Origin of the Specious

By David Waters Living Waters, an evangelical Creationist ministry fronted by former TV-sitcom star Kirk Cameron (“Growing Pains”), plans to … Continued

By David Waters

Living Waters, an evangelical Creationist ministry fronted by former TV-sitcom star Kirk Cameron (“Growing Pains”), plans to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in November by handing out 100,000 free copies to college students across America.

If any students actually take the book and read it, they will find inside a special introduction that “exposes atheistic evolution’s many hoaxes and the unscientific belief that nothing created everything,” that links Darwin’s ideas to Hitler, and that “shares the gospel,” according to evangelist and Living Waters founder Ray Comfort, creator of the subterfuge.

At the risk of sounding like one of Spiro Agnew’s nattering nabobs of negativity, I’d guess that you couldn’t get 100,000 college students to read “Origin of the Species” if Megan Fox and Zac Efron were on campuses handing them out personally. Perhaps that’s one reason Cameron has taken his pitch to YouTube, with a video that’s even more deceptive than the book giveaway.

“Are you concerned about what’s happening to our country?” Cameron says.

I’m not sure. What’s happening, Kirk?

“One by one we’re being stripped of our God-given liberties.”

We’re being stripped one by one?

“Our kids can no longer pray in public.”

Actually, Kirk, our kids are free to pray anywhere they like, even in school. Have you read the First Amendment?

“They can no longer freely open a Bible in school.”

Actually, Kirk, they not only can open a Bible in school, they can pray while they are opening the Bible. Maybe you should read and hand out free copies of Religious Expression in Public Schools.

“The Ten Commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places.”

Actually, Kirk, God’s Top Ten can be displayed in many public places, depending on the place and the display. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments last February.

“And the Gideons are not even allowed to give away Bibles in schools.”

True, Kirk, but they also can’t give away copies of the Qur’an, the Upanishads, the Bhagavhad Gita or any other religious book in our public schools.

Cameron goes on for six minutes, warning viewers of the mortal and eternal dangers of atheism, secularism and Darwinism.

I don’t question the sincerity of Cameron’s efforts to rescue us from Darwinism and eternal damnation. But why try to scare people into believing in God? Isn’t fear the opposite of faith? Couldn’t a group that calls itself “Living Waters” make a stronger case for Christ by handing out free bottles of water or loaves of bread on campus?

And if you want to challenge students to thoughtfully consider the cases for Evolution and Creation, as Cameron claims in the video, why not hand out free copies of Darwin’s unadulterated book and the Bible?

At the very least, and to be fair, give them Darwin’s book with your intro and the Bible with an intro written by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.

About

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    Actually, Kirk, God’s Top Ten can be displayed in many public places, depending on the place and the display. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments last February. ———— This being the case, will the Christians/Catholics be given instruction on what they mean? Will they learn, for instance, that the commandment against theft refers not only to material things? Just wondering….

  • PSolus

    FYI: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution Richard Dawkins Published by Free Press ISBM – 9780593061732

  • PSolus

    “The bible is not a “scientific treastie” and was never meant to be.” However, way too many superstitious people attempt to use it as such; that is the point of the original post. Oh, and I’ll be seeing you in Mister Roger’s Neighborhood, or some other equally imaginary place.

  • Athena4

    I expect the Mean Spider to crawl out from under his rock pretty soon to tell us all that we’re idiots. Someone hasn’t realized that when you point one finger, there are three pointing back at you.

  • edbyronadams

    Who is David Waters and what does he believe about the origin of the species? The problem for faithful people with a “divine text” is that they must swallow it whole. To call into question the validity of part is to question the entire text. Without a belief in the divine nature of one’s founding documents, upon what do you found your faith? That is why so many defend creationism in the face of so much evidence. Faith is more powerful than reason.

  • cornbread_r2

    More concerning than these obvious throw-away lies is the very real possibility that Living Waters has edited Darwin’s text and that science teachers will have to burn valuable class time in the future proving it: an inherent part of the strategy behind the “Teach the Controversy” movement. Most concerning to me, however, is that something like 40% of Americans also think that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Adam and Eve frolicked with dinosaurs. Try not to think of that the next time you’re standing in line on election day.

  • coloradodog

    Next Cameron will be telling us the world is flat and the center of the universe as well.

  • PSolus

    “That is why so many defend creationism in the face of so much evidence. Faith is more powerful than reason.” I disagree. Faith is not more powerful than reason, it is simply easier than reason. It is much easier to simply believe what you are told, than to actually think about what you are told. Try reading one of the good books, then try reading a text on partial differential equations, or on organic chemistry. Science and mathematics is difficult. That is why believers like creationism; it doesn’t require any thinking.

  • PSolus

    Make that: Science and mathematics are difficult, even more difficult than grammar.

  • ThomasBaum

    coloradodog You wrote, “Next Cameron will be telling us the world is flat and the center of the universe as well.” The earth is not round or a sphere but is a distorted sphere, distorted by it’s composition and the effects of it’s rotation upon it’s “axis among other factors even tho there are flat spots on it’s surface. I could be wrong but it seems to me that no one knows where the “center” of the universe is or for that matter if the universe has a “center”. It seems that some of those that take the non-literal parts of the bible the most literal also take the literal parts of the bible not at all, this might effect a change of heart. The bible is not a “scientific treastie” and was never meant to be. Hope you are doing well, see you in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ccnl1

    And the founders/followers of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha’ism and Islam, who did they steal their ideas from??? Or is it simply evolution of the thinking process?? Or the regression thereof??

  • CalSailor

    I shelve religion in a general bookstore, and there are a lot of “Christian” writers tearing down evolution. And yet, the conflict is made up; the two are not necessarily in conflict. Evolution is dependent upon the scientific method; that includes that scientific facts are replicatable, and that scientific knowledge only deals with the creation. Faith, by definition, is based on assertions that are not completely provable; otherwise we would not need “faith” to believe. I wonder how many who feel that one must deny science in order to believe are afraid that if science were to take on God, science would win? In essence, I think that this conflict is based on the element of fear; that their God is not strong enough, their faith is not strong enough, to win the debate. And to me, that means both their faith is pretty weak, and their understanding of science as a part of the creation, and of the gift of human intelligence. This “creationism” battle is almost completely within the US; most other countries do not have this conflict. I wonder if it is coincidental that the “Fundamentalist” movement was born in the US with the publication of the “Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, published in about 1905, that required a “verbally inerrant” text of the Bible (the King James Version, at that) as an object of faith. Before then, neither Jewish nor Christian theologians generally taught that; instead interpreting scripture based on the “plain text” and context as starting points for interpretations. The Fundamentals have not been a helpful development in the history of the church, in my opinion. I would encourage Mr Cameron, and others who are in his bind, to go back and study scientific method, and read as widely as possible in the sciences, and then tell me that their faith is harmed, not helped by the wondrous complexity they find there. I would also encourage them to read on the history of the interpretation of scripture, as a means of understanding how radical their stance is concerning scripture. In 20 years or so…perhaps then he will figure out that he’s gone way out on an unnecessary limb. Pr Chris

  • interestedinhearing

    I’m more concerned with Cameron’s distortion of the truth e.g., “our children can no longer pray in public,” then I am with his beliefs. Why would he need to convince his listeners with obvious lies, that is, statements such as the above that can easily be disproved, if what he is saying is his truth? We all have the right to understand the world in any way we wish and I am grateful that I live in a country that legally supports my right to my beliefs and to speak of them, whatever their foundation–but when anyone underpins their beliefs with lies, whether told in ignorance or not, they have lost their legitimacy and lost their ability to convince. Any other reaction must be fear-based and reactionary. None of us can know precisely how our universe came into being. What exactly are we threatened by? If God created the universe, then surely God is the supreme scientist. The question to ask is why one would need distortions to promote one’s views? And we all know the answer.

  • concolor1

    As if to confirm my observations above about the dissembling by the believers, we’ve had our intellects assaulted once against by a couple of buzz phrase talking points they use as a substitute for original thought and phrasing. “Evolution is just a theory” is one of their favorites. The nonsensical element here is best illustrated by the statement that gravity is also “just a theory.” A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly forged and tempered in the furnaces of critical review and experimentation and found to be sound and real. “Evolution does not explain the origin of life.” That’s because that isn’t its job. The term “biogenesis” is reserved for that partly understood bygone era in the Earth’s history. And “abiogenesis” refers to those processes arising without supernatural intervention, an area of exploration that has proven more fruitful and consistent than dialogues with an Almighty Creator.

  • jdadson

    Uh,Kirk. You might want to re-think your talking points. I will help with two. 1. Breaking News… The “missing link” is no longer missing.

  • CalSailor

    Yeah, well–some self-certain folks forget that Darwin’s theory is JUST A THEORY Several posters have said something like this quote in their “arguments” about Darwin, and science in general. In SCIENCE, compared to literature and every other sorts of shorthand, a THEORY is the STRONGEST witness you can have. To say “just a theory” in regard to a scientific finding shows that you have no idea what a THEORY is. Obviously, you do not know how scientific theories are derived. A basic assumption one is testing is called an “hypothesis”. An hypothesis is a beginning point. It makes a statement concerning a POSSIBLE explanation on how something happens, what is going on. The next step, after formulating an hypothesis is to TEST it. That is, create tests that prove or disprove the hypothesis. For example, lets take an hypothesis that says vapor pressure increases with temperature, assuming that volume remains the same. So, create tests: measure the pressure of a fixed mass of gas in a container of fixed volume at different temperatures. Do the experimental results match the hypothesis? What kind of gas pressures work? All gasses? or just water, etc. Try the experiment again using other gasses than steam; use O2, use CO2, etc. If every experiment is consistent with results, fine. Then see if other scientists get the same results. If so, fine. If NOT, then modify the hypothesis. Keep on. Eventually, maybe you’ll get to theory. A THEORY is a statement that fits ALL known examples of an hypothesis. When it has been tried, and no one can disprove the hypothesis, over time, it bears the weight of “theory.” It has been tested, retested, and tried again and again. Scientists have tried to disprove it, over and over. If they can make the hypothesis fail, they will have to modify it. They then have a new hypothesis to test. Keep testing, keep refining it until you run out of ways to test the hypothesis, and if you haven’t found a way to defeat it, then, over time, it may be considered to be a theory. The scientific theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of how species behave over time and under changing conditions. It is not an hypothesis, but a theory. In other words, we have NO OTHER ANSWER that MATCHES the evidential data. BTW: This is what distinguishes religion and science. Science explains what it can measure, test, quantify, observe. Religion deals with the response of individuals and groups to assertions of deity of different time and places. It is the realm of belief, of faith. It cannot BE proven. It can only be witnessed to. But the observer is never in the exact place as the testifyer, so there is no way to prove that another person will have the same perceptions as the one doing the testifying. Faith is NOT part of the realm of science; science cannot bear witness to faith. (It also explains why faith uses the language

  • andrewpatejr

    It’s either amazing or ridiculous, the amount of time, energy, and money spent on meaningless pursuits. Whichever, it’s all wasted. What a shame that Cameron Kirk would think he is in fact doing a holy thing, to expose the evil in the theory of evolution. One can only wish that he might apply himself instead to just describing the awesome beauty and wonder of the world in which we live.

  • MagicDog1

    Kirk Cameron is doing what all evangelists do: Lying through his teeth.

  • grispa

    I have to admit I’m often astounded looking at how radical American Christian can be: I mean, I’m Italian and, even though I’m agnostic leaning toward atheism, I attended the one-hour-per-week lesson of religion at school, and talked about evolutionism and creationism with my teacher (a priest). Well, believe it or not, the final word on the argument said by my teacher was: “Science told us how, whilst religion is here to tell us why”. In other words, though media make a fuss every time Catholic hierarchies make statements about evolutionism, the official line is indeed this: evolutionism is the probable way we got here, of course with the guidance and help of God. Those men in Vatican City could see beyond their dogmatism quite some time ago. I really do not see how can people in the US still believe in creationism. It is, after all, even for Catholics, a mere metaphor. Paolo Gris Belluno, Italy

  • ambrose745

    The title of the book is “On the Origin of Species”. I don’t know what Cameron is handing out….

  • uh_huhh

    Yeah, because I like to get my religious insights from a washed-up ex-child star.

  • bobmoses

    It is amazing to me that the intolerant atheists who come to this blog go to so much effort to let people know how closed minded they are with their contempt for those who dare disagree with their intrinsically correct views on the nature of the universe. You clowns are no worse than Fred Phelps are any other hateful religious zealot. You just hate different people.

  • BobbyRowland

    This is a sad, irrelevant and ultimately hollow debate. God’s works are unimaginably wondrous. The more that the scientific method tells us about the nature of quantum mechanics and the mind-boggling complexity of our universe the more reassured I am in my faith. The fact is, our existence is not bound by some limited clockwork universe dictated by Newtonian physics. The universe and time itself *began* in a single instant. To the best of our knowledge, nothing at all existed — not time, not physics, not heat, and not matter. And then suddenly, in a single instant, the universe and heat and light and impossible amounts of energy were hurtling through the cosmos. Scientists can pinpoint exactly when this happened. For all real intents and purposes, there is no conflict between christian theology and scientific fact. To put it rather crudely, God is, like, really powerful and stuff. Trying to peg His acts on a literal description by some ancient dudes is a bit silly. What difference does it make that the bible says creation took 6 days and science says it took billions of years. *Everything* is relative, and it seems like an awfully pedantic examination to get so tangled up in mere semantics. Because, at the end of the day — there was a beginning: a single moment of creation, just as explained in Genesis. Evolution happened. It’s still happening. It’s a fact. But how is it at all logical to second guess an omnipotent God by stating that evolution cannot be divinely initiated? Evolution is wondrous — a truly captivating subject for study by people of all faiths (and none). Why not just admit that it is of and by God? God made the earth orbit the sun — and he also initiated evolution. At the end of the day, trying to divide faith from reason fails because they’re totally compatible.

  • Chops2

    since when r we lsitening seriously to Kirk “growing pains” Cameron? Is this the best the X-tian right has got? Scientifically prove god Kirk or shut up!

  • rcvinson64

    I find creationism to be a personal religious belief. Let’s keep it that way. Teach science in schools and preach your personal philosophies at home and church.

  • TightWhiteRight

    ‘Living Waters’? Sounds like a urology practice. As usual the fundamentalist whack jobs have to resort to lying and distortion in an attempt to justify their unsupportable conclusions and spread the cancer of their beliefs. It’s always amusing to watch them twist and pervert reality in order to salve their abject fear of mortality and to attempt to exert control over the totally clueless. Of course it was absolutely predictable that Ray Comfort would solicit ‘donations’ at the end of the Cameron video. It was the standard ‘Gold From Goobers’ pitch that most fundamentalist charlatans practice.

  • ladymacbeth977

    Just think. When Kirk Cameron became a Christian, he learned about all the broad range of things that Christianity is for various people. He learned about the rules for living an ethical life, at peace with other people. He learned about the mission to clothe the naked, feed the poor, and comfort the suffering. He learned about how ‘love your enemies’ can transform his personal life and the life of the world. And of all the beauty that Christianity offers, he made a choice that the best way to spend his life in response to it was by trying to prove a scientific theory that even a moderately well-educated freshman can see isn’t true. I can’t think of many better pieces of evidence for the nonexistence of God. If his god existed, wouldn’t he lead Kirk in a wiser direction?

  • JimMF

    EVOLUTION…THE RELIGION FOR THE SIMPLE-MINDED Scientific inquiry is being harmed by Evolutionists that think the story of Evolution should be exempt from criticism because it is the “best possible explanation”. How can a so-called “theory” that uses an enormous amount of baseless speculation be the “best possible explanation”? The amount of wild speculation and over-simplification to buttress the story of evolution is causing the DUMBING DOWN of science students. Evolutionists take evidence for microevolution and, without adequate justification, extrapolate that to macroevolution with the creation of organs in existing organisms. The “Great Creator” relied upon by evolutionists for amazing biological innovation is RANDOM MUTATIONS. Evolutionists have tremendous faith in RANDOM MUTATIONS when there is no justification for such faith. For example, the evolutionists speculate that the evolution of the eye started with a random mutation creating a photosensitive cell capable of sensing light. In the religion of Evolution, it is blasphemy to question whether the “Great Creator”, RANDOM MUTATIONS, is capable of such amazing innovations. The high priests will tell tall tales and never cast doubt in the “Great Creator”. The problem with the eye tale is that it is not based on science but pure speculation without scientific basis. Mutations have been observed through common and scientific activities for the history of mankind. There is no justification to support the belief by evolutionists that mutations can be so innovative as to spontaneously create something like a photosensitive cell. Of course, we, the sinners, cannot stop there with our criticism of the eye tale. The photosensitive cell alone is useless. It’s like me installing a security camera outside my house and not wiring it, not connecting the monitor, and not personally monitoring the images on the monitor to interpret danger. The organism must have the “wiring” and the process center to interpret and convert those signals from the photosensitive cell into useful information. For evolutionists, all that is needed is an over-simplified explanation that leaves out essential information. They can send off that student who is now an indoctrinated evolutionist that is passionate but ignorant. THIS HARMFUL RELIGION HAS A MONOPOLY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES. The eye evolution tale, along with countless other tales, is adequate for teachers to tell mind-numb students because any speculative answer, no matter how bad it is, is acceptable as long as it supports the evolutionary faith. HENCE, WE HAVE THE END OF CRITICAL THINKING AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF STUDENTS. It is amazing that, with all the indoctrination going on, there are people that are still intelligent and independent enough to conclude that the evolution explanation is completely inadequate to explain the complexity of life.

  • djah

    Obviously this is a silly man ding silly things. But why write about him? There are millions of Christians doing exactly the same thing in the US. They demand that non-science be taught in science classes. They insist that their rights be honored above all others. Three state Republican parties have a plank in their platform demanding a Christian nation. The real story is the utter failure of mainstream Christian groups to attack these civic heresies.Isolated individuals do, of course. But the great bulk quietly ignore this nonsense.

  • Hillman1

    So I guess all the poverty and suffering in the world is over? Wasn’t God’s command that we take care of those in need? I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible where God commanded that we argue about evolution. But, then, someone that would so blatantly lie like Cameron apparently has done isn’t really too worried about actual Biblical principles, is he? Come on, Cameron. Grow up. Stop the power trip and actually try using all this $$ you are wasting on this idiotic publicity stunt and instead use it to combat preventable disease in Africa, or create sustainable crops in famine regions, etc.

  • explorers100

    There is no God, Gods, etc. The “Sky-God” religions–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam killed him/she/them. Now there are only ignorant fools with coiffed hair and big mouths or old men wearing medieval cassocks or hateful Mullahs screaming for death for non-believers. Yes there are less extreme fools but they should all come to the conclusion that humankind with all of its imperfections and all of its success as a species needs deliverance from ignorance which is the true evil and the only thing to fear.

  • gleeindc

    Amazing how a group who opposes Darwinism as a part of nature is totally supportive of social Darwinism.

  • Beckola

    What’s interesting about religious fanatics is that anyone, however ignorant, however unfamiliar with the Bible or any other “book” of his religion, can suddenly start spouting his own uninformed opinions and be taken seriously by others, at least some others, somewhere. Kirk is a perfect example. David K. of Waco was another. Loudmouth crackpots and uninformed attention-seekers give religion a bad name.

  • TightWhiteRight

    “The eye evolution tale, along with countless other tales, is adequate for teachers to tell mind-numb students because any speculative answer, no matter how bad it is, is acceptable as long as it supports the evolutionary faith. HENCE, WE HAVE THE END OF CRITICAL THINKING AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF STUDENTS.” Looks like the Godly Goobers are out in force and in ‘copy and paste’ mode. So examining the development of the species by applying objective scientfic methods which require both proof and refutation is ‘DUMBING DOWN OF STUDENTS’, while believing that the entirity of our existence was pulled out of the posterior orfice of some imaginary mythical being, picture a pink elephant in a tutu, who exists solely because the poster of the above ridiculous screed says so, is not. It IS okay for me to believe that ‘God’ is a pink elephant in a tutu .. isn’t it .. after all it IS MY belief? Or are you going to tell me that MY belief is not valid. This would be the same ‘God’ that permits all the famine, war, poverty and deatch that exists .. yes a truly benevolent ‘God’.

