is also available on the internet. 🙂

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “You are speaking of events that have yet to happen as far as every Bible verse goes that you gave.”
            It’s talking about the future, yes. But, knowing what we know now about the size of stars, is what it describes possible? It seems like the writers didn’t know. They thought the stars were much smaller than us and they could fall to Earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course it’s possible, and the results will be deadly. You don’t know what each individual thinks about the size of the stars.

          • Tim Matter

            Are you saying it is possible for the stars to fall to Earth? Do you know the size of a star compared to the Earth? If you read each of those verses further, people are still alive on Earth after a sun falls onto it. Those writers had no Idea how big stars are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Not only is it possible, it will happen. God destroyed the earth the first time by water. Next time it will be by fire.

          • Tim Matter

            OK. Revelation 8:13 “and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.”

            Revelation 8:15-16 “Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[f] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.”

            How is anything possible after the stars fall to Earth? The writer had no idea of how big and how hot stars are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How do you know how big and hot stars are? No one really knows, but we do know that when they fall, it’s going to be devastating. By the way, while you’re perusing through Revelation, check out what happens when angels hold back the winds and it gets super hot and starts burning everyone. How did the author of Revelation know that would happen when winds are held back? (I can explain that one for you, if you’d like). How about when Jesus Christ healed a blind man and had to do it in two parts? How did the author of that passage know about a two-fold eye “surgery”? (I can explain that one for you, too, if you’d like).

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “How do you know how big and hot stars are? No one really knows,…”
            Um. Yes, they do know. Just how much of a science denier are you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No they do not, and they even admit they do not. The more we improve our technology, the more we see. The more we see of space, the more we realize we know so very little. That’s what makes science so exciting – there is always more to discover!

          • Tim Matter

            I have to ask, were you home schooled or go to a private Christian school?

          • Sally Edwards

            I know! I know!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wish. I went to a regular public school, skipped a bunch of grades, went to a specialized, hard-to-get-into high school, and then started university at the age of 14.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “but we do know that when they fall, it’s going to be devastating.”
            If it would happen, that would be the end of the Earth. Period. The Bible goes on to describe things happening on Earth AFTER that. There would be no Earth after a star fall onto it, or a better description would be, the Earth gets sucked into a star a million times bigger than the Earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding it would be the end of the earth AS WE KNOW IT. You don’t know enough about stars to know exactly how it would work. Neither do scientists. It’s all guesses on our part for now.

          • Tim Matter

            Think of this example using high school math. A planet with a temperature of maybe 70 degrees merging with a sun with a million times more mass, with a temperature of 10,000 degrees.
            The sun would cool to about 9,999.99 degrees and the Earth would warm to 9,999.99 degrees. Any guess about what happens to all life on Earth at nearly 10,000 degrees?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are making assumptions. There is not enough known about stars yet to come up with your high school math presuppositions. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Do you know what a star is?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, but I’m not sure you do. 🙂

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “There is not enough known about stars yet to come up with your high school math presuppositions.”
            Rubbish. You are backed into a corner trying to defend the indefensible. What else can you do but deny the facts. Deny we are able to know what we know.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you know something, then why don’t you prove it? You can’t, because even the best scientists admit they know very little about stars. 🙂

          • Tim Matter

            I don’t know what scientists you are talking about. Even Christian astronomers know quite a bit about stars, like how big they are, how hot they are, how far away they are, how long their life cycle is, etc, etc. You should read a little.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Any scientist. Pick one. Every single astronomer will tell you that we know little about stars. Now since you claim to know so much, prove it. Post something that proves you are right. You can’t do it, because it doesn’t exist. There is very little still known about the universe, which is why the study of it is so exciting.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “Every single astronomer will tell you that we know little about stars. Now since you claim to know so much, prove it. Post something that proves you are right.”
            The Earth has a diameter of about 8000 miles. The Sun’s diameter is about 865,000 miles. The Sun could fit about 1,300,000 Earths inside it.
            The Sun is about 93 million miles from Earth, or about 8 light minutes away. The next nearest star is Proxima Centari, about 4 1/2 light years away.
            We are in the Milky Way Galaxy. It is over 100,000 light years across and contains 100 to 400 billion stars.
            The next nearest major galaxy is Andromeda, over 2 billion light years away.
            There is much, much more to know. Google is your friend.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nice cut-and-paste job, but when you use Google instead of an actual scientific journal, it shows. 🙂

            New instrumentation and technology are bringing about new discoveries all the time. So little is known about stars which, again, what makes science so fascinating.

          • Tim Matter

            Like I said, google is your friend. Are you denying anything I wrote is true?
            “New instrumentation and technology are bringing about new discoveries all the time.”
            That’s true, but above you deny the truth of old discoveries, like how big and how hot stars are. Don’t rejoice at the new discoveries when you deny the truth of what we already know.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Science is your friend. Try to learn some.

          • Tim Matter

            OK. What do you suggest I learn about?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Any topic you’re trying to discuss here. 🙂 A Google search won’t do it, my friend. Take science courses.