  • jrnberrycharternet

    Mr. Cameron and all Creationists should take it into consideration that the old testament, on which they base so much of their beliefs, was written by Jews, for Jews, about Jews. Hence propaganda. These old writers of silly stories had been wondering about in the heat and glaring sun of the Sinai dessert for forty years, by their own admission, and as was the custom of many nomadic tribes of the day were probably smoking hasheesh in the evenings as they sat around their evening fires telling tall tails which eventually ended up in the old testament of the bible. Is it any wonder that when this drivel was written down many years later they saw themselves a chosen people, special people and that their god gave them the “promised land” to have and hold forever? They may also ask; What kind of Deity would be dumb enough to create humans?

  • bernieandruth

    Speaking of the Ten Commandments, tell me if these five Buddhist fruits of practice from Thich Nhat Hanh are not far superior and tremendously more relevant in today’s world: The Five Mindfulness Trainings 1. I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. 2. I am committed to practicing generosity by sharing my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in real need. 3. I shall do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconducts. 4. I am committed to cultivating loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. 5. I am committed to cultivating good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family, and my society, by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming.

  • EnemyOfTheState

    Seems like Kirk is still living in the 80s; Creationism has largely been replaced by Intelligent Design. Same concept, of course, just a different name. Whatever you call it, it is unscientific and relies on a magical being to explain existence. I can’t imagine a more unsatisfying answer for reasoning beings.

  • Frank57

    Well, I guess the 20-something Cameron has the attention of a few teenagers, but should/does anyone take him all that seriously? I mean — he’s just a kid, really just a rather narrow-minded, superstitious kid who obviously knows bugger-all about ‘Origin Of Species’ or even it’s fundamental premise… shrug… ~-0-~

  • EnemyOfTheState

    What’s really telling about this little deception regarding the Origin of Species is the total disregard for honesty from Cameron and his ministry. I guess the Ten Commandments are for the rest of us.

  • jaxas

    Yesterday morning I received one of those recorded messages from a conservative political organization peddling the comically silly notion that the Obama administration is seeking to destroy our constitutional government, take away our unspecified liberties and establish a communist dictatorship on American soil. Kirk Cameron’s peddling of this equally silly notion that religious liberty is under attack by evil secularits is all part and parcel of this same bubbling mental ilness that is sweeping the political right like a Mad Cow pandemic. Look. These people are unstable. Anytime there is a political change in the country to a more liberal or democratic direction, we go through this absurdity and I have to believe there are far more sinister powerful forces in the corporate sectory pushing it simply because they feel their greedy little empire is threatened by any movement toward a more progressive electorate. Cameron is an idiot. But I would bet that he is getting his money for the peddling such ludicrous nonsense from groups that know precisely what they are doing.

  • JimMF

    “Looks like the Godly Goobers are out in force and in ‘copy and paste’ mode.” Hey TightWhiteRight, Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Sorry, those are my words. Maybe you can contribute something more than insults. Just maybe.

  • vballboy60

    Separation of church and state, established by Thomas Jefferson and reinforced through countless Supreme Courts over the decades, requires that American political leadership cannot impart religious beliefs on American society through any arm or action of government. Americans should not and will not allow Islamists, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or others to demand that we all must abide by their beliefs. This is the point that evangelical CHristians appear to forget, if you allow any religious perceptions into government (e.g. – prayer in schools, statues on public squares, etc.) then you aoofer that for all religious sects regardless if it might offend your faith. This is why there is a distinct seperation of church and state. If varied sects within any one religion cannot see eye to eye, then different religions would be worse, so the solution is no religion in government at all. It’s fair for all becuase it does not offend or provoke because it is secular, blind to all relgions. Simple. Fair. Period.

  • GDWymer

    Poor Kirk, he really just needs a good and wholesome sodomizing.

  • bushbudy

    Why is it that, as noted by possibly J Keynes, that “Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative” Every conservative that I have ever seen or heard falls into the second clause. While there were once intelligent conservatives, they appear to no longer exist.

  • TightWhiteRight

    JIMMF wrote: “Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Sorry, those are my words.” It is apparent that you have not had an original thought since you relinquished your critical thinking skills to YOUR blind faith and belief in YOUR interpretatino of ‘God’ .. the rest of us are just apostates in your world view .. right? Since you chose to ignore the rest of my comment please enlighten us on how benevolent YOUR ‘God’ is in his dealings with humanity .. perhaps you could try to sell to thos starving children in Dafour.

  • UsedtoBinDC

    The scientists have done their homework. To the extent that any doubts remained about the validity of evolution, they have been dispelled in the past decade with the studies done on DNA progression through species. Just about every species places where it was thought to be placed based on morphology when you look at the progression of DNA sequencing. We are, for example, most closely related to chimpanzies, sharing 98.5% of our DNA with them, closer than to any other living species. We are as closely related to chimps as donkeys are to horses, and you can interbreed the latter to produce mules. Not that I am suggesting anything. Let’s get real and admit that science is right and take it from there, where ever that may lead. What are we afraid of?

  • jaxas

    The most astoundingly silly thing about all of this is that we have a motley, ignorant group of mindless fundamentalist true believers who think the earth is only about six thousand years old, yelping about our young people being “dumbed down” by Universities that teach evolution. Think about it for a minute. They reject every single scientific discovery, every bit of knowledge we have obtained since the Great Enlightenement simply because it conflicts with what can only be described as a silly, childish belief in a magical being who created all of this some 6,000 years ago. And they call anyone who questions such a silly view “dumbed down”? Astonishing!

  • TOTE

    >>Mr. Cameron and all Creationists should take it into consideration that the old testament, on which they base so much of their beliefs, was written by Jews, for Jews, about Jews. Hence propaganda. Uh, you must have never read the OT. Case in point. Israel had 12 tribes. Judah and some in Benjamin and Levi (who later became the Pharisees/Saducees) are the OT and modern day Jews. That makes approx. 10 other tribes to account for. Lets see. The tribe of Dan was one of the other 10 that were scattered out of the area of what is now the middle east, and migrated to where the Danites, Danes, Danish are today. 2 others, Ephriam and Manasseh, are now modern day Britain and the US. What it all boils down to is that scripture, OT or NT ‘..just aint for the Jews’ That my friends is a crux of the deception (Rev 12:9) the adversary has had a hand in promoting all thru the years mankind has walked the earth. You see, the bible is not only instruction from God on how to live (I challenge any one to find flaw in the 10 commandments..how, if kept, would not bring peace to this world and our personal lives), but scripture is a chronology of mankind’s mistakes also….even to this very day. God gave us free moral agency. We took that and ran with it since Eden. We pay the price to this very day making decisions the way ‘we feel’ is right. God is a loving God just as a loving parent finds themselves sometimes doing…that is allowing your child to learn for themselves because they sure arent going to listen to you. Thats their own choice. Its not the parents fault if they have been given the basics and still decide to turn the other way. Do we get the point? Do we not see the handwriting on the wall here?

  • nancygaye

    Why is it when people can’t intellectually defend their arguments, they resort to name calling like idiots or calling people unstable? Kirk Cameron is a voice of reason in a society that is crumbling before our very eyes. It’s a shame that there are not more courageous people like him. I wish him the very best.

  • j24w

    “Intelligent design”, the phrase many people use as shorthand for Creationist theory, is not necessarily the opposite of Darwinian theory. If you believe in God as an active force, and believe that God has a plan for us and for the universe, then why can’t evolution be one of the tools God uses to pursue that plan? Looking at it in this way reconciles faith and science. I am not a literalist, and I do believe in God and in evolution. BTW, I don’t appreciate attacks from either side on those of you who take the time to share your thoughts on this. It is not necessary to attack those who believe in God in order to prove evolutionary science, nor is it necessary to attack evolutionary science to demonstrate that you believe in God. I know that for some people, attacking (as opposed to disagreeing and supporting your arguments) is part of the “fun” of blogging; but in general,it only weakens your position.

  • jaxas

    Someone said that faith is more powerful than reason. Actually it isn’t. Think about all of the things that we once unqustioning believed in–that the earth was flat; that the earth was the center of the Universe; that the earth was no more than 10,000 years old; that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries; that the vast universe with all of its galaxies presently speeding away from us at unimaginable speed and incalculable distances from us were all created by some SuperBeing a few thousand years ago. Most rational human beings no longer believe in these childish fantasies. Like children who eventually come to accept that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, humns have grown beyond such childish imaginings. At least most human beings save for a few deadenders whose minds are still childlike.

  • bobbarnes

    Seems like we already forgot that Intelligent Design had been on trial and lost. It happened in the Dover School district of PA.

  • flyersout

    A good point has been made. Something had to create the universe. It could not have created itself, having not have preexisted to perform the creation. A general logical thesis appears here. Things that exist must have been created. God certainly exists. Then how explain who/what/ created him/it. Theological answer: God is eternal and needs no creative precursor. This contradicts the above thesis unless we, then, also admit that the world could also be eternal, albeit appearing in various sizes and configurations throughout eternity – past and present.

  • gjkbear

    Actually, if you do a time line study, Christianity and Islam and even Judaism are late comers to the Religion pot. Buddhism, Hinduism came before them. Every ancient religion including Greek Mythology, and Native American Religions have a creation story – where a god/goddess creates the Earth and all in it. Where they name all the animals and breathe life into mankind and leave them to populate the earth. They all have flood stories. And all of these religions came before Christianity. When you get right down to it Judaism, Christianity & Islam are Abrahamic religions. I am really, really tired of all this God Given rights stuff – The founding fathers were mostly diests and took great pains to separate church from state – because they knew the temptation to place one religion over all the others would be too great. Early man invented a God for every act of nature that could not be explained any other way. Some of us have not progressed very far.

  • jaxas

    NancyGaye, you have got to be kidding! You actually believe this infantile nonsense? You think Kirk is being rational? Look. The entire concept of Creationism is a rejection of rationalism. At the very moment you are sitting out there dribbling this nonsense from the corners of your mouth, we have powerful telescopes that see far across this vast universe. We can see interstellar gases being molded by natural forces like gravity and electromagnetism into spheres wheich hurl off other gases which go through a similar process in the creation of solar systems and worlds. Likely, the same plodding, billion year processes that brought us about are working in countless other worlds to the same effect. Do you really believe that this fundamentalist nonsense being preached by Kirk Cameron and the rest of that ignorant LEFT BEHIND crowd is in any way different from the silliness peddled by the long ago discredited flat earth society? Are you trying to tell us that these people are in any way different fdrom the people who wanted to behead Galileo for heresy? Good luck trying to convince those of us who believe in reason and critical thought.

  • nancygaye

    In response to an earlier post, I’m sure Mr. Cameron would be flattered but he’s 39 – hardly “a kid”. Growing Pains came out in 1985 – do the math for Darwin’s sake ….

  • TightWhiteRight

    “Kirk Cameron is a voice of reason in a society that is crumbling before our very eyes. It’s a shame that there are not more courageous people like him. I wish him the very best.” No, Kirk Cameron hides in the fear, dread, and self-loathing that is buried deep in the recesses of a mind that live in constant terror. Of course so does every Islamic fundamentalist terrorist .. there is just a fine degree of difference between the two.

  • Jihm

    All religious traditions come complete with a rich mythology. Often, myths can serve as teaching devices to advance the life of the spirit. But, to confuse mythology with history or science is a very sad mistake indeed.

  • pikaart

    Hmm…. citing your source is not a good idea, either:

  • tlusk58

    I had a world recognized Biblical scholar and Carmilite Priest tell me that Christians believe that we are Created in God’s Image. When you read the Hebrew texts, the closest thing that connects us with God is our ablility to think, to reason. Therefore faith and reason cannot be separated from a biblical point of view. If something is not logical, then it isn’t faithful to a biblical faith by Father Murphy’s theological argument. Evolution is a theory that is supported by years of work by thousands of scientists, it does not contradict a faith that has reason at its base. It does contradict a faith based on ill logic. And in case you want to argue against a modern theologian—the early Chruch Fathers agreed with him also. Illogic is a dangerous game….I hate to be mean, but I suspect when Mr. Kirk, like many child actors, couldn’t get an acting job after fame, he found a way of making a living…far right religious industry…wonder what his income is from all the illogical religious stuff he promotes…maybe he will tell us.

  • orthodoxheathen

    Wow. Growing must be painful indeed for Kirk Cameron. Too painful, it seems.

  • jakesfriend1

    “That is why believers like creationism; it doesn’t require any thinking.” RU kidding me? Actually it requires much more thinking to the point it almost hurts. To believe there was someone well before US who could throw this thing together is mind boggling, because where did He/She come from? Try figuring that one out. No, lets look at creation. All around us everything is deteriorating. We are losing animals and organisms. Instead of evolving we are regressing. Look at plant and waters and sea life. Are they evolving into something better, or are they de-evolving into something either extinct or absent from the chain of reactions in nature. What happens when enough of them (articles of creation) are removed from the equation. Do you think there will be a few missing links which will need to be repaired? Creation and a God based on Faith is beautiful because there are NO ANSWERS MAN can come up with. So they hyposthesize that we came from a ‘big bang’ or a bunch of neanderthal creatures, or some amoeba that just happened to bloom into the ‘perfect’ element, plant, virus, bacteria, whatever…….. Scientists in all of the knowledge and tools available CANNOT REVERSE the stages of man with any degree of accuracy. They cannot find the link from a million years ago until today. They can’t and they have tried. No. Faith based God religion is cool, because I for one look forward to hearing the story. Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and Protestant, religions all have their ‘baselines’ by which they determine their own faith. Than it is left up to our finite brains to try and figure it out. While you guys are spending 100′s of years of your time trying to figure it out, I as a God loving and fearing Christian am having fun sharing what needs to be shared. That means I have alot more fun being joyful and accepting ‘my fact’ there is something beyond this mess of a planet. Sign me: Paint me proud to be a Christian who is able to love everyone equally. That is the essence of God.

  • tvanzandt

    This entire debate was encouraged by the Republican Party in their one time efforts to be the party of patriotism, morality and God while denigrating the other. This is why we shouldn’t mix religion and politics. One party will always use religion to claim the moral high ground. Patriotim is used much the same way, and the GOP have been the worst abusers of both.

  • MaxSewell

    Maybe there’s really no argument at all. I read somewhere that an eastern religion (sorry, I forget which one) believed that there was in fact NO “moment of creation” –that everything had always been and always would be.

  • nancygaye

    Jaxas: I have no desire to convince you or anyone of anything. I could care less what you believe. Hang on a sec … gotta wipe the corners of my mouth. Ok, I’m back. I have simply stated how I feel about what Mr. Cameron is doing and I think it’s admirable. I hope that’s OK! Your analogy to the demise of Galileo has nothing to do with Creationism or Christianity whatsoever. “Religious” people have done horrible things throughout the centuries in the name of “religion”. Just as the Islamic fundamentalists do as noted above. Mr. Cameron is not peddling a “religion”. Religion quite frankly sucks. What he and others (like me) believe is about a “relationship” with the Creator. The one who created the gases, gravity, electromagnetism and solar systems that you describe. And, yes. I do believe what he is “preaching” …. every word.

  • jeff-pattyhicks

    God created all things. We are merely figuring out how He did it. You can’t explain away the existance of dinosaurs and neanderthals, we have imperical evidence of them. But it is certainly interesting to look at the world and how things work and marvel at God’s omnipotence and ominsciences.

  • Fate1

    Mike542 actually wrote: “Evolution does not even come close to explaining the beginning of life much less the beginning of everything else.” Evolution explains how species evolve naturally from one to another over time. Evolution thus cannot explain what came first and does not try. If you don’t understand this basic aspect of evolution then you understand nothing about evolution. I recommend you first try to understand a subject before you try to explain why its wrong. Mike542 wrote: “All you who believe in evolution give me the top three scientifically proven reasons for it. The fact is there is not even one.” Well, the top three I’m not sure about, but I’ll give you three obvious facts: 1) Rh factor is a protein on human red blood cells. Its called Rh for the Rhesus monkey which also has this same protein on its red blood cells. Coincidence? 2) In your hand are the same bones that are in the flipper of a dolphin. 3) The gorilla has the same number of hair follicles per square inch of skin as a human and in the same areas of the body. The human’s hair is just mostly peach fuzz. Mike542 wrote: “Everyone who believes it believes someone else knows the proof so they do not need to. The joke is that nobody knows them.” A better example of self deception I haven’t heard. Do you also not call 911 in emergencies because you’ve never called before to prove it works? Do you question your doctor when that doctor tells you that you need medicine? Just what other areas life do you refuse the knowledge that has been accumulated, in evolution’s case for 150 years? Mike542 wrote: “Just because a moth changes its spots to match the environment or birds with longer beaks survive better because they can better reach food is a very, very, very far distance away from how DNA spontaneously was generated from a puddle of mud struck by lightening.” Again, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Mike542 wrote: “Or how the dozens of independent functions of your eye developed by chance at exactly the same time to combine to give you sight. Macro-evolution is a complete joke so you better find a better theory. Come on people at least understand where these lies come from.” Oh please tell us, where do the lies come from? Thousands of scientists in almost every nation come together to invent and teach this myth? They do they because why? They like telling lies? Is it some large conspiracy to discredit religion? A conspiracy that has lasted 150 years, about 7 generations? Are they like a secret society? Just what drives such a large conspiracy?

  • bob2davis

    You have to hand it to little, Kirk. Competition among bad actors is intense, and with his talents he couldn’t count on a decent living. But evangelism requires neither talents nor intelligence and pays incredibly well ! You go, Kirk! Faith requires nothing; reason requires thinking! Too many people are lazy — thus the eternal dilemma.

  • Paganplace

    Hi, Thomas: “I could be wrong but it seems to me that no one knows where the “center” of the universe is or for that matter if the universe has a “center”.” Center of the universe? You’re sitting in it. So am I. Or, if you want to reckon by linear times, there is none. This universe is what they call ‘finite but unbounded.’ What’s represented by the ‘Big Bang’ isn’t actually how one might represent it in animation, with a ‘camera’ outside the Universe watching all the Stuff (space, time, matter, energy, all that is our universe) ‘explode’ into some pre-existing space. Everywhere and everywhen we might be was/is around that center. Including all our referents for space and time. Wherever you are, it’s all expanding away from you at the moment, cause spacetime itself expands from any point of view inside it. Hope that’s inspiring. It’s been a while. The cookies and stuff on this site have gotten pretty brutal.

  • MrDarwin

    Ray Comfort is the same guy who claimed that the perfection of bananas proves the existence of God. Umm… did anybody bother to tell him that cultivated bananas are vastly different from wild ones, and are so “perfect” because of selective breeding by humans???

  • thebuckguy

    The intended audience for this book–students at ivys and ivy-wannabes will simply laugh at his intro, if they read any of the book at all. “Origin of the Species” (which i read on a trip to patagonia) is not exactly “sprakling” writing. College students may be too young to recall his sitcom exploits, but they’ll look him up in wikipedia and laugh at the idea that some Tiger Beat Christer thinks he can talk about science. I tend to think of him as Justin Bateman with less talent.

  • Fate1

    nancygaye wrote: What he and others (like me) believe is about a “relationship” with the Creator. The one who created the gases, gravity, electromagnetism and solar systems that you describe.” I don’t think anyone has an issue with your particular belief. What Cameron is doing is portraying himself and others with similar belief as victims. While he is freely allowed to peddle his tripe on college campuses, publish a book of lies in the 100′s of thousands, and place his lies on the internet, he claims he is persecuted. If one is going to claim victimhood one need to show how one is a victim. If other people not agreeing with his particular beliefs defines persecution then I think anyone with a belief by that definition is equally a victim. So what is so special about Cameron and his belief?

  • joshvill62

    There has been a belief perpetrated that if one is educated, one does not believe in Creationism. Just take a quick look the the comments on this blog. The reality is that those that believe that the Bible and science are in hopeless conflict are still living in Darwinism’s caves and maybe could be numbered among the hard to find missing links of his theory. This is my point: There are thousands of scientists of the past and present who claim to believe the Bible and acknowledge the reality of the Creator Galileo (1564 -1642) Johann Kepler(1571-1630), Francis Bacon (1561-1626),Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Samuel Morse (1791-1872), George Washington Carver (1864-1943 ), Charles Stine (1882-1954), Albert Eistein(1879 1955), Wernher Von Braun(1912-1977)to name a few. More faith is needed to believe that the world emerged from nothing than to accept that the world was created by an intellegent Mind. Molecular biology, medicine, physics, astronomy, geology, fossils, historic documentation and a simple general analysis of evolution provide powerful scientific evidence to tell us what is true. May God the creator of all the species including Charles Darwin, bless America! Joshvill

  • jeff-pattyhicks

    Proverbs 12:15a “They way of the fool seems right to him”(NIV). Mr. Cameron’s arguments to Darwin’s theory are shortside. He and Mr. Comfort interpret the bible with a narrow, and i mean very narrow, view. Like I said earlier, God did create the heavens and earth. Scientists were given the ability to be able to explain, through the scientific method, everything in the heavens and earth. They are searching for the truth. There is nothing in the bible that says that humans cannot be inquizitive. God gave us a brain for a reason. Are we going to be able to explain everything? Some day, maybe. But I think in the end we will find that the search for the truth will lead us to God. And there is nothing wrong with that either. Is Kirk Cameron going to be proven right? I can say with great certainty that he has already been proven wrong. Good intentions, bad logic.

  • chaddsford1971

    This is a great exposition of Kirk Cameron’s propaganda. Thank you for this. I wonder what triggered him to go nuts??

  • trippin

    Comments are disabled on the YouTube video. That makes this man both a liar AND a coward.

  • RNJ341

    Here are some of my favorite quotes by Voltaire on religion. “Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.” “The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.” “Catechism: a collection of pious…instructions that priests take care to inculcate into little Christians to the end that they talk nonsense and rave for the rest of their lives.” “With regard to the Christians, assuredly their greatest and most venerable saints were those whose brains sustained the severest shock.” “Evil came into the world through the sin of Adam. If that idiot had not sinned, we should not have been afflicted with the smallpox, nor the itch, nor theology, nor the faith which alone can save.” “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” “Of all religions, the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.” “The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.” “The most genuine and efficacious charity is that which greases the paws of the priests; such charity covers a multitude of sins.” “A clergyman is one who feels himself called upon to live without working at the expense of the rascals who work to live.” “Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.” “It is reported in the supplement of the council of Nicea that the fathers, being very perplexed to know which were the cryptic or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, put them all pell-mell on an altar, and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It is a pity that this eloquent procedure has not survived.” “Whenever an important event, a revolution, or a calamity turns to the profit of the church, such is always signalized as the Finger of God.” “Theological religion is the source of all imaginable follies and disturbances; it is the parent of fanaticism and civil discord; it is the enemy of mankind.”

  • trippin

    “Ray Comfort is the same guy who claimed that the perfection of bananas proves the existence of God. Umm… did anybody bother to tell him that cultivated bananas are vastly different from wild ones, and are so “perfect” because of selective breeding by humans???” …and that about half of human DNA is shared by a banana? Some, obviously, may be more bananas than others.

  • jamshark70

    Creationism is fine as a religious belief. When it tries to masquerade as science, though, it simply doesn’t have the intellectual cojones to back it up. That’s lie #1: Creationism is science. Once you’ve accepted that lie, it’s no problem to use other lies to promote the first, as Cameron does in the video. Let me be clear: I respect people’s right to believe in creationism. We have a little thing called the first amendment in this country, so I also respect their right to claim that it’s science. At that point, I *must* exercise *my* right to express the opinion that scientific thought has certain characteristics of logic and basis in evidence, and that those characteristics should *not* be corrupted to make insecure religious-tribalists feel better about themselves. So, let Cameron be heard. Then, rip apart each of the lies, one by one.

  • Fate1

    Joshvill62 wrote: “More faith is needed to believe that the world emerged from nothing than to accept that the world was created by an intellegent Mind.” Well, one is backed by scientific evidence for, and a lack of scientific evidence against life emerging from nothing. But what most people attacking Darwin do not understand is that The Origin of Species says nothing about the origin of life. Darwin does not address it at all. The book is about how new species are modified by nature just as species are modified artificially. Darwin presents how nature has done to all species what man has done to various domesticated animals. The response from creationists is twofold: 1) Redefine the argument as one of the origin of life. 2) Argue that species do not evolve and use the gorilla-to-man example as a visceral example of Darwin’s argument. Both are completely wrong. I have yet to hear anyone argue Darwin’s points in the book, such as his long argument based on the various forms of pigeons, which was harder to read than Homer’s Iliad. I seriously doubt those attacking Darwin have actually read his book.

  • Rafaelo

    Yeah, well–some self-certain folks forget that Darwin’s theory is JUST A THEORY. People have this knee-jerk habit of assuming, “oh, those with that trait must have survived, while the others died out, ” as if imagining what might have happened is the same thing as proving it. Genetic scientists studying –of all things–inherited skin color, may be calling parts of natural selection into question. They found that travel from sunny Africa to sun-starved Scandinavia, say, changes human skin color from dark to light (or the reverse) in as little as 2,000 years. That is about 100 generations, and well within the range of recorded history. You cannot point to dark-skinned Africans dying out faster, leaving lighter and lighter progeny. For instance, dark black Africans imported to North America in the last 400 years die at exactly the same rate as their lighter skinned African cousins. But ALL the Africans here gradually lighten. So natural selection does not explain variation in human skin color. Something else is at work. Is there some sort of chameleon-like “natural intelligence” that over time adopts us to the UV light conditions of our surroundings? Who knows. One thing for sure–Darwin doesn’t know. Natural selection is just a theory. Get that straight folks. Theory in Greek means a question, not an answer. A partial explanation, a notion tossed out to debate, to investigate. Darwin’s theory is not revealed religion, you should not believe and defend its truth like the Gospel. A theory wants to be questioned, and when as here evidence contradicts it– eventually displaced with another better, more complete theory.

  • CalP

    The evolution of the species does not, and can not explain th origin of the earth and all life on earth. If one believes that the earth is only 6000 years old and man appeared on the first day, maybe evolution could completely explain the origin of all life; however, if one believes that the earth is approximately five billion years young, then the appearance of the first mamals, which led to the first primates between 60 and 70 million years ago, that eventually produced homo sapiens, supports evolution, but it does not deny creation of the earth and previous life forms. It is accepted that the earth went through an Azoic (without life ) period, and the earliest life forms were blue-green algae. How does the evolution of our species explain these facts? There must have been a “beginning” to earth and something must have preceeded the first mammals that appeared around 220 milliom years ago. Until science can prove the existence of what the species originally evolved from, science has not proven that creation did not occur. I believe that when people question the God of the “beginning” (whoever, whatever or whichever was in the “beginning”), what they are really doing is questioning the Christian concept of God as presented in the Bible. They are not questioning the fact of a “beginning” for our earth whether produced by a Deity, or some form of “nothing” that produced that “beginning”.

  • concolor1

    Those of us who’ve attempted dialogue with the Creationist/ID crowd have discovered the truth in my great-grandmother’s old adage, “You don’t have any defense against a liar.” We immediately face a Hobson’s choice; if we use the “L-word,” we’re immediately accused of name calling and rudeness; if we parse our rhetoric with less cutting terms such as prevaricating or dissembling, we blunt our message. For sheer folly, however it is difficult to find a movement more at odds with reason and education than this one. Worse, it serves as a cover for special interest operations such as the Rev. Moon’s, whose ID spokesman, Jonathan Wells, could conceivably make a Nazi propaganda minister blush. The same can be said for Paul Mero and the Discovery Institute (boy, there’s a howler); contributions to his operation from the wealthy faithful amount to a fleecing of the flock that would do Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker proud. Somehow the message needs to reach these charitable sorts that they are underwriting the intellectual castration of our country.

  • joe_allen_doty

    Kirk Cameron is a disciple of Ray Comfort. He has absolutely no formal religious/Bible/theological education since he apparently never attended any institute of higher education. He has tried to be a host of a Christian TV program and, in my opinion, he’s not very good at that either. He also appears not to do much self-study on his own when it comes to spiritual matters and extra-biblical sources. I don’t believe in the “theory of evolution;” I don’t consider it to be fact. But, I don’t believe in Creationism nor “Intelligent Design.” Why do people who call themselves “Christian” put importance on the Ten Commandments when they were not even written for Jesus’ followers? When Jesus told folks what he thought the 2 greatest commandments were, neither one of them were even in the Ten. In fact, Jesus revised some of the OT commandments (there were over 600 of them included with those ten when Moses got the two identical tablets of stone on Mt. Sinai) in Matthew 5.

  • grispa

    @ JIMMF I think an important point is missing here: creationism cannot be proven. Evolutionism might one day, but not yet. Making the assumption that an incomplete theory is equal to a bad theory is just too much: human knowledge expands. Just like physics we study today is different from that studied a century ago, so is evolutionism. This free distribution campaign is just like trying to discredit the New Testament delivering free copies of the Old Testament with an ominous introduction about the incoherence of the two: silly at best. At the same time, I don’t see why we should consider the eye metaphor so inconceivable: I understand that the idea of being the result of “random mutations” is not really like “been created at His own image”, but from here to say that it has no scientific basis , well, makes me think that humanity didn’t really learn anything from the scientific method. It is, indeed, simplistic to see the random mutation “engine” as a lottery. To the very contrary, modern evolution theories identify several different ways through which life keeps changing and adapting, at the top of which there are the aforementioned random mutations. What many don’t understand, still is the scale of thing we are talking about: billions of years without virtually anything but simple organisms, and then, gradually, species of increased complexity and, therefore, increased rates of evolution. Moreover, biological systems are of extreme complexity and flexibility, pretty much unlike the “surveillance camera” depicted earlier. I ask, then, if we do not want to see thing in a dogmatic way, why do we keep fooling ourselves that evolutionism is simply impossible? Why don’t we begin simply to “clean the board” and start from those naked facts we can experience everyday? Like, say, Earth NOT being little more than 6000 years old (part of the creationism idea)? If a god made rules on this universe, why can’t we simply accept it “swithed it on” 15 billions of years ago knowing we would, in some form, some day, be born, blessing us from the heavens? Following two thousands plus years old scripts to the letter is not, it has never been and most likely never will the solution. As the contradictions between Old and New Testament point out. As I said in my previous post, through a teacher of religion of mine, let “science say how and religion say why”. Paolo Gris Belluno, Italy

  • cphill851

    Mr. Cameron’s position is problematic. He represents the non-thinking person who believes just what is told to him/her and lacks the curiosity to question anything. There is nothing wrong with “faith” per se, but it shouldn’t be used as a substitute for critical thinking. “Faith” is easy. “Reason” is difficult. I always pose the following question to the “true believers”. “Who or what made God?” Their inevitable reply is that, “God has always been.” My reply back to them is that, “Well, then maybe evolution has ‘always been’, too.”

  • apspa1

    It boils down to two questions: There is a god, in which case we must attribute anything and everything to its desires, ie – the rules can be changed or reinterpreted at any time by those who claim to speak for god or There is no god, in which case we must continue to depend on the use of the scientific method in the search for knowledge and survival. Believers claim there are gods. Throughout history and the world today there have been hundreds of gods. Any one, in its time, as real for its believers as any other. Science makes no claim to know gods exist or do not, and does not judge those who believe. The conflict grows exclusively out of believer’s claim that science is anti-religion. That science makes efforts to prevent believers believing their beliefs. Science does not care what believers believe. It is only concerned with what is provable and what has been proven. Science openly challenges believers only when they refute what science has proven (that the universe is older than 6,000 years) or when science must bend to the teachings of the believers whether they be christian, buddhist, muslim, pagan, wiggan or whatever. Science’s rejection of theism is not out of fear or any particular ideology. Science rejects theism because it must. Because its continued success in the search for knowledge depends on its adherence to the methods and laws of the scientific method. The discovery of proof of the existence of a god or gods would be the greatest discovery in the history of science and mankind. Scientists around the world would rejoice hand and hand with believers and move on to the new and greater things this discovery would lead to. Science does not fear that discovery it only needs to be sure!

  • Troglodyte

    Kirk Who? Why is this ignorant dumbass retarded imbecile’s comments being discussed? Is Post Faith out of ideas?

  • Mike542

    Evolution does not even come close to explaining the beginning of life much less the beginning of everything else. All you who believe in evolution give me the top three scientifically proven reasons for it. The fact is there is not even one. Everyone who believes it believes someone else knows the proof so they do not need to. The joke is that nobody knows them. Just because a moth changes its spots to match the environment or birds with longer beaks survive better because they can better reach food is a very, very, very far distance away from how DNA spontaneously was generated from a puddle of mud struck by lightening. Or how the dozens of independent functions of your eye developed by chance at exactly the same time to combine to give you sight. Macro-evolution is a complete joke so you better find a better theory. Come on people at least understand where these lies come from.

  • Nparry

    The law of Natural Selection is on full display now. Kirk Cameron was just selected as the Idiot of the Year! Living Waters sounds like an enema brand. Fear is looking like the last resort of the right-wing nuts to get some much-needed funds.

  • cletus1

    As long as the scientifically inclined students are given a science curriculum, it does not matter what is taught to the others.

  • cletus1

    Besides, it is really unlikely that people who only grudgingly accepted that the Earth is not flat and not the center of the Universe are going to be able to accept evolution. We should just be thankful they no longer have the power to kill those who don’t profess their mythology.

  • chet_broadhurst

    The “theory” of “intelligent design” proves only that creationism can evolve. I say again, I would offer that those who promote creationism/I.D. suffer from a type of fear peculiar to the small-minded: They fear that, without the over-arching protection of an agency (God) upon which to hang responsibility for their own creation and upon whose glory to hitch their destiny-wagon, they will have to fall back on their own inadequate devices to determine right from wrong. Surely, being mere humans (although claiming the apex of so-called creation), we cannot possibly have any way to determine right from wrong without the omniscient guidance of a God – “Great Sky-Father” – which itself exhibits the manners and ethics of a spoiled child.

  • tkobrien

    For a religious section of the newspaper, there are surely a lot of atheists and other doubters in attendance! I lean towards belief in evolution, but it is just a theory of which parts may be wrong. As an educated person, I am open to questioning this theory. Too bad many responding to this column are devout evolutionists who reflexively resort to insults to defend this THEORY. While the evolutionists on this board fulminate against the close-mindedness of Kirk Cameron and other Christians, they conventiently ignore the fact of the rising tide of militant Islam in our country–I guess that is because leftists will always choose to demonize the ugly “white male.” I wonder how much freedom these evolutionists would have in a country dominated by a religion that uses the burkha to ensure the submission of half its population? I think I prefer the status quo where both sides can debate this issue–I wish it were in a more civilized and adult manner though.

  • ibgambill

    I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. In the scientific community, specifically at the collegiate level, there are many scientist who believe privately that God exists, but can not talk about it for fear of retaliation from adminstration and/or their own colleagues. They understand that the evidence is patchy at best. Darwin, I beleive, was sincere in his writings and provide us with an advance & fresh look at science in an attempt to provide an explanation outside of the church for our existence; however, specifically with what we now understand about the complexity of the cell, I believe Darwin, if he were alive, would have reached a far different conclusion.

  • ibgambill

    I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. In the scientific community, specifically at the collegiate level, there are many scientist who believe privately that God exists, but can not talk about it for fear of retaliation from administration and/or their own colleagues. They understand that the evidence is patchy at best. Darwin, I believe, was sincere in his writings and provide us with an advance & fresh look at science in an attempt to provide an explanation outside of the church for our existence; however, specifically with what we now understand about the complexity of the cell, I believe Darwin, if he were alive, would have reached a far different conclusion.

  • obx2004

    Maybe instead of trying to spread bulls*** lies about evolution, Christians should start looking inward and cleaning their own house before they enter others’ homes. Your “evangelists” who take in millions and millions of dollars from their sheep, living in gated communities and wearing designer suits. How much of your donations go to the poor? Do you ever ask, or is asking a sin? Or your fellow Christians who talk of “love” for all, but deep down show smarmy contempt for those who don’t believe what they believe, insulting people of other faiths as “imperfect” or somehow unworthy. Clean your own house!! Don’t worry about everyone else’s!

  • Jazzman7

    In the military, I was taught that there are three allowed answers: “Yes, sir! No, sir! and I don’t know, sir!” While at times we may denigrate the “military way” for its lack of sensitivity, the stock answers taught to recruits serve an important lesson for us all. If we know a thing to be true and correct as far as we humans can know, we say “yes.” If we know a thing to be false and incorrect as far as we humans can know, we say “no.” And if we have little or insufficient knowledge, we should say “I don’t know.” We have above said much that falls into the last category. We have people who profess faith. We have people who profess scientific method. And we have a silly argument about something that only peripherally touches our lives, the beginnings of the universe, galaxy, solar system, earth. Of those things we know little. There is little “proof” for the best of theories in that respect and in the best there are yet holes in understanding and solid science. I am not here referring to Mr. C. Darwin’s thesis. With respect to Darwin, few of his theories have been contradicted or overturned in the century and a half since he published his major study. In addition, Darwin conducted world-wide research in pursuing his theoretical statements, backing them up with clear examples from the natural observed world. Indeed, Darwin was most meticulous, for he envisioned that some in the religious communities of his time would be disturbed or frightened by the meaning of his reports. In the tradition of science, Darwin “did his homework.” Our understanding from Darwin’s work should similarly be dealt with using a scientific approach. If one doubts his conclusions, one must declare those concerns, set up reasoned and unbiased testing, evaluate the new results, and publish to peers asserting a new understanding of the observed phenomena. I don’t get that that’s what’s going on in much of the discussion here. I see anger and contention rather than openness and reason. How’s that for a society which claims to value human equality and reasoned justice? Should we be worrying?

  • John1263

    The child actor obviously has not read the Bible in the context it was written. 3rd century BC hebrews were not writing a 21st century science text. not how they thought, and not something they would have begun to comprehend given their world and worldview. He is also apparently completely ignorant of what is actually happening in the United States. He is either stupid or willfully ignorant regarding our history and Constitution. He takes the ranting and raving of charlatans and fools like oreilly and others as if they were actually true. Poor little mind, so wasted away by being on the set instead of reading and getting a basic education.

  • Chops2

    If evangelicals put the same amount of effort scrutinizing their own beliefs as they did in evolution they would surely come to the conclusion that virgins can not have babies, the earth isnt 10,000 odd years old and that there is absolutely, unequivically no evidence at all for the existence of god, unlike evolution. Back it up scientifically evangelicals…u can’t!

  • kevin1231

    This country is fast becoming a country of stupid and zombie morons headed by a right wing cabal that used these zombies for its own political and economic agenda.

  • wpcdias

    First, I do believe that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur. The two theories (Lamarck and Darwin) still, in my opinion (and from what I have read about Darwin) are still being debated. The origin of the continuing arguments between the Theists and Atheists, historically, was due to the unfortunate reaction of the Roman Catholic Church to the expansion of knowledge by the ordinary people as a threat. Finally, in my opinion, at least the Roman Catholic Church has made peace with rational thought being compatible with faith in God. If the scientific explanation of the current THEORY of the ‘Big Bang’ would have included an explanation of what was there BEFORE the ‘Big Bang’ I would be able, rationally, to make a decision as to the ABSENCE OR PRESENCE of God. Until then, I will continue to believe the GOD created and science is our way of discovering what GOD created.

  • manning1

    I am bothered by the amount of money that he is spending to hand out 100,000 books. Couldn’t that go to a better use-such as feeding the hungry?

  • Carstonio

    “And I doubt a hard atheist would claim that such beliefs do not exist when clearly, they do.” I wasn’t talking about whether the beliefs exist. I was saying that when one says that gods exist or don’t exist, either way one is making a statement of fact. I was asking how the hard atheist would prove to the outsider that gods don’t exist. There’s a difference from not believing that gods exist and believing that gods don’t exist. The first is a rejection of the concept of belief.

  • yyz2112

    Prior to defending or refuting “evolution” it is important to define it. Microevolution says that non-life, in the right proportions and under the right conditions, can turn into life. Macroevolution says that one species can change into another species. Some “evolution” proponents have included a phenomenon within the title of “evolution” that is actually adaptation. The evidence for adaptation is abundant and obvious. However, as a scientist, I find no credible evidence to support either microevolution or macroevolution. Rather, my review of the evidence leads me to conclude that both are so highly improbable that they scarcely qualify as a scientific theory. As for the public exercise of faith, and in particular, prayer, there is no one who can stop an individual from praying wherever and whenever they choose. Turning prayer into public display is another matter. And if that is the real goal, I can only question the intentions of the individual. However, I tread lightly on that judgement… One’s honesty is between the individual and God.