          • Tim Matter

            I already learned some of this stuff in elementary school. No star can fall to Earth and people still do anything after that happens. When they wrote about it happening they probably thought “shooting stars” were actual stars, not something as small as pebbles.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You really think an elementary education covers all you need to know about stars? Come now! There is so much to learn, that often astronomy textbooks have to be written and added to during the course of a year! (I’m talking university level now). Technology has come a long way since you were in elementary school (unless it was last year), and we know so much more. However, there is SO MUCH MORE to learn. It’s an exciting time for science!

          • Tim Matter

            It covers enough to know the relative sizes of stars to the size of planets, and the temperature of stars. That hasn’t changed much.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We still don’t know star size or how one differentiates from another. In fact, a star was recently found to be the size of Manhattan, which was a much smaller estimate than previously expected. There are new finds every day.

          • Tim Matter

            “We still don’t know star size………”
            Yes we do.

            ” a star was recently found to be the size of Manhattan.”
            Trying to figure out what you are referring to. Do you have a few more details?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s one star in question, it surely isn’t every star. We do not know the size of every single star. The star the size of Manhattan was a shocker to astronomers. It weighs more than the sun. You can view some footage on NASA’s site. Look for “Fermi Discovers Youngest Millisecond Pulsar”. (A pulsar is neutron star.)

          • Tim Matter

            Neutron stars were predicted to exist over 80 years ago. We started seeing evidence of them over 50 years ago. Maybe you should read some more about what is known about the life cycles of stars of different sizes. Interesting stuff.
            By the way, your “small” neutron star falling to Earth would kill all life on Earth instantly too.
            “Neutron stars pack their mass inside a 20-kilometer (12.4 miles) diameter. They are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons.”
            Not to mention a temperature of a million to a trillion degrees, depending on how young it is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your cut-and-paste is duly noted (and woefully lacking). 🙂 All neutron stars are not identical. 🙂

          • Tim Matter

            Nit picking the details to avoid the obvious. A star falling to Earth, whether it be still burning, or burned out and collapsed would mean the immediate end of humans on Earth. End of story.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not nit picking to point out that you copied something you didn’t understand. You’re acting like an expert when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. When stars do fall to the earth, you’d better believe it will be devastating. The first time the world was destroyed by water. The next time, it will be by fire.

          • Tim Matter

            It’s nit picking to argue the details of the diameter of a neutron star when any star falling to Earth, large, small, hot or burned out. Any star falling to Earth and there would be no humans alive for anything the book of Revelation says happens to them after that.
            Devastating is an understatement.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you admit you were wrong about star size? 🙂 Look, you don’t know which sized stars will hit earth. You also don’t know what supernatural forces will be ongoing at the time, because the Bible also says that men are going to want to die but will be unable to. Imagine a hellish environment, with the earth off its axis, and not being able to die. That’s what’s going to happen.

          • Tim Matter

            “Look, you don’t know which sized stars will hit earth.”
            It doesn’t matter. Any size star hits the Earth, and it’s over instantly.
            By the way, that 20 KM neutron star weighs more than our Sun, so it’s still over.
            All that other stuff you said will happen after a star hits the Earth is written by somebody who didn’t know that “shooting stars” aren’t stars at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible doesn’t refer to shooting stars. By the way, how would the Bible know that a hit from a star would be devastating? Back then, what was known about stars?

          • Tim Matter

            Now you’re getting it. The writers of the Bible didn’t know about stars, that’s why they mistakenly thought they could fall to Earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, they DID know what would happen. They may not have known specifics about stars, just like we do not today, but they DID know prophecy and you would do well to listen.

            How did the writer of Revelation know that holding back the winds would cause intense heat?

          • Tim Matter

            “They may not have known specifics about stars, just like we do not today,..”
            Yeah, we know about stars. And since they got so much wrong about things we do know, we can’t trust anything they claim about things we don’t know.
            Deuteronomy 18:22 ” When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

            “How did the writer of Revelation know that holding back the winds would cause intense heat?”
            I don’t even know what you are referring to.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you really knew anything about stars, you would admit so little is known about them. 🙂

            There is nothing incorrect written in the Bible.

            You quoted a verse from Deuteronomy. It’s a good one. It doesn’t prove what you think it does. In fact, it proves you wrong.

            You have also quoted from the Book of Revelation, purporting to have a “gotcha!” moment from it, yet you obviously fail to understand what you read, and you prove that you haven’t even read the Book for yourself. No wonder you don’t know to what I was referring with my comment. Why not read the Book prior to commenting on it?

          • Tim Matter

            “There is nothing incorrect written in the Bible.”
            Then explain how both of these are true.

            1 Kings 4:26 says, “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

            2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; ……”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re cutting and pasting from atheist sites without having read the texts in their entirety.

            The Bible tells us that

          • Tim Matter

            “You quoted a verse from Deuteronomy. It’s a good one. It doesn’t prove what you think it does. In fact, it proves you wrong.”
            Details? Please elaborate how you think it proves me wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because prophesies made in the Old Covenant have come true since it was written.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “2.) There is ample evidence of a worldwide flood, as cited in other posts.”
            Most of the “ample evidence” comes from Christian apologists who bear false witness about science, especially geology, and fool the average Christians who doesn’t know any better. They don’t fool the real geologists whose living depends on the correct understanding of geology.
            May I point you to the “Affiliation of Christian Geologists”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The evidence comes from the evidence. Scientists who are Christians can’t make up the Grand Canyon or fossils or other obvious signs.

          • Tim Matter

            “The evidence comes from the evidence.”
            But con men can convince the average, well meaning Christian of lies about that the evidence says. Geologists who are Christians can tell you the lies about the evidence the con men are telling to fool you.
            I just heard a lecture today by a Christian geologist about how carbon 14 dating is done and how accurate it is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, but your rambling does not make sense, and is built upon the presupposition that Christians are deceitful or gullible. Neither is true.

          • Tim Matter

            I’ll bet even you think a lot of the TV preachers are deceitful, and that their followers are gullible.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You betcha.

          • Tim Matter

            @Guest- “3.) The Bible uses the term “kind”…..”
            Within my lifetime creationists started using that word. As it became harder to believe every species was on the Ark because of the sheer number of species alive, they started using “kind” to be able lump a lot of different species into one “kind”.
            This puts creationists in the odd predicament of denying evolution could happen over millions of years, while at the same time believing in hyper evolution happened over just hundreds of years.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused about what evolution is, which is why you are misusing terminology. “Kind” has been used for thousands of years. “Species” is the newer word of the two.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I almost don’t know where to begin….well how about at the beginning, Genesis? The creation account is totally contradicted by science, and that’s even if you don’t read the “days” as literal days. The order in which things were created is completely wrong. And then there’s the whole thing of people living to 700 years or more. And let’s not forget the Flood and the Ark story, impossible for a number of reasons.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Have you ever read the Book of Genesis? Really read it? Studied it like you would a textbook? There is no contradiction in it at all. There is no discrepancy in the order, and there is no reason to disbelieve that people lived longer in earlier days because there was less pollution, less mutations, less disease. The Flood and ark story are extremely plausible. In fact, modern observations prove the Great Flood.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There is no discrepancy in the order

            Then tell me why there isn’t, because there sure as heck looks like there is. You’ve got to give me some sort of explanation. You can’t just say “no, you’re wrong” and expect that to accomplish anything.

            Gen 1:1: “In the beginning God created heaven and the earth” (which is later said to be on the first day)

            The universe is about 9 billion years older than the earth. The sun is older than the earth, yet Genesis has God creating the sun on the fourth day.

            there is no reason to disbelieve that people lived longer in earlier
            days because there was less pollution, less mutations, less disease.

            Less pollution? OK, I’ll give you that. Less mutations? Uh, for one thing, mutations can be either helpful or harmful. “Less mutations” (if that’s even true, and I don’t know about that) doesn’t mean people living longer necessarily. Besides, if you don’t believe in evolution, what are you doing talking about mutations? That’s kind of a major part of evolution, you know? (Mutation + natural selection = evolution, basically) Less disease? No, people live longer now than in the past because there is less disease and there are better ways to fight diseases now.

            The Flood and ark story are extremely plausible. In fact, modern observations prove the Great Flood.

            The stories are implausible, because modern observations and even just logic, disprove them. A seaworthy ship couldn’t have built at that size, and even then, it couldn’t have contained all the animals necessary to repopulate the earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The earth isn’t billions of years old. There is no evidence to support an old earth, only a relatively young one. The same sources you are using to determine the age of the earth as just an unreliable about the age of the solar system and other bodies.

            Mutations increase as time goes by. Not all mutations are necessarily harmful, but many are – the BRAC1 and 2 mutations for example, polycystic kidney disease , cystic fibrosis, just for a few examples.

            An ark built to size has is on display in Kentucky. See my posts on this thread regarding specifics. There is nothing implausible about the ark.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There is no evidence to support an old earth

            There is all kinds of evidence. Radiometric dating, dendrochronology, I could go on and on.

            An ark built to size has is on display in Kentucky

            Yeah, Ken Ham’s boat-shaped building held together with steel rivets.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Ken Ham needs more than $100 million, modern machinery, a huge team of labor, roads, lumber mills, AND tax breaks and never once thinks ‘You know… I don’t think a 500 year old man could pull this off with tools from the Bronze Age…’ – Anthony Blair

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Radiometric dating is subjective. It begins with the assumption that the earth is old.

            Ken Ham’s display is built to scale. The ark is clearly feasible.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Radiometric dating is part of what tells us the Earth is old.

            And all the ark display proves is that we can, with modern technology, build a wooden building of that size. Show me that you could have built a boat of that size with the materials and technology of the time, and that it would be seaworthy, then you might have something. Of course, then there’s still the whole”carrying all the land animals needed to repopulate the planet” thing to work out.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are using circular reasoning. Radiometric dating begins with the assumption that the earth is old.

            What kind of tools do you think Noah needed to build the ark? The Bible laid out instructions, and as followed, they work! I already explained how few animals would be needed to repopulate the earth. You do know that every current breed of dog today arose from 2 original ancestors, don’t you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Even if people doing radiometric dating are working with the “assumption” that the earth is old, that’s just because we know that to be a fact, from all kinds of observations of other things.

            The simplest one, I think, is the “starlight problem”. Now of course that’s not really an argument against the Earth being young, it’s an argument against the universe being young….but I guess it still would prove young-Earth creationism wrong (which it does).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Starlight age is a weak argument since even evolutionists cannot claim that one.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t even understand what you mean by that. It’s accepted by pretty much everyone but creationists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It actually isn’t. Even evolutionists admit they don’t know enough about starlight to make a conclusive statement.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Even evolutionists admit they don’t know enough about starlight to make a conclusive statement.