  • Carstonio

    “If the scientific explanation of the current THEORY of the ‘Big Bang’ would have included an explanation of what was there BEFORE the ‘Big Bang’ I would be able, rationally, to make a decision as to the ABSENCE OR PRESENCE of God.” Would you explain? Your statement seems to assume that gods are creator beings. What about the possibility that gods exist but those gods had no role in how the universe came to be? Also, why junk the Big Bang hypothesis simply because its explanation is incomplete? My point is that we shouldn’t fill ANY gap in knowledge with belief, but instead simply admit that we don’t know.

  • Fate1

    wpcdias wrote: “The two theories (Lamarck and Darwin) still, in my opinion (and from what I have read about Darwin) are still being debated.” Not really. Lamarck’s theory was about acquired traits, like short necked giraffes stretching for food in the tree tops and passing that acquired trait onto the next generation of longer necked giraffes. This is not seen to happen in nature. wpcdias wrote: “Finally, in my opinion, at least the Roman Catholic Church has made peace with rational thought being compatible with faith in God.” Well, when it comes to science the RCC had to give it up as the evidence mounted and they had no way of containing the truth anymore. I think there was also the issue of governance, which the RCC did for a few centuries. You cannot run a government completely on faith and reality must be recognized at times for things to get done properly. wpcdias wrote: “If the scientific explanation of the current THEORY of the ‘Big Bang’ would have included an explanation of what was there BEFORE the ‘Big Bang’ I would be able, rationally, to make a decision as to the ABSENCE OR PRESENCE of God.” There are current hypotheses of what happened before. Not sure if they have been elevated to theories though I think I read that its pretty conclusive now that the uneven distribution of matter in the universe was due to the presence of something before the big bang, that it could not have sprung out of the pure vacuum. wpcdias wrote: “Until then, I will continue to believe the GOD created and science is our way of discovering what GOD created.” This is how most religious people live their lives, for example trusting doctors until the doctor can do no more and only then turning to God for answers and mercy. It speaks volumes that Cameron and Comfort use fear to get acceptence of their message. It also says a lot that the truth is not important to them when spreading the message. It seems results are the only thing that is important, as though one can fool another into paradise.

  • obx2004

    “I am bothered by the amount of money that he is spending to hand out 100,000 books. Couldn’t that go to a better use-such as feeding the hungry?” Or paying for a 15,000 sq-ft mansion for the “dear Pastor”, cuz, you know, that’s how Christ lived.

  • edbyronadams

    “Hypothetically, if someone never hears of or reads about the concept of gods, where would the person get the idea that gods exist? We perceive nothing that would indicate that gods exist. We can’t rule out the possibility of things that may exist beyond our senses (and I stress the “may” part). But any ideas about such things would seem to amount to speculation – there’s no way to test whether one piece of speculation is any more or less likely than any other. Maybe the concept of “God” is large because people define the concept that way.” Posted by: Carstonio Simple regression of cause and effect leads to the idea of the original uncaused cause. This could be easily be labeled as “God” and rational beings shouldn’t have any problem with it. However, once descriptors are put upon the uncaused cause, that is an attempt to dissect the unfathomable into parts we can digest with our limited capacities and leads to conflict as different blind men argue about the nature of the elephant.

  • katavo

    As to what happened “before” the Big Bang, consider the possibility that time itself was created with the big bang. There could not have been a before, since there was no time. Kind of tough to grasp in the normal course of human thought, something always happens after something else is our experience. It is mathematically interesting though, isn’t it?

  • pechins

    I submit to all you brainiacs: What came before the Big Bang? Second I would suggest you digest or injest the thoughts about God from someone as brilliant as Einstein.

  • Fate1

    katavo wrote: “As to what happened “before” the Big Bang, consider the possibility that time itself was created with the big bang. There could not have been a before, since there was no time.” Well, the reality is that we just do not know for sure. But the cosmologists are seeing in their math a lot of what those studying the innerds of black holes are seeing. And consider that the intense gravity of the inside of a black hole slows time down to such a crawl that if you were inside the black hole you would see the outside universe moving by at millions of years to a second of your time. One theory gaining popularity is the bubble universe, where the universe is essentially infinite in size where bubbles of space time (and its matter) are created, expand or contract with other bubbles coming along later. This theory envisions our universe as just one of many and a new universe bubble could appear anywhere inside or outside our bubble. Theories aside, it is interesting to contemplate what came before the big bang. What the observations are telling us is that the big bang was not uniform yet the math says that out of a pure vacuum the matter would spring forth in a uniform way, leaving a fog of hydrogen and helium never clumping as it has. The only mathematical explanation is that something must have existed before or during the big bang to cause the uneven distribution. This bring up the notion of time before the big bang and possibly matter and energy before as well.

  • redlineblue

    The answer to this, as to so many timeless conundra, is the Washington Capitals: The Defense is *evolving*, while concurrently the Ovechkin/Backstrom/Knuble line gives the team Higher Power (and causes opposing defenses to take the lord’s name in vain). Glad I could help. Go Caps!

  • Carstonio

    “Simple regression of cause and effect leads to the idea of the original uncaused cause.” While that idea seems logical, we should not treat it as factual in the absence of any way to test the idea. “This could be easily be labeled as ‘God’ and rational beings shouldn’t have any problem with it.” While I personally don’t object to the labeling, I am concerned that it can lead to linguistic confusion. The word “God” in our culture is commonly understood to refer to the Abrahamic deity, or at least to a supreme sovereign being. What you describe is closer to deism, which is really a philosophical concept and not a religious one. Some deists use the specific phrase “First Cause,” which seems to be preferable alternative that lacks the cultural baggage attacked to the God word. “However, once descriptors are put upon the uncaused cause, that is an attempt to dissect the unfathomable into parts we can digest with our limited capacities and leads to conflict as different blind men argue about the nature of the elephant.” My point is that we shouldn’t assume the existence of an uncaused cause in the first place. We don’t know if the way the universe operates now is the same as it operated before or at the Big Bang. It’s not enough to work backward through logic to an uncaused cause – that’s merely reasoning from an armchair.

  • Fate1

    “Second I would suggest you digest or injest the thoughts about God from someone as brilliant as Einstein.” Posted by: pechins Einstein made more than a few mistakes, his most famous, that quantum mechanics could not be real because “God does not play dice with the universe”, was due to his belief in a universe where everything was completely definable, it has a defined state all the time. The reality is that nothing is exact and particles exist as a wave of probabilities. This has been proven multiple times and even tools have been made to use quantum effects. So, considering Einstein’s limited brilliance I would rather consider the entirety of those who are very smart, and what I find is a consensus that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa, a wish for someone greater than ourselves who will give us more than we have now.

  • mhoust

    Kirk Cameron, like a lot (most) of creationists, is not a competent authority on either science or religion. He’s an ignorant fool with too much money and a bully pulpit to preach from.

  • Carstonio

    “a wish for someone greater than ourselves who will give us more than we have now.” I would describe it as a wish for the universe not to be indifferent to human existence.

  • katavo

    Most believers do have a sense of what reason and logic are. They do use these mental activities for other parts of their lives after all. They do have a sense of what these words mean when used by science and scientists. They do have a problem though, when applying these words to their faith. They know it won’t stand up to the same rigorous scrutiny science demands. So what do they do? They “bruise” the meaning of these words, just a little. Reason, logic, proof, fact, knowledge … truth. The point is that it’s a waste of time for the more science-minded to use these words in the way they understand them when discussing science vs faith with the believer. That large numbers of christians truly do believe the earth was created in 4004 bc, that humans walked with dinosaurs … well, what can one say to someone like that? Don’t waste your time. Don’t ask them for proof or evidence, don’t ask them to back it up with logical discourse. Their vocabulary has been infected with their faith, they aren’t even using the same words you are.

  • Athena4

    “If the scientific explanation of the current THEORY of the ‘Big Bang’ would have included an explanation of what was there BEFORE the ‘Big Bang’ I would be able, rationally, to make a decision as to the ABSENCE OR PRESENCE of God. Until then, I will continue to believe the GOD created and science is our way of discovering what GOD created.” Actually, the Big Bang was originally postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest and PhD in astrophysics, Monseignor Georges Lemaitre. Einstein once told him that “his math was sound, but his physics were abominable.” Lemaitre’s conclusions have since been proven, and Einstein withdrew his comments. So, there is NO reason that Christian faith should be considered incompatible with the origins of the universe. I think the poster that said, “God is who, evolution is how,” had the right idea. Life on Earth, especially Humans, has been proven to have evolved. But what gave Humans the intellectual spark to start using tools and language? To start looking to the skies and measuring time that way? To build structures like the Pyramids and Stonehenge? As for Mr. Kirk “Has-Been” Cameron, he obviously spent more time learning science from his studio-paid tutors than in actual classes. Not to criticize all child actors. I’ve met some, and most of them are pretty smart kids. But Mr. Cameron is the exception to the rule.

  • Freestinker

    “I wasn’t talking about whether the beliefs exist. …” ——- Carstonio, Gods ARE beliefs. They are one in the same. There is no difference between the two. Gods are just beliefs and so whenever the belief exists, by definition, so does the god.

  • Freestinker

    RE: Gods are just beliefs. wpcdias wrote: “Until then, I will continue to believe the GOD created and science is our way of discovering what GOD created.” —— See what I mean? Gods are just beliefs. The operative phrase being “… I will continue to believe …”

  • topperale

    If Cameron’s (and the creationists’) ideas were valid, he would not have to resort to scare tactics, misrepresentation, and lies to try to convince people. Any opinion worth holding and worth defending should be able to be defended on its own merits without distortion. If it can’t be defended on this basis, it is not defensible. (Case in point: the Iraq War and the weapons of mass destruction.)

  • joelpalmer

    All religions are fraud and brainwashing. If they tried this on a anyone but kids, they would be laughed at and jeered. get a five year old and teach him religion and you have a non-thinker for life

  • LeeH1

    Gee, it’s awfully easy to be an athiest in a Godly world. All you have to do is pick and moan. What the athiests don’t do, is show the world what society without God would do. If God didn’t create children, then the parents did. Without divine guidelines, they can raise their own children however they like- as free labor, sex toys or even fodder during famine. No one can tell another person it is wrong, since God doesn’t tell everyone the same thing. There is no universal good, and no need to be good. That brings us to law without sin. Without sin, breaking human law means only that you may suffer human punishment, but when it is over, it is fogotten. There is no sin attached to breaking a law. Murder and rape are dealt with as dispassionately as traffic violations and copyright infringement. None of these actions are “bad”, they are simply against the laws, and if committede and the person is punished, he/she is free to go on their way. They have not sinned since god did not say this was wrong. If you can’t heave God on the dissecting table and prove that he exists, neither can you define national spirit or patriotism. There is no need to serve your country, since that is simply an accident of geography. There is no “Fatherland” or this or “Motherland” of that. The scoiety is merely a group of people made up of individuals. You can’t expect others to come to your aid, especially at their cost, simply because you share the “Spirit of America”. Besides, all of athiesm is based on the thought that the leading athiests are honest. Well, I suspect they are not. first, it is not a sin to be dishonest. Secondly, if everyone around you is honest, the athiest has an advantage over the piously honest. If you compalin that he is dishonest, he will only laugh and say, “So much the better for me that I fooled you! You are the fool for believing me without checking, dissecting, and looking for an honest bone. There isn’t one!” And the athiest is right. Why be honest if it isn’t wrong or sinful to be dishonest? Are athiests moral people? Well, they can be as moral or ammoral as they want. What they can’t do is impose morality on others, since there is no divine auhtority to say “This is moral for all people.” So one athiest is moral, and his athiest neighbor is not. Well, it won’t take long for good to drive out bad, which is a moral judgement. There are many problems with a godly society, but people strive to go from bad to good. In an athiestic society, this drive is absent. The athiest will go from good to “What’s good for me. After all, once I’m dead, it doesn’t matter, so let the good times roll today.” So, athiests, here’s your challenge: write a good book of “The Day

  • joelpalmer

    Why do people believe in a non existent super magic “thing”? Because they are told to by their parents

  • Carstonio

    “Gods ARE beliefs. They are one in the same. There is no difference between the two.” That sounds like you have read Harlan Ellison’s “Deathbird Stories.” Ellison wrote, “When belief in a god dies, the god dies. When the last acolyte renounces his faith and turns to another deity, the god ceases to be.” My point is that we can’t rule out the possibility that gods exist as actual beings. Saying that gods are beliefs is tantamount to saying that gods are nothing more than ideas in people’s heads, and we don’t have the knowledge to say that is true or false. I define “actual” existence as being existence that doesn’t depend on the continued existence of human minds.

  • Freestinker

    LEEH1, According to our Constitution, we have a secular society … neither atheist nor godly. In this way we are all free to make our own conclusions on matters of religious opinion and we can (and do) decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not. Most atheists I know base their ethics and morality on the humanistic golden rule which operates perfectly well without any belief in the supernatural whatsoever. If you simply follow the golden rule, it’s pretty damn easy to be moral without threats of eternal damnation from an angry supernatural sky-daddy.

  • Fate1

    “I think the poster that said, “God is who, evolution is how,” had the right idea. Life on Earth, especially Humans, has been proven to have evolved. But what gave Humans the intellectual spark to start using tools and language? To start looking to the skies and measuring time that way? To build structures like the Pyramids and Stonehenge?” Posted by: Athena Well, we only have to look at our closest evolutionary cousins to see they can communicate using a limited language, can use tools, can be taught to use tools and then teach those techniques to their offspring. We share a lot, including the exact number of hair follicles on our skin and in the same places. When you look at humans there are only two major things that make us unique from our cousins: 1) a complex language. 2) a reasoning mind. Both of these are necessary to imagine a God and to spread the word. Consider a gorilla one day thinking a God might exist, then decides a God does exist after seeing food mysteriously appearing each morning. Who would know? Not even other gorillas would know. Human religion is unique to humans because they are the only ones who can develop and maintain it.

  • irkulyen

    Wrap a creationist around a town hall berserker around a Sarah Palin supporter and you get a stinking mess like Kirk Cameron. Do Americans anywhere need this little punk to instruct them in anything? He’s just the latest creationist bozo spoiling to deny our children a modern education.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    way back there, in response to “That is why believers like creationism; it doesn’t require any thinking.” jakesfriend said, “RU kidding me? Actually it [creationism] requires much more thinking to the point it almost hurts.” i have to agree with “jakesfriend”: it takes EXTRAORDINARY MENTAL EFFORT to maintain the rube goldberg-like scaffolding of denial, obfuscation and rationalization required to support literal creationism. they must believe tha radiometric dating is unreliable, scientists themselves are confused about evolution, archaeologists are atheists with an agenda, and “flood geology” explains the grand canyon and fossils. they’ll (mis)quote the second law of thermodynamics, and point to the latest paper that (doesn’t) show how bombardier beetles couldn’t exist without god’s intervention. also, their minds are compartmentalized. these people are rational in most respects, except when it comes to scripture. they are accountants, lawyers and mathematicians. they wouldn’t bet on an inside straight, but they think 99% of scientists are completely wrong about evolution. they enjoy the fruits of the technological application of science in the form of medicine, nuclear energy and aviation, without accepting the underlying principles. they’ve conceded the (contra-biblical) copernican solar system and have grudgingly accepted one ice age (probably a quick one, sometime between the creation and the flood), but still live in a 6000 year-old universe. every scientific finding must be checked for compliance with ancient mesopotamian beliefs. the best thing, from their perspective, is not to see any new evidence, so they walk around, eyes closed, with their fingers in their ears, humming.

  • Fate1

    Leeh1 mused: “What the athiests don’t do, is show the world what society without God would do. If God didn’t create children, then the parents did. Without divine guidelines, they can raise their own children however they like- as free labor, sex toys or even fodder during famine. No one can tell another person it is wrong, since God doesn’t tell everyone the same thing. There is no universal good, and no need to be good.” The argument that without God humans would be this unruley society where parents eat children and there is no definition of good or evil is pure nonsense. You only need to look at the history of mankind to see that people have lived in states of what today we would call both very good and very evil, and religion existed in both types of society. The Aztec religion required them to brutally slaughter their enemies in ritual ceremony to please their Gods and the citizens would see the skulls piled high and know that the higher the pile the greater the upcoming harvest. The Incas sacrificed children. And if we just want to focus on christianity we have the crusades, slavery, piracy, war upon war, recognition of kings as entitled rulers, etc, etc, etc. And if you just want to focus on today, by your definitions the jails should be filled with atheists and few christians, but the opposite is true. When we look at history only one society turned away from the old christian values of women being subserviant to men, children being property of parents abd given rights, slavery being the norm and kings who are entitled to rule over us, and that was the secular government of the USA, a government not allowed to bring the religious filth of the past upon its people ever again nor establish a national religion to shove down everyone’s throat. In the USA secular virtues keep religious devine guidelines at bay, creating a society envied the world over.

  • presto668

    yyz2112 wrote: “Microevolution says that non-life, in the right proportions and under the right conditions, can turn into life. Macroevolution says that one species can change into another species.” I don’t know where you got this, but it isn’t even close to being true. “Some “evolution” proponents have included a phenomenon within the title of “evolution” that is actually adaptation.” Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, therefore, adaptation *is* evolution, by definition. “However, as a scientist, I find no credible evidence to support either microevolution or macroevolution.” We have seen speciation occur. If you were a biologist, you would know this.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, “When you look at humans there are only two major things that make us unique from our cousins: 1) a complex language. 2) a reasoning mind.” while i understand your point, i would say even those are differences of degree rather than kind. we used to think it was “tool making” that made humans unique. we used to think it was “altruism” or some other thing that separates us from animals. we so want to be separate, don’t we…?

  • Fate1

    Walter wrote: “…they must believe tha radiometric dating is unreliable, scientists themselves are confused about evolution, archaeologists are atheists with an agenda, and “flood geology” explains the grand canyon and fossils.” Oh reality is bent much more than that. I was going through the FAQ section of the “Living Water’s” web site. It answers the question of how all the past species that are now extinct could have possibly lived on the earth at the same time by explaining that the earth’s oceans were much much lower in the past giving the earth as much as 70% land and only 30% ocean. The oceans we see toda are the result of the flood. What he fails to explain is why we find all of these extinct species ON TODAY’S LAND where presumably they all occupied the same land space. But what is consistent in the “explanations” is there is no debate, no references to evidence and no question the explanation is valid. To question the explanation is equivalent to questioning God. And that is the problem I see in much of this. I see that making up explanations and down right lies are acceptable as long as they help bolster belief. How anyone can think this way is a mystery to me, but it is clear to me through my years studying my own religion and observing religious teachers and friends that truth is not important, just belief. As just one example: I was told, in 4th grade, by a priest, that rocks grew. Being a geology buff I raised my hand and said yes, they do, crystals grow over long periods of time. He was happy I agreed. He then said “yes, and mountains too”. I sat back, shocked. I asked him if he was really saying rocks grew from small rocks into larger ones, even into mountains. He smiled and said “Of course, where do you think mountains come from? Rocks grow, flowers grow, people grow, everything grows.”. That was just one small lesson I learned about religion, how it makes stuff up, how it cares less for truth and how belief comes first and truth only when it might agree. Delusion is the only way to explain it. That or deception.

  • undercover_hon

    From a practical standpoint: I wonder if Mr. Cameron has considered that college kids now not only are not acquainted with him (unless they’re already evangelical and have seen his recent apocalyptic “Left Behind” movies), but also – they already have piles to read for school. Plus, I’d like to add that college students (at least the ones I knew back in the day) were always wary of people handing out free books in our central plaza. It was nearly always for some cause or cult….

  • Fate1

    “while i understand your point, i would say even those are differences of degree rather than kind. we used to think it was “tool making” that made humans unique. we used to think it was “altruism” or some other thing that separates us from animals. we so want to be separate, don’t we…?” Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch My point was that rationalism and language are required for religion to exist. Some animals may believe in something like a god, but who would know? Organized religion could only exist in animals which have the capacity to imagine a god and the ability to communicate that idea among themselves and then organize themselves around the belief. For humans to be the only species to have organized religion is not surprising at all. In fact, if an alien abducted some humans and studied them over time, learning their capacity for imagination and language, they could easily predict religion must exist within human society. Religion is almost a requirement for any animal that can imagine a god and then communicate that to another of the species.