            Same thing as with your (fallacious and inaccurate) statement that so-called “evolutionists” admit evolution is “not proven”: Got some quotes where they actually say that? And that aren’t quote-mined? I’ve never heard that said. Don’t expect me to take your word for it.

            Distances in space cannot be accurately measured. The system currently used now is based upon assumptions.

            Several different methods are used to measure distances to stars. The nearer stars are measured by stellar parallax, which is indeed not accurate enough (but soon will be!) to directly, without assumptions, measure distances beyond any point that would help confirm the starlight problem is in fact a problem for creationists. But, for one thing, there was a supernova that appeared in 1987, that astronomers were able to measure the distance to (directly!) through triangulation, and it came out to 168,000 light-years away from the Earth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, I’ve proven irrefutably that evolutionists themselves admit evolution hasn’t been proven. Shame on you for falsely accusing me of using fallacious and inaccurate statements. Check yourself.

            While there is more than one way to measure starlight, not one has been proven to be accurate. It’s all just theory at this point.

            By the way, if you’re going to cut-and-paste, be honest and admit it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You haven’t “irrefutably proven” a darn thing. You just gave me two classic examples of dishonest creationist quote-mining. And, like I keep saying, science doesn’t deal with “proof” anyway. That’s what I was talking about when I called your arguments fallacious.

            “Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic….in contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.” – Satoshi Kanazawa, Psychology Today

            (see, when I do cut and paste something, I’ll credit it)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You keep repeating yourself, but what you are saying is patently false. Science deals with observable proofs, not with fairy tales. By the way, Psychology Today isn’t a scientific journal. In fact, there are many who would argue that psychology isn’t a science at all.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “As an astrophysicist, I live and breathe science. Much of what I read and hear is couched in the language of science which to outsiders can seem little more than jargon and gibberish. But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science
            has little to do with “proving” anything.

            ….science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.

            But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.”

            – Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Sydney

            “Journalists often write about “scientific proof” and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow
            if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.”

            – “Understanding Science” website, produced by U. of California at Berkeley

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s all nice and good, but their quotes don’t remake the definition of science, which has been around since the inception of science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The definition of science, you say…..OK, let’s look at the first few things that come up on a Google search:

            “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”

            “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”

            I don’t know what you think, but those sound just about right to me. Nothing I’ve said “remakes” those definitions.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already gave you those definitions. What do you think observation and experiment mean? Experiment means that the observation is proven. You have to be able to reproduce your results.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Science deals with observable proofs, not with fairy tales.

            Change the word “proof” to “evidence”, and I agree 100%. Fairy tales are theism’s department.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you think evidence and proofs mean?

            As far as your latter claim, prove it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Proof is when something is proven to 100% be true, and that’s the final word on the matter. Science doesn’t do that, because it’s always open to new information.

            And prove my latter claim? OK, I ask you this then….can you prove the existence of God? I don’t believe you or I or anyone else can. That’s why I call it “fairy tales”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Even with new information, it’s possible to prove something up to a point. Here’s an example: H. pylori causes bacterial infections of the digestive tract. It is treated by antibiotics. Provable fact. New information might come up tracing the origins of H. pylori or new treatments, but that will not nullify the original findings. There has been lots of time for evolutionists to come up with one iota of evidence for their theory. They have not.

            b.) Can you prove the existence of Julius Caesar?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            New information might come up tracing the origins of H. pylori or new treatments

            ….which would be most likely to come in large part thanks to our understanding of evolution.

            but that will not nullify the original findings

            Indeed. Just like people disputing and/or refining things about the theory of evolution doesn’t mean they’re nullifying evolution itself.

            There has been lots of time for evolutionists to come up with one iota of evidence for their theory. They have not.

            You’re right….they haven’t came up with one iota; they’ve came up with lots of iotas. There’s all kinds of evidence. I told you where to find it. If you’re able to refute all of it….well, more power to you, I guess, but I doubt it. (forget having a degree in science, you’d be worth of a Nobel Prize if you could do that)

            Can you prove the existence of Julius Caesar?

            More so than I believe anyone can prove the existence of any particular god, anyway. At least with Julius Caesar, there’s not thousands of differing accounts of who he was or what he did or said. Also, no one’s going around saying I should believe in Julius Caesar and do what he told me to do or I’ll go to hell. At least not that I’m aware of, anyway.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Circular reasoning, bro.

            b.) There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar, yet we still know that Caesar existed. There are no differing accounts about who Christ is or what He did. It’s all very clear, so much so, that His presence flipped the world over.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            a.) Circular reasoning, bro.

            What was circular reasoning and how so?

            There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar

            Did I say Jesus Christ didn’t exist?

            There are no differing accounts about who Christ is or what He did.

            I wasn’t talking about Jesus Christ. Remember, I said you can’t prove the existence of any particular god. I put it that way for a reason. But, actually, yes, there most certainly are differing accounts of who Jesus Christ was and what he did. There’s the Muslim version, where he was merely a prophet, and not the son of God, and there’s the whole Mormon thing, for another, just to name a few. But, anyway, I was talking about different accounts of a god.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You started out with a presupposition and then concluded with it.

            You said it was impossible to prove that God existed. Since Jesus Christ is God and you know that He existed, well, you just contradicted yourself.

            Historical accounts are the only ones that count. The Qur’an is not an historical account. There were no witnesses to Jesus Christ’s life in the Qur’an. Mormons also have no actual eye witnesses who wrote their book. The Bible, however, has actual eye witnesses who gave their personal accounts. Historically, their accounts have validation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Since Jesus Christ is God and you know that He existed, well, you just contradicted yourself.

            I meant I wasn’t necessarily disputing the fact there was an actual person, Jesus, the stories in the Bible were based on. I never said I know he existed. You’re just putting words in my mouth there. And even if I did, I certainly don’t believe he was God. (since I don’t believe in any gods in the first place, after all) Many scholars, including non-Christian ones, do believe Jesus existed, but not necessarily that he was God.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But you concur that Jesus Christ existed and, that if He were God, His appearance would be proof of the existence of God?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If he existed (and I said I wasn’t 100% sure about that, remember?) and if everything the Bible said about him is true. Those are two mighty big “if”s though, aren’t they?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He exists. It’s an historical fact.

          • Sally Edwards

            Um, yeah, Psychology Today is a scientific journal.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. 🙂 It’s a magazine much like Cosmopolitan or People. 🙂 In fact, there are many who would contend that psychology is a pseudo science.

          • Sally Edwards

            It has its content simplified for easier reading, but all the contributions are of a scientific nature. And if you say psychology is a pseudoscience, you’re delusional.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not a scientific journal. Do you know what a scientific journal is?

          • Sally Edwards

            From “Psychology Today”:

            Understanding and Conducting Peer Review -Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process

            She writes further into this article, “As an editor of a scientific journal, I am often asked for such guidelines for reviewers and share some suggestions below.”

            You can call it up online yourself.

            Now you can answer your own question: Do you know what a scientific journal is? 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That doesn’t make Psychology Today a scientific journal. 🙂 Do you know what a scientific journal is? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Thank you for admitting you don’t actually know. A scientific journal is a journal which contains scientific information, as in the example you were given. Not hard, is it? 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you don’t know what a scientific journal is. 🙂 A literary publication can be peer reviewed. Does that make it a scientific journal? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            If the editor herself is calling it a scientific journal I think you have reached the point where you need to let this one go :). Don’t you even know enough to be embarrassed?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            She called it a peer reviewed journal. It’s not a science journal.

          • Sally Edwards

            No, she called it a scientific journal. Read the quote again. And again, if necessary.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            She can call it whatever she likes. That doesn’t make it so. Psychology Today is not a scientific journal. To argue that it is, is laughable.

          • Sally Edwards

            You aren’t laughing, you are cringing. Just because you don’t like that Psychology Today reports science that threatens your faith is no reason to think you can discredit it as a scientific publication.

            Let me ask you this, if it’s not a scientific journal, what kind of journal is it? Automotive? Homemaking?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m laughing at both you and PT. It’s not even taken seriously in psychology 101 courses. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            How would you know that since you haven’t taken that course, eschew the field of psychology and believe the earth is 6000 years old?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How do you know what courses I have and haven’t taken? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            It is obvious.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, it IS obvious to anyone with a science background who does and doesn’t have a degree, and it’s clear that you don’t. 🙂 Say hi to PeeWee for me. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Well, you shouldn’t ask me how I define it, then, you should simply ask what the definition is. Anyway, that’s what you were given.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course I should ask you to define it so I can know what you are trying to reference. You left out a major part of the definition, by the way.

          • Sally Edwards

            It is a very standard definition.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You left out a key component, which is that of a common ancestor.

          • Sally Edwards

            No, that is inherent in a definition of evolution, not a definition of an evolutionary biologist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No. I quoted from a very specific evolutionary biologist source.

          • Sally Edwards

            Your question was how I define evolutionary biology.

            Four sources, chosen at random (including Merriam-Webster):

            1) Evolutionary biology is a branch of biology that is primarily concerned with the evolution of species. It encompasses other fields of biology such as genetics, ecology, systematics, and paleontology.

            2) The branch of biology concerned with the evolution of living organisms; evolutionary theory as it impinges on other areas of biology; (more generally) an area of biology considered in the light of evolutionary theory.

            3) a discipline of biology concerned with the processes and patterns of biological evolution especially in relation to the diversity of organisms and how they change over time.

            4) the branches of biology that deal with the processes of change in populations of organisms, especially taxonomy, paleontology, ethology, population genetics, and ecology.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Try a scientific source. It will tell you that evolutionary biology studies traces descent from a common ancestor.

          • Sally Edwards

            Not necessary. None of the sources cited oppose science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Are you sure you know which post you’re replying to?

          • Sally Edwards

            We are talking about a definition of evolutionary biology. And a cohesive definition of evolutionary biology does not need to include a mention of a common ancestor, although that IS a part of evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It is specifically what evolutionary biology studies.

          • Sally Edwards

            Yeah, and?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seemed to think you had a zhing! by mentioning evolutionary biology, not knowing that some of its proofs are things that the Bible has said all along anyway.