  • Fate1

    “Plus, I’d like to add that college students (at least the ones I knew back in the day) were always wary of people handing out free books in our central plaza. It was nearly always for some cause or cult….” Posted by: undercover_hon I was having an intense conversation at college with this moonie girl who was trying to convert me. She arrived on a bus with other moonies to convince anyone they could find to join (I was having lunch in the student union at the time). I quickly had her questioning her own beliefs and she openly admitted she was doubting the moonies. I told her she could escape and I’d hide her (she admitted she was very afraid of the moonies). Just then a “handler” came over, listened for a few minutes then grabbed her and pulled her away. I asked the girl if she wanted me to call a cop. No she said and then willingly went away with the handler. I don’t know what fear they used to have that kind of a hold on her, but fear seems to be the method of choice in many religions and cults, and one should stand up to religiously induced fear.

  • joshmw

    The Catholic church had a history of scaring people with hell into giving money, on the other extreme, the modern American church can lead people to think that sin is not a big deal, you can keep sinning and you’ll always be forgiven even if you never repent. So Ray and Kirk came along to help counter that false teaching. So as a result some people get alarmed that they are scaring people into having faith. Realize, however they are more answering to the false teaching of forgiveness without repentance which is widely practiced in American churches. I think their point is you cannot prove evolution, and at least give kids both sides. One point they have which is valid is that evolution has not been proven to actually occur over history with the given known classes of species out there, young adults are prone to take things at face value so at least give them a chance to see both sides. At the same time, by all means let them have the opportunity to excel and advance in Mathematics and science in all its forms, there is nothing holding them back in either way. As Jesus says, “those that belong to the Truth hear My voice.” There is no level in math or science you would not be able to attain to if you are a Christian, I can attest to it based on people I have known.

  • pjs1965

    I believe Thomas Paine sait it bes in his book “The Age of Reason” — “It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support. The study of theology as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”

  • steveswimmer1

    Leave those poor people alone. If they want to die believing their way, let them. They are goners anyway. You know that. The pendulum has finally swung and the religious right-wingers have done all the do-gooder damage the thinking public will allow. Their day of influence is done. Besides,the faithful Believers have found a way to live and be happy. Religious faith feels good and you cannot replace the good feeling with contriving scientific rhetoric evident or no. Now, that they are on the down-hill slide it is unlikely their do-good interventions into our regular lives will be a problem much longer. Sooo…, just leave them go there own way and ignore the final whimpers of the last hardcore few. Today, clawing at Darwin will win very few Scofield Bible converts. However, As for faith in the unknown; well, face it you are never going to understand the unknown through the known. Like, if we ever understand the beginnings of Hydrogen it will certainly prove to be be simpler than understanding life. Even on a simplistic level you have to have faith that the math, convincing many the “Big Bang” is real, is accurate. I mean, I can’t do the math, can you? Perhaps, the Cern project (if they don’t create a Black hole instead) will put the Big Bang theory to rest. Until we have more information we must live on faith. No other choice. No, before we jump on the faithful over trivia we might want to stop and study the part that generates enormous human power for these otherwise powerless folks, and that is: faith.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1: “Religion is almost a requirement for any animal that can imagine a god and then communicate that to another of the species.” that’s probably true. i’d say religion was born when humans became smart enough to 1)become self-aware 2)wonder how we got here 3)wonder what happens to “me” when “i” die

  • willemkraal

    oh what a foolishness all this religious bs is. a total scam a nasty fraud!!

  • edbyronadams

    “When we look at history only one society turned away from the old christian values of women being subserviant to men, children being property of parents abd given rights, slavery being the norm and kings who are entitled to rule over us, and that was the secular government of the USA, a government not allowed to bring the religious filth of the past upon its people ever again nor establish a national religion to shove down everyone’s throat. In the USA secular virtues keep religious devine guidelines at bay, creating a society envied the world over.” Posted by: Fate1 There were several European countries that were ahead of us in some of these counts. However, the West in general has been ahead on this humanist trend and that western thought flowered with its roots firmly planted in a Judeo-Christian morality. The problem now is that morality and worldview is pretty much played out since, as many have pointed out here, the Abrahamic religions do not conform to scientific analysis. Atheistic secularism is a poor substitute. It provides no moral philosophy and, even though moral philosophy has been subject to hypocrites over time, claiming that hypocrisy denies the need for a cogent code of morality for society is a false conclusion. Relying on the golden rule and legalism is a recipe for a poor society IMO. In fact a rational atheist with no children should advocate for the golden rule in public while cheating on it for their own advantage at every opportunity and should advocate for short term policies that will cripple the future for benefit in their lifetime. When multiplied, all those rational secularists create a society that is racing to the bottom in moral behavior.

  • kjohnson3

    “Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’” Oh, for god’s sake, will you people get it right? The book title is ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. How can you argue about something (for OR against) if you can’t even name it correctly? Darwin didn’t write a book on the origin of “our” species; he wrote a book on how species (all of them) came to be.

  • Fate1

    Atheistic secularism is a poor substitute. It provides no moral philosophy and, even though moral philosophy has been subject to hypocrites over time, claiming that hypocrisy denies the need for a cogent code of morality for society is a false conclusion. Relying on the golden rule and legalism is a recipe for a poor society IMO. In fact a rational atheist with no children should advocate for the golden rule in public while cheating on it for their own advantage at every opportunity and should advocate for short term policies that will cripple the future for benefit in their lifetime. When multiplied, all those rational secularists create a society that is racing to the bottom in moral behavior.” Posted by: edbyronadams You fail to realize that religion’s moral philosophies stifled scientific advancement from the persecutions of Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin. They also allowed slavery, witch burning, wars in God’s name, etc. You also fail to realize that morality is a human characteristic that religion claims to create, otherwise the christian morality would not be seen outside of christianity, which is not true.

  • abbyandmollycats

    As I have not read all the comments, I would like to apologize in advance for any repetition. To quote Marcus Borg, “The Bible is completely true and some of it actually happened.” All truth is not fact and all fact is not complete truth. The Old Testament is a compilation of writings that traces Israel’s growing understanding of God. In case anybody is unaware, the scientific method did not reach its present form until many centuries later, so to use this method to prove or disprove these writings is to divorce them from meaning, culture and context. And to disregard modern scientific thought because it does not match up with these writings is the same error in reverse. The New Testament tells us about Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. The human mind does not like uncertainty, so many cling to the literal written word, instead of accepting that in this life we see only glimpses of God who is much greater that we can comprehend. Faith is the acceptance of uncertainty, not the avowal of a specific group of facts.

  • edallan

    “What was there before the Big Bang?” My understanding is that most scientists believe that currently there is no way of knowing or even of trying to find out what happened before the Big Bang and, therefore, what happened, or didn’t happen, is beyond the reach of science. So if people want to believe that God or the Great Pumpkin or “turtles all the way down” preceded/caused/”whatever” the Big Bang or “it just happened,” there is no scientific way of addressing it. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

  • Sentient1

    In reply to EDBYRONADAMS, who said “Atheistic secularism is a poor substitute. It provides no moral philosophy and, even though moral philosophy has been subject to hypocrites over time, claiming that hypocrisy denies the need for a cogent code of morality for society is a false conclusion.” ———- I’m most wary of those who need to be given a list of morals to follow, as it shows how immoral they must be were they not provided instruction (what happens if you were to learn tomorrow that your god didn’t exist?). As for me, I don’t punch people, steal from them, or lie to others, not because I was told it’s a sin, but because I wouldn’t want others to think it’s acceptable to do the same to me. Morality is pretty simple, and you don’t have to pay some priest to buy it.

  • kjohnson3

    “My understanding is that most scientists believe that currently there is no way of knowing or even of trying to find out what happened before the Big Bang and, therefore, what happened, or didn’t happen, is beyond the reach of science.” In which case, the creationists would be smart to acknowledge evolution all the way back to the Big Bang, but to claim that their guy did everything that came before it. Of course, they’d then have to relinquish that whole 6,000 years scenario.

  • Sentient1

    kjohnson3, your understanding would be incorrect (respectfully). There is no situation where science has ever given up inquiry. Many say it was not a “bang” creating something from nothing, but actually a cataclysmic expansion of energy, which in turn created matter. Everything has always existed, it’s just been reorganized and reanimated. When you die you become earth, from which trees grow, which are then harvested for wood, which becomes a house, which ages and decays, returning the wood to earth, and so on. Matter never disappears, it simply changes form.

  • Pillai

    LEEH1 said: Without divine guidelines, they can raise their own children however they like- as free labor, sex toys or even fodder during famine. No one can tell another person it is wrong, since God doesn’t tell everyone the same thing. ————————— This gets the cake for a case for God? Are you saying none of the believers in God cheat/abuse/murder? So are you saying athiests are dangerous folks since they have no ‘guidelines’? Leeh1, it is called your mind. That is the compass that guides you, to understand what is right or wrong, and sometimes urges you to choose wrong over right? What is right? Is killing a person right? No – because that person does not live anymore. So killing is wrong. I do not need God to tell me that. Morality is not connected with only religious folks. You can be Godless and moral.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    joshmw: “I think their point is you cannot prove evolution, and at least give kids both sides.” “both sides”?! first, just to be clear, and make sure we’re talking about the same thing: evolution is not about the origin of life, but the origin of species – the origin of NEW species from existing species. it’s not big bang theory (origin of the universe) and it’s not abiogenesis (origin of life). again, “BOTH sides”?! “teach the controversy”, right? do you mean the biblical creation story and evolution? how ’bout the mayan creation story, and the egyptian and hindu and babylonian and zulu and aboriginal and….. the only “controversy” exists in the religious realm, where various religions claim theirs is the one, true story. i think you’ll find that the ONLY evidence for their claims in found their religious books, whereas evidence for evolution is found out there in the real world.

  • Sentient1

    Sorry kjohnson3, that wasn’t your quote. My apologies.

  • MGT2

    On a site where the majority of posters are atheists or evolutionists, it is easy for it to seem like the Creationists view is outlandish and “unscientific” as the writer says. However, a poll by the Gallop Organization found that “Only 14 percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and that God had no part in the process.” while 86% believe that “God” had something to do with it. Further “The figures have remained relatively the same over the past nearly three-decades, with the last group having shown a significant – though slight – increase.” Even Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein the possibility of some intelligent being bearing responsibility for creation. So while those on this site take comfort in their commonality, they are losing the war against faith and God. As it should be.

  • Sentient1

    MGT2: Of course Dawkins would admit that, as would any rational person, atheist or other. Sure god may exist, but so could any and all of the other gods. For all we know our entire reality is occurring on a piece of fruit in some larger plane. But the argument is that, based upon what we do vs. what we don’t know, every indication leads us to believe that the possibility of there being an intelligent, cognizant force directing our actions is basically nil. There are no absolutes in science, only the quest for more knowledge (unlike religion). BTW, secularism is indeed growing, and will continue to do so as education and intelligence spreads. There’s a direct correlation between lack of education and belief in god. Which side are you on? Stop taking the easy way out. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

  • ThomasBaum

    edbyronadams You replied, “Since we insignificant beings must reduce something as large as “God” into terms we can understand, if we are to talk about God’s nature, we must necessarily reduce him to a size that can fit in our limited brain box.” What I was trying to get across is that some have made God so “small” that they have God all “figured out”. God is a Being of Pure Love, that is love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being, this is beyond my comprehension and I believe beyond any human’s comprehension. This is not to say that one should not think about this or think about what flows from this fact. If one is comfortable, so to speak, with their thoughts about God, that is one thing but to say they know all about God and all of the “details” of what God has in mind then they are bringing God down to their level rather than aspiring to reach higher, so to speak. I, for one, am glad that GOD IS LOVE and I am also glad that some of the people that know God’s Name, seem to know nothing else about God, considering some of the vile, putrid, egotistical, revengeful bile that some spew out in God’s Name. If God were even remotely like what some that know God’s Name “conceive” God to be than I CANNOT see why anyone with a drop of decency flowing thru their veins would want to have anything to do with God. God’s Plan is for ALL, ultimately, to be in God’s Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. Christianity, even tho some thru the ages professing to be Christian have been, shall we say, unchristian in word and deed, is part of God’s Plan which God has had since before creation and God’s Plan will come to Fruition. God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows. Just because God knows how we will use our free will does not mean that it is not free, what it means is that we have too “small” of a “conception of God. One could say that this is one of the reasons that God came up with God’s Plan even before creation, God cares, so should we. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • bigbrother1

    It still amazes me how most religions (and their adherents) have to deny reality to function. You’d think that would clue most people in that it was a scam, but I guess that’s exactly what a lot of people are looking for. It’s what heroin addicts are looking for too. The reality of existence and the universe – even from the perspective of our limited understanding – is genuinely awesome and inconceivably complex. People like Darwin just add a new facet to our understanding. But I guess that’s why religion addicts hate him and his kind so much. Junkies hate anyone who interferes with their escapist high. I think it would be possible to have a religion that accepts reality and all its real mysteries. But not many humans are interested in that.

  • Carstonio

    Cameron is too young to have remembered the days when prayer was unconstitutionally mandatory in public schools, so it’s ironic that he claims America has gone to hell since then. He’s claiming that Christians are repressed in America, and he may not know or care that handing out Bibles in schools would be a form of repression by government against people of other religions. He seems to ignore the existence of other religions, seeing only the alternatives of (his version of) Christianity and atheism/secularism/Darwinism, as if those last three were the same thing. CalSailor, If something cannot be measured or tested or observed, then there’s no valid reason to have the certainty of belief about that thing. One can speculate in that absence of knowledge, as long as one makes it clear that one is speculating. There’s no such thing as “faith” in terms of the universe because the testifier is making assertions of fact, and all assertions of fact should be subject to scientific scrutiny. It may be more appropriate to talk about “faith” in terms of having faith in one’s friends or spouse or country, since that doesn’t involve issues of fact. “Exception to the normal conditions of reality” is a tautology, because we have no basis for saying that exceptions can happen. That concept rejects the possibility that a “miracle” may have a “natural” explanation that we haven’t yet discovered. To deem such events as miracles is to argue from incredulity, which amounts to making up an explanation when none is available. That argument is intellectually sloppy. If one doesn’t know something, then the only responsible course is to admit that one doesn’t know.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    jdadson: “1. Breaking News… The “missing link” is no longer missing.

  • MGT2

    Sentient1 The Bible tells us that we only know very little now, and makes it clear that there is a lot still to learn and know. That is what spurred the pioneers (men who believed in God) of what we call science, to pursue knowledge because it is the “honor of men to search things out.” That to me, is a call to be educated. In fact, there are, and you know them, many respected scientists who also believe, and they are educated. You admit that it is possible that God exists but look at the evidence and say it is improbable. They look at the evidence and say, of course, God is! It is not a matter of education; it is a matter of interpretation and belief.

  • cornbread_r2

    Carstonio: As best as I can piece together, the RCC seems to endorse a form of Intelligent Design in regards to evolutionary theory. Accordingly, while they do not dispute that natural selection over billions of years has resulted in the life forms presently in existence they also hold that this process is being directed, in varying degrees of subtlety, by God. They also seem to insist that at some point in the distant past (perhaps a few hundred thousand years ago) God supernaturally selected 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) and infused them with souls. (It seems important to their theology that it was only 2 individuals, male and female, as opposed to an entire sub-species of hominid, because an entire sub-species couldn’t have committed the singular Original Sin for which Jesus had to atone and because these 2 individuals represented the first, God-ordained marriage — marriage being a key symbol throughout their theology on many levels.) This view is supported by the recent unqualified airing on EWTN, the conservative Catholic television network, of a program entitled “The Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwin” produced by the Northwest Creation Network, followed the next evening by a soft-ball interview with Benjamin Wiker, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. At the same time, however, the RCC also does not seem to actively discourage belief in the literal story of creation as presented in Genesis. On this subject, as with many others, the official RCC position is extremely difficult to nail down with any certainty. ——– To those who see no conflict between ID and evolution through natural selection: Why would a omnipotent designer: 1) Choose a process that completely conceals its involvement? 2) Choose a process that inflicts maximum pain on its beloved creatures? 3) Choose a process that is incredibly inefficient and wasteful?

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “We can’t rule out the possibility of things that may exist beyond our senses (and I stress the “may” part).” If by “beyond our senses” you mean our sense of taste, touch, sight, sound and smell, then there are many, many things in the physical earthly world that we have “found” that are beyond our senses, aren’t there? Not to mention those outside of the confines of earth. You then wrote, ” How would a god-believer convince a Martian or a Tau Cetian that the existence of gods is factual?” As I have said, I used to believe in God until I met God, now I know that God Is. Why would anyone even attempt to “convince”? There are many people that believe in God that do not KNOW for a fact, I was one of them. There also seem to be many that are “blowing their own horn”. Before I met God, I believed in God but I did not know it as a fact, this is one of the reasons why I try to point out that the words, believe and know, have different meanings. You then wrote, ” Or for that matter, how would a “hard” atheist convince such an alien that the non-existence of gods is factual?” I suppose with the same non-proofs of God’s non-existence that some give now to earthlings. It appears that a lot of people, believers and non-believers alike, are in for quite a surprize when they find out that God is not the egomaniac that some believe God to be. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    MGT2: “In fact, there are, and you know them, many respected scientists who also believe, and they are educated.” indeed there are many respected scientists who are believers, but those who believe in a 6-day creation 6000 yrs ago are not respected by scientists. mind you, there are MANY theists who “believe in” evolution, but no atheists who think the evidence points to a 6000 yr old universe.

  • MGT2

    walter-in-fallschurch I too have a problem with the 6000 years proposition. It is doubtful that many of these believing scientists agree with that either. I look at something as simple as stalactites and see many more years than the flood (which I believe) can account for – unless God miraculously carved those structures to look like they were laid down by water (it would require tens of thousands of years to form the largest stalactite, the Jeita Grotto in Lebanon, 26.9 feet tall, at a rate of one square inch every 300 years).

  • willandjansdad1

    From the Vatican this year… Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin’s theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages. Come on Kirk….Is being a D-lister that bad?

  • coloradodog

    Right Cameron, condoms cause AIDS and abstinence education worked for Sarah Palin’s daughter, too.

  • Fate1

    Walter, if you believe in the flood, how do you explain how kangaroos hopped to Australia from the ark? Or do you not believe in the ark part of the story?

  • hohandy1

    I don’t understand the equation of Darwinism – who lived well after the time of the founding fathers – is equated with the idea of separation of church and state. One attempts to explain nature and biology – one attempts to create a civil government that respects all religions by favoring none. They have nothing to do with each other. Who is perpetrating the “hoax” here?

  • ebleas

    Ah, yes, we should all believe Kirk Cameron, right? After all, this is a man who’s main proof of creation and Intelligent Design is that a banana happens to fit perfectly into one’s hands. Well, thats enough proof for me! (yes, this was sarcasm)

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1: “Walter, if you believe in the flood….” huh? i must not have been clear or something… i’m an atheist – for now. i mean, who knows, there could be a god, but there’s no evidence for one yet. noah’s ark is the most ridiculous story in the bible. what made you think i believed in noah’s ark?

  • wturecki

    Paolo Gris wrote: Those men in Vatican City could see beyond their dogmatism quite some time ago. ___________________________________ If you were foolish enough to bring this matter up with your priest in the time of Galileo (circa 1625) you would have been exhiled or imprisoned or executed, depending on the mood of the pope.

  • Fate1

    Chops2 wrote: “If evangelicals put the same amount of effort scrutinizing their own beliefs as they did in evolution they would surely come to the conclusion that virgins can not have babies, the earth isnt 10,000 odd years old and that there is absolutely, unequivically no evidence at all for the existence of god, unlike evolution.” I’ve been asking for years how the kangaroos hopped from the ark to Australia but have not received any response. I’ve also not heard why a perfect God made man with an appendix that has no function but it works just fine in a horse and other mammals. The list goes on. Science and reason have no place in some religions but when these people are deathy ill they run to the house of science, a hospital, and not the house of God. I think many know its all pretend.

  • hyjanks

    Hey, Bobmoses! Are you related to that other Moses guy? In any event, I don’t, as you say, hate the religious among us. I’m just trying to figure them out. In there final analysis, what do they actually want by trying to convince us that the earth was not around when the Phoenicians were brewing beer (making their beverage on the Moon, perhaps?), that the first woman on earth morphed from the rib of that guy fond of fig leaves, or that dinosaurs were stomping around the planet while man tried his best from being eaten by them? What I really want these primitives to do is forsake modern science based on evolution; I want each and every one of them (including you, apparently) to refuse treatments for illnesses that medical science has formulated simply by following Darwin’s advice. Going to the drugstore to get that flu shot, Moses? Don’t bother, ’cause the content of that hypodermic needle was designed to fight an illness that is constantly “evolving”. All I want you and your cohorts to do is put your lives where your beliefs are: Refuse all the fruits of science, medical and otherwise, and see if your god lets you live to a ripe, old age. How about it, Moses?

  • ebleas

    Mike542 wrote: “All you who believe in evolution give me the top three scientifically proven reasons for it. The fact is there is not even one.” Sequencing the human and chimp genones revealed the presence of telomers in human chromosome 2 exactly where one would expect them if our chromosome 2 was produced from the merging of two ancestral chromosomes. This was practically indisputable proof that our chromosome 2 resulted from the fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. And in the words of the author: “Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.”

  • jaxas

    Interesting discussion but pointless. When one rejects the physical world we live in–as people of faith must ultimately do to maintain their belief system–no recitation of empirical evidence will be sufficient to move them off even the most fantastic notions. Recent polls indicate that 2 out of 10 Americans believe the President of the United States of America is an illegal alien. Evidence to support this idiotic notion is nonexistent while evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Yet that 2 out of 10 continues to believe in such nonsense. Why? Because they are emotionally invested in their beliefs. The same is true of those who reject evolution notwithstanding the overwhelming amount of evidence that its workings in our biological processes are transparent. But, if you have a belief system that rejects even that process–the fact that we are bilogical creatures and not spirits–there is no point any carrying on the discussion any further. You might just as well be talking to your dog or cat–two biological creatures for whom the Bible offers no hope for salvation beyond this life.

  • Carstonio

    Hohandy, maybe people like Cameron equate Darwinism with church/state separation because both conflict with their version of Christianity. Their belief system appears to be one of absolutes, about not just humankind’s origins but also the nature of government and society. Absolute truth is incompatible with empiricism such as that involved with Darwinism. And church/state separation reflects the principle of personal conscience, where truths about human existence are subjective.

  • Fate1

    “what made you think i believed in noah’s ark?” When you said: “I look at something as simple as stalactites and see many more years than the flood (which I believe) can account for …”

  • whocares666

    Married: Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom… Jaime Pressly… “Idol” alum Justin Guarini.

  • moemongo

    This is the reason “newspapers” are loosing readership and revenue. This belongs in a tabloid edition not in a “respectable and reasonable” newspaper. The comic section of a tabloid newspaper.

  • Fate1

    Ah, but you probably meant you believed it would take more years than since the flood, not believed in the flood. Sorry, my mistake…

  • Carstonio

    “I think many know it’s all pretend.” Fate, I can understand why an opponent of natural selection would accept science in the realm of medicine but not in human origins. I suspect it’s not necessarily about self-preservation, but about the value belief that humans are special and superior to animals. Although that belief is a vital component of Genesis literalism, it can be found outside the various religions as well. Natural selection does not inherently contradict that value belief, but opponents choose to interpret the concept that way. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that humanity can be the product of an undirected process and still be seen as special.

  • rpvt

    I wonder if Kirk Cameron actually read Darwin’s book before handing copies out. After all, many non believers started out as believers and have read the bible.

  • Carstonio

    Thomas, “there are many, many things in the physical earthly world that we have “found” that are beyond our senses, aren’t there?” Would you provide examples? “Why would anyone even attempt to “convince”?” Because either gods exist or they don’t. It’s a question of fact that has only two possible answers, and the objective is to find out the correct answers to all such questions.

  • katavo

    I think it’s more likely to be that believers know there is no such thing as a soul for animals. If humanity belongs in Animalia, then there are no souls for humanity. The entire carrot in this carrot-and-stick show rests on their ability to believe in these souls. That the evidence is so strong we are animals, that Darwin is the first person to really publish this theory … well, you can see why they hate him so much. You can see why they refute evidence … refute reality. They’re children, really. If they close their eyes and hold their ears, then they can have a soul.

  • Jumper1

    This reminded me of the story about the congressman gleefully rubbing his hands talking about the joys of “killing atheists” a few years ago. I can’t remember who it was, Charlie Wilson, maybe, when he was allied with Bin Laden et al.

  • Fate1

    “It doesn’t seem to occur to them [believers] that humanity can be the product of an undirected process and still be seen as special.” Posted by: Carstonio But that is exactly why humanity and all life is special. Its why we look at hurricanes and tornadoes with awe, because they came from nothing and are big, powerful and organized. They even feed. Systems organize naturally all the time. How life got started is a mystery, but to argue that something cannot come from nothing ignores the obvious. And this is why all life is special, except mosquitos of course. Why mosquitos exist is easily explained through evolution but not so easily explained through devine creation. But what I find equally interesting is believers who own dogs. Many believe their dogs will be with them in heaven, so strong is their love for them. The fact that this contradicts scripture is not an issue. Again, I think many understand its all pretend but like Santa are careful to be on the right side, just in case. And what they never do is wonder to themselves how they can love a dog and visa versa if they are not in anyway related.

  • JoeT1

    why should we take what Cameron says on creationism seriously when he is demonstrably lying on each and every one of his other claims?

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, it was MGT2 who said, “I look at something as simple as stalactites and see many more years than the flood (which I believe) can account for …”

  • Carstonio

    Fate, excellent point! After reading the article below, I suspect that many opponents of evolution, particularly the religion-motivated ones, view specialness in terms of authority and hierarchy. Maybe they would see humanity as special and superior only if those are bestowed by authority, as opposed to value conclusions reached by humans themselves.

  • pezdrake

    Ironically, I get all my spiritual guidance from “Growing Pains”. For instance how many people here know what to do when you accidentally make a date with two girls you like at the same restaurant for the same night? I do! Or when you get locked in your basement (hint: recall previous events that happened to you in the past few seasons). That’s all the guidance I need from Kirk Cameron.

  • Amused1

    Uh, you must have never read the OT. Case in point. Israel had 12 tribes. Judah and some in Benjamin and Levi (who later became the Pharisees/Saducees) are the OT and modern day Jews. That makes approx. 10 other tribes to account for. Lets see. The tribe of Dan was one of the other 10 that were scattered out of the area of what is now the middle east, and migrated to where the Danites, Danes, Danish are today. 2 others, Ephriam and Manasseh, are now modern day Britain and the US. What it all boils down to is that scripture, OT or NT ‘..just aint for the Jews’ That my friends is a crux of the deception (Rev 12:9) the adversary has had a hand in promoting all thru the years mankind has walked the earth. ********************** Oh, please tell me where you got this information? WOW, It is so totally wrong that I don’t even know where to begin. The people that became the Northern Europeans, (which includes many US Citizens) were in what became Northern Europe approximately 10,000 years ago. Our genetic coding tells us this. Tell you what contact the National Geographic Society and have a DNA swab test done. You may be surprised at the results. It can track your genetic ancestors. BTW – the Bible is not a chronological telling of the people of the Middle East. It is a collections of stories from many different tribes of people of Hebrew descent. Even they know this.

  • Carstonio

    “I think it’s more likely to be that believers know there is no such thing as a soul for animals. If humanity belongs in Animalia, then there are no souls for humanity.” That’s the fundamentalist Christian variation of the theory I am proposing. Some religions teach that animals have souls, and others teach that souls don’t have the same type of inherent existence that Christianity asserts. One can believe in those teachings and still accept natural selection – one could believe that human sentience brings the soul into being. I would be interested to know the stances of those religions regarding natural selection.

  • morryb

    Religion is endoctrination of the very young minds pure and simple. Keep telling very young minds that what you believe in is true over and over and over and you end up with people who have “Faith”. AKA as those who have been endoctrinated in superstitous myths. This is “Truth by Authority” not “Truth by Evidence and Reason”. If there is a God why are there so many religions claiming that they are the the “true” one?

  • jaysit

    Most college age kids will probably be wondering who Kirk Cameron is. They probably think he’s some guy who played Zac Efron’s dad in a movie, and are just waiting for Southpark to spoof him.

  • smc0047

    I spent 12 years in Roman Catholic schools in the 1960s (13 if you count kindergarten) and they taught evolution. It was never an issue.

  • roscym1

    Creationism is the 21st century’s version of the flat earth society.

  • bigbrother1

    It’s possible to respect someone’s beliefs, no matter how stupid, if the believer keeps them to himself. But when that someone insists that everyone else has to believe his stupid beliefs, then there’s no more call for respect. Why should you respect someone who’s actively disrespecting you? Xtian nutbags need to remember this when they whine and complain that they aren’t being respected by “the media” or whatever. They bring it on themselves. If they stop trying to run other people’s lives and thoughts, then nobody will care what they think one way or the other. And that ought to be good enough for them.

  • ccnl1

    And Thomas “the Talker to God” and “Moses of the NT”, also knows that “pretty, wingie, talking thingies exixt and they serve his god 24/7. How does Thomas know this? God told him so. The rest of us put them in the category of fairies and tinkerbells.

  • Carstonio

    Smc0047, I’ve read that before about Catholicism, and most of the Christians I’ve met who believe in creationism have been fundamentalists. In your view, what specific theological difference explains the two views of natural selection? Is it as simple as fundamentalism being more literalist regarding scripture?

  • grashnak

    Kirk Cameron vs Darwin? That’s like Darwin engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

  • ibgambill

    I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. In the scientific community, specifically at the collegiate level, there are many scientist who believe privately that God exists, but can not talk about it for fear of retaliation from adminstration and/or their own colleagues. They understand that the evidence is patchy at best. Darwin, I beleive, was sincere in his writings and provide us with an advance & fresh look at science in an attempt to provide an explanation outside of the church for our existence; however, specifically with what we now understand about the complexity of the cell, I believe Darwin, if he were alive, would have reached a far different conclusion.

  • EdSantaFe

    Yikes, another loony “the world is flat” believer… why can’t they believe what they believe and leave the rest of us alone? This is why the prohibitionists still rule the GOP.

  • Fate1

    I was just skimming through Cameron’s official website and noted something interesting. It says he was an atheist and turned christian at some point (around 17-18 years old according to Wikipedia). He met Ray Comfort, a man who Wikipedia describes as someone who rarely went to church while growing up yet became a pastor after school though never had any formal theological training. Comfort later formulated his message and met Cameron. The two formed the ministry. I just find it interesting that two people who never trained in theology could be the experts on the bible and God. I will give them credit however for forming the Firefly Foundation, a charity that gives week long vacations to terminally ill children. The ministry seems to be all about hell fire, damnation and being left behind. This is what he uses to convince people to find Jesus. In the ministry’s website the FAQ section is about people scared to death they will not be saved. An old tactic that is proven to work. As for the famous banana mentioned earlier, it seems Comfort used the banana’s shape as proof God made banana’s for humans to eat. The perfect food. But when it was pointed out to him that wild bananas are nothing like the bananas in the store, which were developed through horticulture over many years, he agreed the banana is not proof of God’s existence. I would hope he sees in his mistake, a mistake made out of ignorance, the ability to make others.

  • ThomasBaum

    Chops2 You wrote, “Scientifically prove god Kirk or shut up!” I know that this is not directed to me but I would like to comment to it. I have met God and I CANNOT “scientifically prove” that God Is. Just as I cannot prove that God Is, there is no one that can prove that God isn’t. God can “prove” to us that God Is, even tho we cannot “prove” that God Is, seems as if there are some, “both believers and non-believers”, that have such a “small” conception of God that they try to put God into a “box” of their own construction. One day, ALL will KNOW that God Is, until then I guess it will at least take someone to believe that there is Something or Someone greater than themself or the “toys” that we have constructed to even think that there is a “why” and not just a “how”. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ebleas

    “In the scientific community, specifically at the collegiate level, there are many scientist who believe privately that God exists, but can not talk about it for fear of retaliation from adminstration and/or their own colleagues.” Posted by: ibgambill Oh, please, this is hogwash. What’s your experience? During my studies at the University Of South Carolina graduate program, I had a professor who openly believed in, and talked about, God. He was well respected and like by both his students (myself included) and his peers. He continues to teach and do research today at the same institution.

  • edbyronadams

    “”both believers and non-believers”, that have such a “small” conception of God that they try to put God into a “box” of their own construction.” Since we insignificant beings must reduce something as large as “God” into terms we can understand, if we are to talk about God’s nature, we must necessarily reduce him to a size that can fit in our limited brain box.

  • gce1356

    Darwin’s book was titled On The Origin Of Species, not Origin Of The Species.

  • apspa1

    Oh sweet irony! As the foot soldiers of evangelism lecture us to forgo the false claims of evolution, their leaders build their fortunes and live lives of kingly splendor from the hard earned pennies of those faithful toilers. As the christian soldiers march onward carrying the banners high, the high priests gather in the back rooms of the churches counting their filthy lucre, gladdened by the evidence their parasitic lives are secure. March on urge the popes, the priests, the nuns, and the televangelists but don’t forget to put your nickel on the drum! Give, give, give now and there will be pie in the sky when you die.

  • jeffc6578

    Kirk Cameron is just another lying evangelical Christian. What is it with evangelicals that they have to lie, and think it’s OK to lie, in order to spread their “word”? If their “word” is so compelling, shouldn’t it be a place full of hope that people run to, as opposed to running from some monster the evangelicals create as a foil??? And isn’t it the height of dishonesty to claim that our liberties are being taken away, when in fact my liberty to impart my religious beliefs on my child, and no one else, especially some evangelical whacko who I’ve never metand with whom I disagree, is being maintained??

  • grashnak

    “however, specifically with what we now understand about the complexity of the cell, I believe Darwin, if he were alive, would have reached a far different conclusion.” Are you deranged? Please feel free to post the specific scientific evidence you have that the “complexity of the cell” – or anything else – invalidates the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is infinitely more evidence today for the truth of evolution than there has been at any time in history. I sincerely wish that creationist would not regurgitate pseudo-science that they’ve picked up off of some religious website.

  • Freestinker

    Cameron vs. Darwin? You have to work really hard to lose a debate with a dead man! Nice work Kirk.

  • Carstonio

    “we must necessarily reduce him to a size that can fit in our limited brain box” That sounds circular. Hypothetically, if someone never hears of or reads about the concept of gods, where would the person get the idea that gods exist? We perceive nothing that would indicate that gods exist. We can’t rule out the possibility of things that may exist beyond our senses (and I stress the “may” part). But any ideas about such things would seem to amount to speculation – there’s no way to test whether one piece of speculation is any more or less likely than any other. Maybe the concept of “God” is large because people define the concept that way. How would a god-believer convince a Martian or a Tau Cetian that the existence of gods is factual? Or for that matter, how would a “hard” atheist convince such an alien that the non-existence of gods is factual?

  • Freestinker

    “Since we insignificant beings must reduce something as large as “God” into terms we can understand, if we are to talk about God’s nature, we must necessarily reduce him to a size that can fit in our limited brain box.” ———— Gods are just beliefs, so they can be a large and complex or as small and simple as the believer imagines them to be. Our imaginations are unlimited and so are the gods therein. So whatever the case, we must always remember that when people claim to speak for god(s), they are really just speaking for themselves.

  • jama452

    Are some evangelical churches more shopping networks than church? Should tax exempt status be reviewd? When churches preach politics should tax exempt status be revoked?

  • katavo

    It’s a good thing for christianity that Cameron and his sort are doing this kind of thing, right? In the same way a vaccine is a good thing for small pox. In the same place where students are actually taught the difference between reason and faith, this crackpot arrives on the scene and provides blatant evidence of the poisonous disease of faith. Perhaps our students will be inoculated against such drivel as they pursue their adult lives. Thanks Cameron. I couldn’t have invented you if I tried.

  • Fate1

    jama452 wrote: “Are some evangelical churches more shopping networks than church? Should tax exempt status be reviewd? When churches preach politics should tax exempt status be revoked?” It helps to read the IRS section on this (501(c)(3)). When you read it you will see that these organizations, which include more than just houses of worship, cannot advocate for or against a specific candidate. They can voice whatever they want about issues and even political parties. They just cannot advocate candidates during elections. Its pretty narrow and allows all sorts of things to be advocated for or against. Still some manage to step over that line and it will be interesting to see, now that many of these churches equate Obama with the devil, how they will keep Obama’s name out of their advocacy in 2012. They will likely punt this to their tax paying partners at Faux Snooze.

  • edallan

    Certainly Kirk Cameron and his fellow denizens of alternate universes (which, actually, they probably don’t believe in) have been actively, aggressively spreading misinformation and disinformation. But are ignoramuses who are proud of their ignorance or people suffering from delusions actually “lying” where they’re talking nonsense? With respect to RafaelO, George W. Bush, and the others who contend that evolution is only a theory, so’s gravity, and, as many many people have pointed out, you can test the general applicability of gravity by climbing off a balcony. And, of course, like any bona fide “theory,” evolution like gravity can tested and refined and, if necessary, discarded — as has happened to, probably, thousands of theories since the 15th century. I feel badly, sort of, for Kirk Cameron and the fundamentalists who feel that every increasing piece of evidence from the fossil record and from comparative biology (and from astronomy, for that matter) for the increasing validity of scientific “theories” represents simply new uncovered proofs of the puzzles that that an ostensibly loving God placed on this planet, in this universe, 6000 years ago to test their faith. PS. For what it’s worth, even though I am not a yuppie, as far as I know, there’s nothing in the Bible or in science that says that the center of the universe is NOT me.

  • frederic2

    Of course, the simple minds who believe in every sort of fairy tales admire the equally simple minds like Cameron. They would believe just anything told them often enough, beginning in their childhood. And through all of history they killed everybody (some still do) who prefers to believe in a different superstition or no superstition at all. The God tales feel so warm and good. Religion means: I don’t know anything and I don’t want to know anything and I rather believe in a primitive proxy explanation than have the courage to open my mind and my eyes and try to connect the dots, which Darwin did. Cameron and his superstitious followers are galaxies below the cool and honest research intelligence of a courageous genius like Darwin, who, after 20 years of doubt, published his findings, which, by the way, have been greatly improved and advanced since, but never proved principally wrong by anybody, not even by people a little more intelligent than the child actor Cameron.

  • Freestinker

    “Or for that matter, how would a “hard” atheist convince such an alien that the non-existence of gods is factual?” —————- I’d just tell ‘em I ain’t seen one yet! Seriously though, a hard atheist would probably know that gods are just beliefs. And I doubt a hard atheist would claim that such beliefs do not exist when clearly, they do.

  • arminius3142

    Fate, I must comment here on your post of 9/29, 12:56 pm. One word: excellent. I am Christian, and I agree. Perhaps if a person follows the teaching of Jesus, even if this person rejects religion, or has never heard of Him, than in a sense this person has been ‘born again’, willy-nilly, by rising above wrongdoing. If heaven does not accept such people, I don’t want to go there.

  • braxton1218

    Fate, Arminius, Again, you are believing that your good works are good enough; how do you know they are….The Bible says: there not….Also, if you don’t believe you need to born again and believe in the God of the Bible; you won’t go there…meaning Heaven, you will spend eternity in outter darkness…in a word…Hell..I hope you search for truth and change your mind and most importantly, your heart….

  • braxton1218

    Fate1, Also, Abraham was Jewish and believed God and he was and is the father of those of the promise that when we see that we’ve sinned against a Holy and Righteous God and that we cannot, in our natural state even come into HIS presence. Until we agree w/God that we have sinned against Him, actually hated Him and we ask for His forgivess and turn to Him and what He did on the Cross and not what our heart tells us which is always deceitful and exceedingly evil, That’s the process of salvation/born again. Nothing more, nothing less, it’s a gift not of any works that we can do.

  • Fate1

    braxton1218 wrote: “That’s the process of salvation/born again. Nothing more, nothing less, it’s a gift not of any works that we can do.” So are you saying that the good samaritan went to the outer darkness, assuming he died after Christ did and thus came under the new covenant?

  • khote14

    We would see someone today claiming to have “met Zeus’ as either a charlatan or a nutcase. We might even prepare a padded room for him. The same for those who have met Ra, Quetzalcoatl, or any of the myriad gods humanity has invented over the millenia. In fact, those here today who claimed to have met the Christian god would feel the same way about these other people. Just add one more god to that list … you too are charlatans and lunatics. Does this god talk to you? Does he tell you to do things, like … oh, I don’t know, invade Iraq? Shoot abortion doctors? Beat your wife and kids? The only reason you aren’t in a padded cell right now is that sufficient number of other delusional people claim the same thing … or want to have this same “experience.”