          • Sally Edwards

            I mentioned evolutionary biology because it is a field of science, and because you claim evolution is false, I wanted to know if you believed that all evolutionary biologists are frauds. You didn’t answer by the way.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Frauds in what sense? Do they have real degrees? Are the accredited? It’s interesting that you don’t want to address what evolutionary biologists really do, just like you didn’t want to address the Julius Caesar point.

          • Sally Edwards

            I know what evolutionary biologists do, but I’ve told you I don’t want to play your games. You can find out for yourself very easily by using Google if you don’t know. What I find interesting is that you disbelieve evolution but can’t bring yourself to accuse all the evolutionary biologists out there of being frauds, and I think that’s because you must know that they are working in their field of expertise, not just pretending.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it is so easy to find the definition, why didn’t you produce one? Why would I accuse anyone of anything?

          • Sally Edwards

            I produced four. Read back, and pay attention this time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No you didn’t. You waited until you were pressed for it and I produced one. You conveniently left out the part that proved your claim wrong.

          • Sally Edwards

            The claim ISN’T wrong. I never denied “common ancestor” wasn’t a component of evolution. I said it wasn’t necessary to the definition of evolutionary biologist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s a key component.

          • Sally Edwards

            Yes, completely unnecessary to the job title.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How so when it’s part of its official definition? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            You were given four definitions, none of which contained it. Is this a fun game for you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You left out the key component. Thus, you didn’t really give one accurate definition.

          • Sally Edwards

            The common ancestor is not necessary to the job description of the evolutionary biologist. Why would it be?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because that’s what it is. 🙂 If you studied it, you would know that.

          • Sally Edwards

            I have studied it, and clearly you have not, but that’s not relevant. The relevant point here is that there are countless people employed as evolutionary biologists. Let’s go back to the original question which you continue to dodge: Are they all fraudulent in their line of work?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what an evolutionary biologist is! How would you know if one were fraudulent or not when you don’t even know what they study? 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            So you ARE just playing games then. I gave you four definitions. FOUR.

          • Sally Edwards

            I have a question for you. Are evolutionary biologists fraudulent in their line of work? Bonus points for actually answering the question and for not including a smirking smiley.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Which evolutionary biologist. Please be specific.

          • Sally Edwards

            Well, let’s just say “evolutionary biologists”, since their job doesn’t change. Much like if I’d said “bakers”, you wouldn’t say “which baker”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you name a specific evolutionary biologist? They are not all the same, you know. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Pick one.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The onus is on you since you brought up the topic. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Like I said, pick one. Alfred Russel Wallace if you don’t want to do it yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Is that the one you want to pick?

          • Sally Edwards

            Your game, your rules.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the one who wants to talk about evolutionary biologists. You clearly don’t even know what they are or what they do. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            Despite conveniently providing you with four perfectly valid definitions. Four. Wow. But somehow that means I don’t know in your little world 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did not offer one complete definition. You left out the key component because you knew it would blow your argument to smithereens. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            No, the four definitions which anyone who wishes to may read for themselves are right there.

            There has been no argument about a common ancestor, so it doesn’t alter my argument. It simply isn’t necessary for a job description, in the same way it isn’t necessary to put on a secretary’s job description “I know how to use scissors”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re misrepresenting facts again. I gave the actual scientific definition, which you’ve altered to suit your agenda. It only always has to do with a common ancestor. Always. That’s why it’s part of the official definition. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            No, because there’s no such thing as an “actual scientific definition” of a job description.

            You make it sound like I was trying to be sneaky in omitting “common ancestor” or something, but I have no reason to do that…it is a primary belief in those who work in this field, but it’s not necessary to describe the work done by an evolutionary biologist. Just as a pastor needn’t say “must believe in Christmas”. I have no agenda and I’m not even sure what you’re suggesting I would have to gain by leaving it out.

            And no, it’s not part of the official definition, as four examples have already shown you 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, there are actual scientific descriptions of fields. 🙂 Everything in science is very well defined. If you had a science degree, you would know that. 🙂

          • Sally Edwards

            We aren’t talking about science degrees, we’re talking about job descriptions. You don’t get to move the goalposts just because you’re losing a debate. 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Well, no. You intentionally left off the key part of the definition of a scientific field (which is much more than a job description) from your cut-and-paste job. I gave the full definition from the site you chose to cut-and-paste from. I also gave the full definition from an actual textbook, which is the standard definition of the field. 🙂 If you’d studied it, you would have known that.

  • Reason2012

    Hatefully mocking Christianity by pretending to lift up satan is not a “religion”, it’s a hate group bent on silencing and attacking Christianity.

    And notice these atheist groups never call themselves something like the cartoon muhammad temple which shows they like islam and hence really show that they’re not atheists, but anti-Christian islamists pretending to be atheists as a method of eradicating Christianity as islam takes hold.

    • ZappaSaid88

      The only ones being silenced are the Satanic Temple by Christians.

      Your second point is almost too crazy to address. Since they aren’t the cartoon Mohammed temple you say that proves they like Islam, they also aren’t the cartoon Jesus temple so that proves they like Christianity using your own “logic”. FYI, Muslims believe in Satan too.

      I think you wrapped your tin foil hat a bit too tight.

    • Samwise

      Have you taken the time to read or watch you tube videos of atheist and satanic temple invocations? Since Greece v. Galloway, there are quite a few available from around the country. They are generally polite, positive and inclusive. They do not mock or insult Christianity.