  • Carstonio

    “Atoms, sub-atomic particles, ultraviolet and infrared light, sounds below and above our hearing range to name a few…Black holes which we have inferred but, and I am not sure of this, by their very definition cannot be seen.” We can perceive the effects of some of those, and in other cases we can perceive them through devices. That’s far, far different from claiming the existence of things that can never be detected scientifically. We cannot claim that such things exist. That’s a claim of knowledge that we don’t have. We can only suspect that such things MAY exist.

  • braxton1218

    Fate1: Abraham and all the prophets were before Christ; yet they were under the Mosaic law and Romans 4:1-4 states: What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. if you read Hebrews 12:1; Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross. I’m saying this to you because you don’t want to leave this earth without the grace of God and the Blood of Christ as the payment for your sin as again, there’s no other way except through faith in what He did even though we were still sinners, He died on the cross for us and those who believe in Him will have eternal life. Bargaining and not seeing clearly is self righteousness; you don’t want to stand before God in your righteousness, but His. Please think about this.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    braxton1218: “Nothing Made Everything…that’s exactly what evolutionists believe.” uh…no, it’s not. you’re conflating badly. there are 3 theories in play here: big bang (origin on matter/energy), abiogenesis (origin of life (breathing life into “clay”?)), and evolution (origin of new species from existing species). these are 3 separate theories. don’t mix them up. of the 3, evolution is by far the most well-developed and most well-supported. its specifics are “believed” with a much higher degree of certainty than the others. evolution is corroborated by studies of fossils and genetics. evolution does not, per se, say anything about big bang, abiogenesis or the age of the earth (but given our current understanding mutation rates, it does hint at more than 6000 years). i admit i have not read comfort or cameron, but i am nauseatingly familiar with the standard issues of “scientific dissent” (always by creationists…) from evolution. i’m too well-educated to find “flood geology” or even “intelligent design” convincing. flood geology is just silly, and ID is really jsut the “god of the gaps”: scientists don’t know how X happened, so god could have done it. if that god works for you, well ok, but his gaps are getting smaller by the minute. of the 3 theories, “big bang” is by far the best gap for god. right now, scientists don’t even think it is theoretically possible to know what was before, or what caused, the big bang. it could be god. but it’s not really about the science, is it? your (and many, many dissenters’) objection to evolution is really a religious/moral issue, right? i mean, if the bible said, “god made life on earth through an evolutionary process over billions of years”, you’d have no problem with it, right? you reveal your real objection when you say things like, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a Creator as that would mean you’d have to honor what He’s done and serve Him and not ourselves.” that last part does not follow from the first. and it does not have anything to do with the “believability” of the evidence for/against evolution. it’s a religious statement, based on YOUR conception of god (there are others, you know). so your objection is religious and it is moral (which you consider one-in-the-same, right?). your fear that if evolution is true, then there is no god. and if there is no god there are no morals. so, if evolution is true, then there are no morals. indeed, it’s a quandry for those comfortable with the childish literalist god of noah’s ark. you’ll have to talk to arminus and fate et. al. to see how they’ve evolved that god into a kinder, gentler god which they can still use as a moral guidepost.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    braxton1218, i said, “of the 3 theories, “big bang” is by far the best gap for god. right now, scientists don’t even think it is theoretically possible to know what was before, or what caused, the big bang. it could be god.” there’s a great quote about the big bang from christian and nasa scientist robert jastrow: “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

  • ccnl1

    But many astrophysicists have gone beyond the Big Bang and noted evidence that the Universe has and will continue to recycle in a mode of expansion and contraction. It is called the Gnab Gib cycle. An example of contraction up close and personal: As noted by Bob Berman in the December issue of Astronomy Magazine, the current human race would fit into a volume of a sugar cube weighing 500 million tons if you removed the space amongst the neutrons, electrons, protons and all the other sub-atomic particles. As also noted by Dr. Berman, life in all its forms is simply and basically then about energy/gravity and the perception of this energy/gravity. Would the stochastic process of throwing sub-atomic particles in a mix of motion and energy result in life as we know it? Statistically, yes it would!!!! Would such a mix occur on another planet of one of the 6 x 10E22 stars out there? Probably, but planets rotating about other stars were hard to detect until recently and the visual restrictions and the “slow” speed of light limits our knowledge of these potential other worlds. So do we need a creating god or is it simply all about the Big Bang and the “Gib Gnab” recycling for infinity?? Then you have: According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book, “Biocentrism”, the last frontier is Consciousness. An excerpt: “However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there.” p. 160. “Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.” p. 93. “So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism’s jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else. “p. 167

  • Fate1

    braxton, Is the good samaritan in heaven or hell? I’m not sure if you are dancing around this or just haven’t addressed it directly. Ok, lets forget that good samaritan and consider others. Lets consider the heros in China who ran into crumbling school buildings after the Schezuan earthquake and saved children, or the thousands of people who for whatever reason live peaceful and helpful lives, coincidentally as Christ showed us to do through example, but do not believe in God. What happens to them? If I remember right, the new covenant was for all men so that sins would be forgiven. Why would God punish someone who lived as He has hoped but only had the flaw of not believing a supernatural God existed when God has done all that he can to hide His presence. This reminds me of the Catholic school paradox of the good man who does not believe in God going to hell while the mafia boss, on his deathbed, receiving last rights and going to heaven. Or the other paradox of a boy praying for a bike but learning that praying for personnel gain is not Christ-like, so instead the boy steals a bike and then prays for forgiveness as the church allows. So I think what you are saying is that one can truly believe in God and his sins will be forgiven, and thus attain heaven, no matter what sins committed, but the one who has never committed a sin will not reach heaven without believing in God, due to original sin or some such legal small print. But I have to wonder what God thinks of those unbelievers acting more like christians than most christians. Just what are we here for is only to believe in the christian God and why did Christ spend so much of his time preaching about how we act?

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    my understanding is that “gnab gib” theory is not supported (at the moment) by measurements and estimates of the mass of the universe and so on. it is an appealing theory, though, and very much like the hindu “cosmic egg” “theory”.

  • Freestinker

    “That sounds like you have read Harlan Ellison’s “Deathbird Stories.” Ellison wrote, “When belief in a god dies, the god dies. When the last acolyte renounces his faith and turns to another deity, the god ceases to be.”" ————- Carstonio, Nice quote. Right on target. No, I haven’t read Ellison but I’ll be sure to look him up. My conslusion is based strictly on personal observations and a complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of any gods. Someone, maybe you, told me the proper term for the idea that gods are just beliefs, is Fideism. It seems rather simple to me. Gods are, at a minimum, just beliefs. That much is certain. Until we find some credible evidence that gods do in fact exist independently, outside the minds of believers, it seems perfectly obvious (and highly probable) that gods are, in fact, just beliefs.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, “braxton, Is the good samaritan in heaven or hell? I’m not sure if you are dancing around this or just haven’t addressed it directly.” i think he HAS answered that quite clearly. he thinks, based on the bible, that the good samaritan, all those good people you mentioned, gandhi, and even YOU (and certainly me) are going to hell. all that reasonable stuff you said about “good works” and so on is “self-righteous” and doesn’t get you into heaven, belief does, according to braxton’s interpretation of scripture. i think that’s pretty much the standard interpretation, right? you gotta believe to get to heaven? i mean, i wish you were right, i wish the bible put MUCH more emphasis on “works” than “faith”, but “faith” seems to be very important to god. god seems kind of insecure to demand faith in him to get to heaven.

  • Fate1

    ccnl1, The latest scientific observations are that the universe’s expansion is accelerating (dark energy) with not enough gravity to slow it down. Unless something else is found the universe will expand faster and faster to the point where it will expand so fast even atoms will be ripped apart. About 50 billion years from now. Considering the sun only has about 5 billion more years to keep us warm I guess we shouldn’t worry. And observations of the cosmic background radiation show the universe must have had something before it that created an imbalance. Otherwise the big bang should have created a perfect fog of hydrogen and helium equally dispersed and not the clumpy dispersal we see in the rememants of the cosmic background radiation. One theory is that there was something before the big bang. And models of the center of black holes are looking more and more like models of the big bang’s center. Time will tell but cosmologists now believe they may be able to theorize about something before the big bang, which they never thought they could do.

  • Carstonio

    “it’s a religious statement, based on YOUR conception of god (there are others, you know).” Excellent point. Just as no one can say with any knowledge and authority whether gods exist, no one can say what those gods would be like if they did exist. I find it interesting that in debates over evolution versus Christian creationism, no one seems to declare a belief in a non-creator god. “My conclusion is based strictly on personal observations and a complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of any gods.” What did you observe? Your conclusion doesn’t appear to be testable. My point is that we should avoid making untestable conclusions about the universe.

  • Athena4

    “That sounds like you have read Harlan Ellison’s “Deathbird Stories.” Ellison wrote, “When belief in a god dies, the god dies. When the last acolyte renounces his faith and turns to another deity, the god ceases to be.”" Or Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods”. Excellent book, BTW.

  • MGT2

    “this is indeed a curious statement. i take it how you originally took it. i guess MGT2 thinks there was a flood of some sort in mesopotamia (or the world) sometime a long time ago? MGT2? care to clarify?” I believe there was a flood, whether localized or global is not the issue in my statement. However, cultures all over the world have stories of a memorable flood that is more significant than the “many” floods of antiquity. There is also a Discovery Channel documentary (I think the title may have been “The real Eve”) which shows that all modern humans can trace their ancestry, via mitochondrial DNA, to to a West African woman.

  • ThomasBaum

    Fate1 You wrote, “But His plan failed so badly that he had to destroy the world and start again.” God’s Plan which God has had since before creation has never changed contrary to whatever anyone may think. As a matter of fact, God’s Plan is unfolding before our very eyes. Lots of people look at the bible in lots of different ways. The bible can help lead one to the God of creation, but God can use anyone or anything to get thru to man, as in a member of humanity, if man is only willing. When you meet God, if you feel so inclined then maybe you might want to give God some pointers on how you feel God should have handled creation. As I have said, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth which will arrive on the seventh day after the night of the sixth day. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    braxton1218 You asked, not me, but you asked, “Let me ask you: do you believe you deserve heaven and can you earn it by giving to the poor, serving at your local church or at a boys club…” It is not about brown-nosing God in any way, shape or form including saying that one accepts Jesus as their Saviour. As Jesus said, “They multiply words but their hearts are far from Me”. It is about God extending the “gift” to ALL and for some of those ALL, to die for some of those that outright reject the “gift”. It is not about picking up one’s “get out of hell” card and ultimately not caring about the other as long as one gets to the “good place”. It is about God’s Plan that ALL be in God’s Kingdom, ultimately, not a few, not some, not a lot but ALL. As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • adirondackAtheist

    god is just an opinion. Like the tooth fairy. An escape for little kids. Jezzus Krist is also a non=entity. Go look it up. The “gospels” disagree by some 200 years as to when Jesus was born. His birthplace was non-existent. His language made no sense at all. Jesus was a common name, but “Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the son of god” never existed. You are all fools who believe in him, or who believe in god. Any god. There is no god. There are no miracles. miracles do not exists. stories of miracles are untrue. Give it up, idealists. Not only is god dead, it never existed. Even for a moment. Darwin Rocks!

  • ThomasBaum

    braxton1218 You wrote, “Again, you are believing that your good works are good enough; how do you know they are….The Bible says: there not….” The bible also says, “Faith without works is DEAD”. It must break Jesus’s Heart to see some people twist what He said and did, into such a twisted “conception” of God whereas God happens to be a BEING OF PURE LOVE. Isn’t it something that some people are better “Followers of Jesus” that don’t believe Jesus to be Who He Is than some of those that believe that Jesus is Who He Is, didn’t Jesus extend the invitation to “Come follow Me”? You also mentioned hell, do you have a clue what hell is? Something to think about: Imagine that you kicked the bucket and woke up in heaven and to your surprize it is even way beyond anything that you could have imagined. As you are soaking it in, so to speak, you happen to look down and you happen to see your mother or your father, your sister or your brother, your husband or your wife, your son or your daughter or your best friend in hell, how heavenly would heaven be then? One’s response to this, I believe, speaks VOLUMES about one’s heart. Jesus said, “Father forgive THEM”, He did not say “except for”. Jesus won the keys to hell and death and will use them in due time. Do you think that God asked us to be more forgiving, more loving, more merciful that God? “Love one another as I have loved you”, sound familiar? He didn’t say, “Love one another so you can get to the “good place”, did He? Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    MGT2, “I believe there was a flood, whether localized or global is not the issue in my statement. However, cultures all over the world have stories of a memorable flood that is more significant than the “many” floods of antiquity.” people live near rivers. rivers flood. tsunamis happen. sea level rises. the flood stories are all different in detail. they occur at different times in history. “mitochondrial eve” is from about 175,000 yrs ago. she never knew “y-chromosome adam” (or noah). indeed, there are parallels between the bible and science – but they’re just parallels: the bible got all the details wrong. in a sense we did “come up out of egypt”. that’s where humans originated millions of years ago. scientists suppose there have been multiple migrations “out of africa” over the ages (on time scales of 10s of thousands of years). they were not running from pharaoh or anything, though.

  • PSolus

    Thomas Paul Moses Baum You wrote: “As I have said, I used to believe in God until I met God, now I know that God Is.” Many people claim to have met or talked to your imaginary god. In fact, one person who claimed that your imaginary god talked to him also claimed that he took the form of a black labrador retriever. You don’t happen to own a gun now, do you? See you on Sesame Street. Don’t worry, be happy. Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “We can perceive the effects of some of those, and in other cases we can perceive them through devices. That’s far, far different from claiming the existence of things that can never be detected scientifically. We cannot claim that such things exist. That’s a claim of knowledge that we don’t have. We can only suspect that such things MAY exist.” Maybe we can’t claim that God Is but I can and do. Maybe we can’t claim knowledge that we don’t have but I can and do claim knowledge that I have. Just because you do not have knowledge of something does not mean that all do not have knowledge of aforementioned something. I am not asking anyone to believe or not believe that God Is, I am just saying that God Is, it is that simple. Another thing that I have pointed out repeatedly is that some of the people that know God’s Name, this fact seems to be the extent of their knowledge of God. There are many that have chosen themself to speak for God and I have said and say again that God has chosen me to speak for God. This is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that I know it all because that is far from reality. I do not know all of the details and I really do not have the desire to know all of the details, one could say that that is God’s Job. God’ Plan is not only for All of humanity but also for All of creation. As I have said, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. By the way, satan is a sore loser and his time is short. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • US-conscience

    Actually, Kirk, they not only can open a Bible in school, Oh Yeah ? At my daughters middle school ( one of the largest rignt here in the shadow of washington D.C. ) A girl just got suspended for BRINGING a Bible to school ! Actually, Kirk, our kids are free to pray anywhere they like, even in school. Oh yeah ? Actually the students where told they could not have a place or time set aside for (christian) prayer – even though the Muslims have a classroom devoted to their “right” to pray 5 times a day. Actually, Kirk, God’s Top Ten can be displayed in many public places, True – the 10 COMMMANDMENTS still proudly stand behing the bench and on the doors of the supreme court, but there have been dozens of law suits removing them or trying to remove them from every other public place – not to mention hundreds of other law suits trying to get any reference to “God” eliminated: note the battle to remove “in God we trust” from currency and “one nation under God” from the pledge. If you want to make fun of Kirk and the majority of the population that IS concerned about the future of our Christian Heritage in this nation – thats your right ( thanks in no small part to the Christian World View of the founding fathers ) – but your “actually Kirk”‘s are sounding hollow and deceptive. But why try to scare people into believing in God? Isn’t fear the opposite of faith? Even though the Bible does say “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom” ( thats probably referring to the fact that God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness combined with the fact that, according to the latest surveys, 10 out of 10 people die ) Thats not what Kirk and Ray are trying to do, they are trying to educated students who have been misled by a majority of agnostic and atheistic professors who expound macro-evolution as fact, when most of the scientific studies done recently point to the failure of Darwins theories to be even possible. – But, as my brother likes to say “people dont want to believe what they dont want to believe” – the best way to confront the out dated ideas of macro evolution is to educate the masses on the latest studies and scientific conclusions. Most people who are steadfastedly holding on to the quaint theories of macro evolution are people who dont really know what they are talking about. They are sounding a lot like those learned and educated men of 500 years ago that laughed at the idea that the world was not flat. But like the PHD professor said: “…if evolution is not true (and it appears to be so, ) that means that God created us, and that is completely unacceptable ! Well, it may be unacceptable, but its true.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    ThomasBaum: “Jesus said, “Father forgive THEM”, He did not say “except for”. Jesus won the keys to hell and death and will use them in due time.” oh, i beg to differ. jesus made a lot of “exceptions”. while jesus said some nice things, he came bearing a sword (mt10:34) to divide people. he wanted as many believers as possible, and woe unto unbelievers (mt11:20-24). the good news, the “gospel”, of jesus is that yahweh plans to kill everyone in a horrible apocalypse, but (if you sign up now), he’ll save you from all that. belief (in his particular god) is the dividing line. contrary to popular opinion, jesus DOES NOT offer salvation to everyone. he spoke in parables to prevent “outsiders” from understanding his message: he told his disciples, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!” (mark 4:11,12) like many a cult leader, he told believers to leave their families behind to follow him. he explains, “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (mt10:35-38) this is bad morals, and it’s not exactly good family values. while jesus did not kill unbelievers on the spot, he promised them eternal damnation beginning with a horrible “death” on judgment day (which he mistakenly thought was coming soon….). no, doubt, the new testament is a breath of fresh air compared to the old. the moral advance of the new testament is that believers should leave the killing of unbelievers to god – so, at least there’s that….

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, it was MGT2 who said, “I look at something as simple as stalactites and see many more years than the flood (which I believe) can account for …” this is indeed a curious statement. i take it how you originally took it. i guess MGT2 thinks there was a flood of some sort in mesopotamia (or the world) sometime a long time ago? MGT2? care to clarify? of course there have been MANY floods of the tigres/euphrates rivers over the years. rivers flood. but there is NO evidence for a global flood. there is no evidence that the world’s 6+ billion people are descended from 1 man and 4 women anytime in the historical past.

  • Fate1

    Apologies to MGT2 and Walter, getting them confused about the flood issue. It was working on something else at the same time. Now I know why you shouldn’t use a cell phone and drive :-) My issue with the flood is the gross impossibility of it. Just focusing on the story of the flood alone, that it covered the whole earth killing all land animals, that the ark had two of every kind of animal (not some, but all living kinds. The fossil record alone shows the story impossible IF as some believe the earth is only 10,000 or so years old and man and dinosaurs lived together. Plus you would think the writers of this story would mention the largest animals that ever lived. Then there is the aftermath: a dead earth, no life anywhere on land except on Noah’s ark. Then the animals leave the ark and somehow get to Africa, I guess crossing the Red Sea, the kangaroos hop to Australia swimming across oceans it seems, even the kiwis walked to New Zealand which is about 1,000 miles from the nearest land. But none of this bothers true believers in the literal bible.