  • Nidalap

    One could only imagine how the Founders would react if they could see us now…

    • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

      Well, let’s see how Jefferson described his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

      The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

      Sounds like Jefferson thought that everyone should have the same religious rights.

      • peanut butter

        But they don’t worship anything, so it says. They don’t even believe the devil is real, just a figment of someone’s mind, a pipe dream. He is a metaphor for rebellion to them, so they are worshipping rebellion if anything. That is not a ‘religion’. And the founding Fathers had never dealt with atheists, unless you want to count witches, which it seems these people are, since their headquarters is in Salem, Massachusetts. They burned witches, and there would be a bunch of stakes waiting for this bunch, they would not have been accepted by our founders.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          That is not a ‘religion’.

          So now something requires belief in a god to be called a religion? Tell that to some of the people here, who want to call atheism and everything else religions.

          I guess I should give you some credit, though, at least you know that much about non-theistic Satanism. I don’t think something has to have a belief in a deity to be classified as a religion, though. Even putting Satanism aside, there’s Buddhism (pantheist maybe?), and Unitarian Universalism (some theists, some agnostics and/or atheists)

        • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

          But they don’t worship anything, so it says.

          So? The courts have ruled that a supreme being isn’t required for something to be a religion — see Strayhorn v. Ethical Society of Austin (2003)

          In any case, why restrict speakers only to members of a religion? There are people both religious and not who don’t belong to any religion, but on what basis can they be excluded?

          And the founding Fathers had never dealt with atheists

          Sure they did. Here’s Jefferson:
          it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
          (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)
          Here’s Washington:
          If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
          (George Washington to Tench Tilghman, 24 March 1784)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Personally, I suspect there were a good number of people around in the time of the Founders who were non-believers but were nominally members of one religion or another just because that was the thing to do then.

    • Vince

      They would all heave. I don’t think they could have imagined the nation they founded could become so morally sick.

    • peanut butter

      They would be spinning so fast in their graves that they would wallow out a hole that would swallow up the whole District of Columbia.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      It’s not the founding fathers we will answer to.

      • Nidalap

        Truth absolute.

  • Brand New Key

    This isn’t just silliness, this is silliness on steroids.

  • Governmental Deception

    Hopefully they bring the darkest spirit they can which scares the living hell out of them and they never touch the dark side agin. People are so stupid for messing with the dark side.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      You underestimate the power of the dark side!

      (Excuse me, I just couldn’t pass up a chance for a Star Wars quote)

      • Governmental Deception

        lol. Thanks.

  • Garden of Love

    A made-up religion should not be allowed to do this. Any individual could start a religion, gather a few friends that claim to be members of his religion, then push to be included. The great world religions are all more than a thousand years old and none of them was started as a deliberate effort to spite or parody another religion, which is precisely what this Satan religion is. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to start a religion that taught that all Muslims should be exterminated. The progressives would scream bloody murder. The Satanists may claim to be a legitimate religion, but that is a joke. They exist just to mock Christians.

    • peanut butter

      And they will grow in numbers as we see God’s words come to life before our eyes. We know we will be persecuted.

    • W2.718281828stl2.718281828y

      A made-up religion should not be allowed to do this.

      That would include . . . oh, all of them.

  • peanut butter

    I’m glad somebody is standing up to these nuts who just want to get up there and disparage Jesus Christ and spew their vile, disgusting fondness for the devil.

  • “The temple was turned away in 2016, not because of any particular religious affiliation, but because they did not have any substantial connection to the Scottsdale community,” it outlined.

    Episodes such as this one continue to play in government meeting across the U.S., and the Temple is absolutely correct. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from recognizing an establishment of religion and, according to the courts, if a government organization allows even one religion to give an invocation at a public meeting, then it has established a forum which MUST be open to all religions and even non religious organizations.

    The Establishment Clause is designed to place all views in matters of religion on the very same playing field. It is meant go give all citizens the right of conscience and advocacy. The government cannot choose sides. This is made applicable to the States via the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    I fully understand that fundamentalists Christians, by and large, do not want equal rights for non Christians, but they do under our secular Constitution.

  • The Broker

    The lawsuit does not say only the Christian has delivered invocations, but that only judeo-Christian faiths have, which is true. And what does it mean to say they do not have a temple but a headquarters in Salem? Why isn’t that headquarters a temple according to this article?

    • Nidalap

      Well, process, the Satanic Temple doesn’t really claim to be a true religion at all. They just use the name to be outrageous, I guess.
      It is kind of fitting that servants of the Prince of Lies don’t truly realize what they are…

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Doesn’t claim to be a true religion?

        Quote from their website:

        The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant,
        backward, and offensive. The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more
        arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively
        advocate for. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge
        submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more
        deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious
        are proper recipients of religious exemption and privilege? In fact,
        Satanism provides us all that a religion should, without a compulsory
        attachment to untenable items of faith-based belief: It provides a
        narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It
        provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of
        identity, culture, community, and shared values.

        • Nidalap

          So, like I said, fitting…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m just saying, that hardly looks like “not claiming to be a religion”.

          • Nidalap

            My bad, Coach. I didn’t know they were claiming to be a religion. I was hung up on the fact that they call themselves Satanic, but claim no actual belief in Satan.
            Deceiving and being deceived…

  • The only answer that should ever be given to these demons is a resounding “NO” given with authority in the name of Jesus.

  • Recognizing_Truth

    The group, which is non-theistic…is claiming that it is the subject of religious discrimination.

    You’re not religious, therefore you aren’t the victim of religious discrimination and their decision not to have you speak at the session is no different than them turning down anyone else.

    Case dismissed.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Being theistic is not a requirement to be a religion. There are other non-theistic religions.

      • Lexical Cannibal

        It is…also absolutely not a requirement to be the subject of religious discrimination. That is maybe the weirdest part of his claim.

  • The group, which is non-theistic and doesn’t actually believe in a literal Satan …… they don’t believe in Satan? Hardly. They pay him homage by naming him as such.

  • sammy13

    No one in their right mind want to invoke Satan and invite him into a meeting. It is bad enough that we inadvertently stumble and fall without deliberately inviting damnation!

  • TheKingOfRhye

    All you guys who are going around saying The Satanic Temple isn’t being subjected to religious discrimination because they’re not a religion, since they’re not theists: You’d better not EVER call atheism a religion, like so many do around here.

    • Fang

      It’s a religion.

      Now go pout.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Pout, I say. Pout.

        Wait, I think I’m not doing it right….

      • Sally Edwards

        Except that no it’s not.

    • Nidalap

      Of course, since you’ve now argued that The Satanic Temple IS a religion, you’d better not EVER claim atheism is not.

      Religion:

      2.
      a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        I’ve explained that before. A religion may be atheistic, but atheism itself could not be called a religion, not by any definition that makes sense, anyway. It doesn’t fit the one you just gave, since it’s not a “set of beliefs”, it’s a position on one issue, one’s belief in a god.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Legally it already was ruled a religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Are you talking about Torcaso v. Watkins? The footnote in the court’s ruling that called secular humanism a religion? Which, incidentally, helps my point that there are non-theistic religions?

            1. It’s a ruling (not even a ruling, really) for legal purposes. The same kind of thing that might say “businesses are people” for example.

            2. There was a later case, Kalka v. Hawk et al, in which the court’s ruling said this: “The Court’s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a “religion” under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the “Fellowship of Humanity” qualified as a religious organization under California law.”

            Anyway, since when do you guys believe in what the courts say? All I heard from people here after Obergefell, for example, was that the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t mean anything.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We’ve been through this before multiple times. The courts ruled that atheism is a religion, and it certainly fits the criteria for that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What criteria? What, in your words, are the criteria for something being a religion?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m referring specifically to the court ruling which ruled atheism is a religion. In that ruling, a definition was given.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? WHAT ruling? Because it ain’t Torcaso v. Watkins.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We’ve actually discussed this at length and, indeed, I do know what I’m talking about. 🙂 Torcaso v. Watkins was quoted in another case, which rule, ““Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Torcaso v. Watkins was quoted in another case

            Ah, I assume there you’re talking about Kaufman v. McCaughtry, I’d heard of that one before as well. A few quotes from that ruling that I think are worth giving here: (emphasis mine)

            “Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion….The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”…..In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of
            “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as
            theistic ones…. Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.   As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.

            The only big problem that I have with any of that is that atheism does not carry with it any particular code of ethics. I can tell that just from own personal experience of talking to other atheists; sometimes we have very different ideas on that. What it’s saying is that while atheism is not what is traditionally defined as a religion, it deserves to be treated as one for First Amendment purposes. So they’re really not using the word “religion” in the sense that most people commonly use it in, the sense that I or other people usually mean when we try to separate atheism from “religion.”

            A definition of religion that I just found that I like: “A religion is a systematic set of beliefs, rituals and codifications of behaviour that revolves around a particular group’s worldview (views about the world at large and humanity’s place in the world). Typically, these beliefs center around some aspect of the supernatural (also often referred to as “divine”) which is most often expressed as some form of deity, ie., gods and goddesses.”

            Now that’s what I mean when I talk about “religion”, anyway. Under that definition, atheism does not qualify because it is not a “set” of beliefs, and there are certainly no “atheist rituals” that are practiced by all or even a majority of atheists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, I read that quote.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you want to call atheism a religion, you’re basically saying everyone has a religion, since they have some sort of position on spiritual matters (whether it’s that they don’t exist, or that they don’t care, or whatever) and some sort of morals and ethics. At least, that was what the courts in those cases were saying, if you read beyond the one line you’re quoting. Not quite sure I agree with that, it’s kind of an interesting thing to think about, BUT even if you accept that 100%, and every atheist is religious, it still doesn’t make sense to say atheism in and of itself is a religion, since, like I keep saying, atheism only means a lack of belief in any god. Atheism doesn’t describe one “position on spiritual matters”, since it can encompass a wide variety of views on that, and it doesn’t describe any particular code of morals or ethics.

            Basically, calling atheism a religion would be like calling theism a religion. Even though every theist is pretty much religious by definition, theism isn’t a religion by itself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I just gave you the court ruling. The court ruled atheism a religion.

          • Sally Edwards

            “Basically, calling atheism a religion would be like calling theism a religion.”

            That’s a really good point. No one ever seems to make that observation.

    • MCrow

      That would require consistency…