  • Fate1

    US-Conscience wrote: “Thats not what Kirk and Ray are trying to do, they are trying to educated students who have been misled by a majority of agnostic and atheistic professors who expound macro-evolution as fact, when most of the scientific studies done recently point to the failure of Darwins theories to be even possible.” What “studies” are you refering to? US-Conscience wrote: “But, as my brother likes to say “people dont want to believe what they dont want to believe” – the best way to confront the out dated ideas of macro evolution is to educate the masses on the latest studies and scientific conclusions.” And what would those be? Where were they published? Who peer reviewed these studies? US-Conscience wrote: “Most people who are steadfastedly holding on to the quaint theories of macro evolution are people who dont really know what they are talking about. They are sounding a lot like those learned and educated men of 500 years ago that laughed at the idea that the world was not flat.” Those “educated men” where church leaders whose job was to maintain the faith and jail anyone who said the earth might be round or was not the center of the universe. US-Conscience wrote: “But like the PHD professor said: “…if evolution is not true (and it appears to be so, ) that means that God created us, and that is completely unacceptable ! ” What PhD said such a stupid thing? Do you have a name or is this just another urban legend repeated because it backs up your beliefs? What really irks me about those who would require us all to be christians is that they do not, as Christ suggested and lived, show the worth of christianity through their exemplary lives. Instead it must be shoved down people’s throats through fear, intimidation and law, something Christ would be apauled to see.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    US-conscience: “Oh Yeah ? At my daughters middle school ( one of the largest rignt here in the shadow of washington D.C. ) A girl just got suspended for BRINGING a Bible to school !” is there more to this story than you’re letting on? i mean, there’s probably a bible in the school library. if she just brought the bible to school and was planning on reading it at lunch or something, then she should not have been suspended. “Actually the students where told they could not have a place or time set aside for (christian) prayer – even though the Muslims have a classroom devoted to their “right” to pray 5 times a day. can’t children survive 8 hrs without prayer? there’s plenty of other time for prayer. i don’t want my daughter’s (also in middle school) time taken up with supplications to imaginary gods… we take her to church on sundays for that….(we really do) schools are allowed to offer classrooms for “bible study” etc… before and after school, right? muslims, apparently CAN’T survive 8 hrs without prayer, hence the silly need for that silly “salah” room. (don’t even get me started on muslims….) “…the 10 COMMMANDMENTS still proudly stand behing the bench and on the doors of the supreme court…” the 10 commandments are purely religious in nature and only survive in those places because of tradition. you know what else is on the frieze of the supreme court? Menes (c. 3200 B.C.) First King of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt. Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.) King of Babylon credited with founding the Babylonian Empire. Solomon (c. 900s B.C.) King of Israel and renowned judge. Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.) Legislator of Sparta. Solon (c. 638 – 558 B.C.) Athenian lawgiver. Draco (c. 600s B.C.) One of Solon’s legal predecessors in Athens. Confucius (551 – 478 B.C.) Chinese philosopher whose teachings stressed harmony, learning, and virtue. Octavian (63 B.C. – 14 A.D.) or Augustus. First Emperor of the Roman Empire. Justinian (c. 483 – 565) Byzantine Emperor from 527 until his death. Muhammad (c. 570 – 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. Charlemagne (c. 742 – 814) or Charles I (the Great). King of the Franks and Roman Emperor. King John (1166 – 1216) born John Lackland. Louis IX (c. 1214 – 1270) King of France who was canonized as St. Louis in 1297. Hugo Grotius (1583 – 1645) or Huig de Groot. Dutch scholar, lawyer, and statesman. Sir William Blackstone (1723 – 1780) English law professor and jurist. John Marshall (1755 – 1835) Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, from 1801 to 1835. Napoleon (1769 – 1821) Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815.

  • jaxas

    Look. People are free to believe anything they choose. What they are not free to do is get in your face about it. Cameron is going way beyond simply trying to inform or convert others into his belief system. He is peddling lies about people who do not accept his religious beliefs. In a very real way, he is acting just like those tea baggers and town hallers. They lost a free and fair election last year. Now they are spitting mad about it and think they have to get out and do something about it. But, tather than try to rationally convince people that what they believe is a better way to live and prepare for whatever faces us after death, they get in your facem hurl insults at evil forces they name as liberals or secularists, and in general feign resentnment at some perceive injustice done to them when in fact it is they who are perpetrating an injustice on those who simply want no part of their belief system.

  • jaxas

    The simple truth is that belief is grounded in ignorance. In the Dark Ages, people believed the earth was flat because they were ignorant. I use that word not as an insult but as a condition of the mind. We either know things or we don’t. When we lack knowledge, we speculate. Then speculation turns into belief in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary. Belief ultimate hardens into faith beyuond which no amount of evidence will suffice to move believers off a belief in something. The final stage hardens belief into tradition wherein the true believer no longer cares whether what he believes is true or not. Giving it up would mean surrendering one’s entire mental and moral edifice. That is why it is so difficult for traditionalists in this modern fast paced world where we are discovering a knowledge and power in the Universe that makes even God seem irrelevant. Consider the Black Hole or the Singularity at the center of a White Hole. Why would a rational God create such a malevolent device that could even imprison light? The obvious answer is that He wouldn’t. And what follow that conclusion is that He isn’t.

  • Fate1

    If two christians can’t agree (braxton and thomas), what hope is there for the rest of us in understanding the spaghettiness of the bible?

  • Fate1

    walter wrote: “while jesus did not kill unbelievers on the spot, he promised them eternal damnation beginning with a horrible “death” on judgment day (which he mistakenly thought was coming soon….)” Yes, which he said would happen within “this generation”, which would have been the generation of the apostles. And historians find an apocalypse happened in 70AD when the temple was destroyed. As for good people going to hell and not heaven without belief, I’ve already discussed the good samaritan. But how about the criminal on the other cross who asked for pity for Jesus, who had done nothing for his crucifixion. Jesus told him he would see heaven. He did not first ask if he believed in God.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    US-conscience, part 2 far from being “based on” the 10 commandments, the u.s constitution is an explicit REPUDIATION of the first 4 commandments. our legal system is based on the idea that no matter what god or gods one prays to, or does not pray to, all are equal in the eyes of the law. the first amendment GUARANTEES freedom of religion. the first commandment PROHIBITS it. yahweh explains, “He who sacrifices to any god except the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Ex22:20). “utterly destroyed” does not mean “suffer financial hardship,” or, “have a streak of bad luck with crops,” it means “killed.” this is the kind of morals fundamental islamic theocracies “base” their laws on. “…note the battle to remove “in God we trust” from currency and “one nation under God” from the pledge.” those are not the sentiments of the founders. they preferred the more inclusive “from many, one.” the god slogans are recent national spasms of existential angst: we added “in god we trust” to our money in 1874 in response to the trauma of the civil war and “under god” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 to (somehow) help protect us from a nuclear soviet union. these references to god ARE to the god of christianity. since the heady days of the founders, the ideals of well-meaning but pedestrian people and pandering politicians have eroded the wall of separation. “…the majority of the population that IS concerned about the future of our Christian Heritage in this nation – thats your right ( thanks in no small part to the Christian World View of the founding fathers )…” you know, you’re free to think the founders wanted a christian nation, and it’s true that some small-minded founding fathers did, but jefferson, adams, madison, the big ones, the ones who WON the debates said things like “The day will come when the mystical generation [i.e., birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” [Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823] do you get your ideas about “america’s godly heritage” from david barton?

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    US-conscience, part 3 “…most of the scientific studies done recently point to the failure of Darwins theories to be even possible.” huh?! which studies? please, i eagerly await your list of references. this should be easy for you since you said “most” [of the scientific studies]. please be SPECIFIC. “Most people who are steadfastedly holding on to the quaint theories of macro evolution are people who dont really know what they are talking about. They are sounding a lot like those learned and educated men of 500 years ago that laughed at the idea that the world was not flat.” ha! that’s totally “projection”. it is people who believe literally the quaint stories of adam and eve, noah’s ark, and the exodus that now sound like “those learned and educated men of 500 years ago that laughed at the idea that the world was not flat.” good one.

  • Carstonio

    Jaxas makes a good argument for why speculation is a unwise practice. It requires intellectual discipline to keep speculation from turning into belief, and I’ve been guilty of such lapses in discipline myself. In my experience, such lapses come from desires to want certain things to be factual or not factual. “we are discovering a knowledge and power in the Universe that makes even God seem irrelevant. ” What knowledge and power would that be? “Why would a rational God create such a malevolent device that could even imprison light? The obvious answer is that He wouldn’t. And what follow that conclusion is that He isn’t.” That may seem logical if we assume that our definition of rationality is universal. We shouldn’t make such assumptions. There are other possibilities, such as the god using a different definition of rationality, or the god being indifferent or even unaware of the consequences of its creations. The old Christian idea that “God moves in mysterious ways” is an intellectual cop-out, because it simply assumes inscrutable motives in the absence of knowledge. Also, black holes or singularities may seem malevolent to us because of the effects they would have on life forms. I caution against labeling such things as malevolent. That assumes that the things are conscious agents with intentions, or that they were created by such agents.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, it WAS weird to see “Walter, if you believe in the flood…”, but, no problem.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    jaxas, “We either know things or we don’t. When we lack knowledge, we speculate. Then speculation turns into belief in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary. Belief ultimate hardens into faith beyuond which no amount of evidence will suffice to move believers off a belief in something. The final stage hardens belief into tradition wherein the true believer no longer cares whether what he believes is true or not. Giving it up would mean surrendering one’s entire mental and moral edifice. wow…well said.

  • braxton1218

    Mr. Waters, Have you ever read any of Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron’s books on Evolution? I don’t believe you have or you wouldn’t be making blind accusations. You may want to take a read as they are full of truth that can be proven; unlike evolution; Nothing Made Everything…that’s exactly what evolutionists believe. Those who really need the information that Kirk, Ray and the staff of Living Waters have provided are hardened cynics and won’t even take the time to even review the material. I truly understand what Kirk and Ray and the entire ministry of Living Waters are trying to get across. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a Creator as that would mean you’d have to honor what He’s done and serve Him and not ourselves. Ever looked at a picture (say Mona Lisa), it’s considered priceless…and of course, there was a painter who painted it…interesting. Also, I have a son in college and the majority of his professors are liberal and teach untruths about social justice and are pushing their social, ungodly agenda on our young people which tells them; just have fun, don’t worry, we are our own captains (little Gods). I am grieved by what’s going on in society as the more God is removed, the more evil society becomes. I’d also like to say in the spirit of truth that most who speak about faith on websites, like this one, have a totally different take on who Jesus really was; (surely, not the one in the Bible). Until we bring God back to this country, We as a nation will continue to be at enmity with our Creator. I’m very thankful for John MacArthur, Kirk Cameron, Mark Cahill, Ray Comfort, Todd Friel, Mark Kielar and all those who understand the state of this country as well as the state of the souls of men from the Word of God and their life is surrendered to sharing the true gospel for their love for Christ (OUR CREATOR) and His CREATION…..

  • ccnl1

    Everyone should put the “proof” of god in the realm of Biocentrism: According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book, “Biocentrism”, the last frontier is Consciousness. An excerpt: “However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there.” p. 160. “Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.” p. 93. “So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism’s jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else. “p. 167 Since no one has actuall seen god (except Thomas, “The Moses of the NT”, the most we can say is that if he/she/it exists, said entity exists only as a probability wave.

  • ccnl1

    Hmmm, “Christ (OUR CREATOR) and His CREATION…..” Not according to many NT and historic Jesus exegetes!! To wit: A synopsis : Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents and archeology have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus’ sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles, healing- to stay on topic, and otherwise)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects. The 30% of the NT that is “authentic Jesus” like everything in life was borrowed and/or improved from those that came before. In Jesus’ case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, were founders of Christ-based religions who also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of “pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie” visits and “prophecies” for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions). See

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You asked, “Would you provide examples?” Atoms, sub-atomic particles, ultraviolet and infrared light, sounds below and above our hearing range to name a few. Black holes which we have inferred but, and I am not sure of this, by their very definition cannot be seen. This is just a touch and even tho we have discovered these and other things, there is much that we can not perceive, (see, hear, touch, taste, smell), with our senses. I wrote, “”Why would anyone even attempt to “convince”?” You responded, “Because either gods exist or they don’t. It’s a question of fact that has only two possible answers, and the objective is to find out the correct answers to all such questions” My answer was already given and it is that we will not be able to “prove” that God Is but that God can “prove” to us that God Is. If you want to “scientifically prove” that God Is, then go right ahead, I am just saying that this fact is “scientifically unprovable” but one day God will reveal that God Is. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Fate1

    Braxton, What do you mean “Until we bring God back to this country”? God IS in this country and His presense is everywhere. I don’t know of a single city or town without a christian church. And those churches are protected against the government either closing them down or writing their sermons. Freedom of religion requires the religions to fare on their own and their ability to survive in this secular nation shows their popularity. Or would you rather have a British type system where the church is run by the government. If you want to see a godless nation, visit the UK, and a government run church is why. The last thing any of us should want is the government having any say in religious activity. And I have read Comfort’s website, including the FAQ’s and answers to common questions, like how could all the species we find in the fossil record all have been alive at the same time on earth in the past since they would not have enough room to live had they all been alive at once. The answer was incredibly silly. The answer was that the oceans today take up about 70% of the surface of the earth (true) but in the past the sea levels use to be lower (true), so low that the oceans only covered 30% of the earth (false) so the land available was more than twice the land we have today (false). Besides the facts being wrong what they fail to understand is that the fossils were all found on land existing TODAY and so those animals at one time occupied today’s land area. But such a simple fact slips by. And if we look at the fossils in the Burgess Shale formation alone the amount of life in the past would have animals crowded together so close it would form a mass 1 mile deep over the entire earth’s surface. And that is just one source of fossils. The question I have is does anyone who believes in God care to check this out or are they happy to accept what seems plausible AND backs up their beliefs? I found one website where a believer has had enough and scoffs at creationists and young earthers, pointing out facts and at the same time explaining why the facts can coexist with a christian faith:

  • braxton1218

    Fate, When I stated that we need to bring God back; I mean in our homes, in our lives, in our thoughts and in the fact that He is our Creator. Yes, there are so many churches on each block and unfortunately it doesn’t mean God is in all those churches. Just turn on your television on a Sunday. Jesus said, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven. We all need a new birth. We are sinful creatures and as you can see on this website, most believe they are good enough. Giving to the poor is good but it doesn’t change our condition, giving a bottle of water to a college student doesn’t change your condition. Even giving someone a Bible unless they read it in the power of the conviction of their consicience, IT DOESN’T CHANGE THEIR CONDITION. If you have an oozing sore and you put a band-aid on it, it is just masking the horrific ugliness of the sore. Let me ask you: do you believe you deserve heaven and can you earn it by giving to the poor, serving at your local church or at a boys club…Again, it’s not about science or evolution; that’s just the excuse most make because we in our natural state do not want anyone to tell us what to do; is that true….We become those who google over the creation and not the Creator. Again, until we see our need to serve our Creator, this country and other countries around the world, including each individual that continually wants to live in their sense of self righteousness and a sense of morality IT WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR CASE AS IT WILL BE TOO LATE.

  • ThomasBaum

    cornbread_r2 You wrote, “To those who see no conflict between ID and evolution through natural selection:” I do not know everything about either ID or evolution thru natural selection but I am saying that God created everything except God. You then wrote, “Why would a omnipotent designer: 1) Choose a process that completely conceals its involvement? 2) Choose a process that inflicts maximum pain on its beloved creatures? 3) Choose a process that is incredibly inefficient and wasteful?” First off God is not an “omnipotent designer” whatever that is, God is a Being of Pure Love, Who has created with a Plan. Then 1) God is not an it nor a he nor a she, even tho God-Incarnate was a Male, not only did God give us free will but God also gave us a “sense of wonder”. Could this “wonder” cause us to wonder if there could be more than “meets the eye”, so to speak? Seems as if there are at least some that wander into the micro and macro of the created world and get more and more amazed, doesn’t it? 2) You have no idea what “maximum pain” is. 3) It may appear to be “incredibly inefficient and wasteful” to you but this is your opinion and we as humans have a limited “intellect”, do we not? Could some of this “inefficient and wasteful” if looked at from a “different perspective” be perceived differently? Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    ccnl1 You wrote, “The rest of us put them in the category of fairies and tinkerbells.” Who is this “rest of us”? It doesn’t seem to me that everybody except for me agrees with what you write, does it to you? Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    US-conscience You wrote, “Even though the Bible does say “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom” ( thats probably referring to the fact that God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness combined with the fact that, according to the latest surveys, 10 out of 10 people die )” In the bible, the “Fear of the Lord” has absolutely nothing to do with being afraid of God, what it means is “reverence and awe”. As a matter of fact, after meeting God, I wondered about that and looked it up because I could not understand why anyone would be afraid of a Being of Pure Love. God’s Plan, which God has had since before creation is for absolutely ALL, ultimately, to be in God’s Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Fate1

    Thomasbaum wrote: “First off God is not an “omnipotent designer” whatever that is, God is a Being of Pure Love, Who has created with a Plan.” But His plan failed so badly that he had to destroy the world and start again. Why he kept Noah’s family and the animals on the ark I don’t understand since it only took Him 6 days the last time to create the whole universe, and only 1 day to create all life, yet destroying the world took 40 days. And one has to wonder, when the ark landed, what those animals, and Noah’s family, ate, because nothing was left on the earth. What did the lions eat for example? Whatever they ate went extinct, no? How did the herbevors survive? What did they all drink since all rivers and lakes would have held salt water for weeks? But questioning the bible is not allowed I’ve heard. Then God made a pact with the Hebrews and went before them destroying their enemies and telling the Hebrews to kill all, enslave others and still rape others. Things seemed to be going swimmingly until the Romans occupied their land and stopped their warring ways. Then, for some reason, maybe because he just couldn’t get around the Romans, He changed plans again and sent us Jesus and a new covenant. If God created everything and has a plan, his track record so far would have gotten him fired from Mt. Olympus, if those gods were real of course. And though I agree God is pure love, watch a video (there must be some on the internet) of African wild dogs ripping apart a live antelope and ask where in God’s love that moment was planned.

  • ThomasBaum

    Question Why does it seem that some of the people that consider themselves “free thinkers” only seem to think that others can be free thinkers if the other thinks the way they think? Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Fate1

    Braxton wrote: “Jesus said, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.” So where did that leave the Good Samaritan? He was not christian because he did not follow Jesus. He was possibly jewish but from a different sect. Did he make it to heaven? And consider that Christ pointed this unholy man out to the apostles to teach THEM a lesson about love. No, one does not have to be reborn to get into heaven, one must simply follow Christ’s teachings and love thy neighbor. Braxtonn wrote: “Let me ask you: do you believe you deserve heaven and can you earn it by giving to the poor, serving at your local church or at a boys club…” I don’t believe one should work to “earn” their way into heaven. A mother does not work to “earn” the love of her child. And one certainly should not follow practices and rituals to earn a place in heaven. God will judge based on what is in your heart, not what your mind determines is the best way to earn salvation. Anyone can act the part. Braxton wrote: “Again, it’s not about science or evolution; that’s just the excuse most make because we in our natural state do not want anyone to tell us what to do; is that true….We become those who google over the creation and not the Creator.” Well, the evolution/creationist “debate” is not a real debate. One uses facts and the other does not. What bothers me to no end is those claiming to be on the side of God lying and misrepresenting facts. I see it as an end-justifies-the-means attitude to fool people into believing. Will those people who fool us into accepting religion be rewarded? Braxton wrote: “Again, until we see our need to serve our Creator, this country and other countries around the world, including each individual that continually wants to live in their sense of self righteousness and a sense of morality IT WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR CASE AS IT WILL BE TOO LATE.” Consider someone who does not believe in a god and yet lives what a christian would call a christian life. They love their neighbor, help out the poor and homeless because they feel a need to do so. They love their children and spouse and overall are in the likeness of Jesus, but do not believe in the supernatural, a bible that is contradictory and describes terrible things like slavery as normal and kings entitled to rule over us. What will happen to these good souls, like the good samaritan?

  • ThomasBaum

    walter-in-fallschurch I wrote, “Jesus said, “Father forgive THEM”, He did not say “except for”. Jesus won the keys to hell and death and will use them in due time.” You replied, “oh, i beg to differ. jesus made a lot of “exceptions”.” It is written that on the cross, Jesus said, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do”, does it not? There is no “except for” there, is it? You also wrote, “but (if you sign up now), he’ll save you from all that.” God does say that some terrible times are coming upon the earth but God does not say that He will keep ALL of those that follow Him from it, quite the contrary. Have you ever thought that some, if not more, of these “terrible times” could be coming from us and that God is letting us, since we have free will, bring it upon ourselves? I am not saying that this is so, but what I am saying is look at reality. Besides our trashing of the planet, we do seem to be obsessed with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and this may be just scratching the surface. This is when we want to do harm on purpose, what about when we inadvertently do so. You wrote, “contrary to popular opinion, jesus DOES NOT offer salvation to everyone. he spoke in parables to prevent “outsiders” from understanding his message: he told his disciples,” Did Jesus speak in parable to “prevent outsiders from understanding” or to let “others” to understand the “mysteries” of the Kingdom? Could Jesus have spoken in parables for more than one reason? Jesus did say that He would, “Send the Holy Spirit to guide …”, did He not? Not only were Jesus’s parables not understood by some but also many of the other things that Jesus said. Jesus said and did lots of things and not only that but He said that there was work still to be done, as I have said God’s Plan is for ALL. I have never said that some do not go to hell, what I have said is that those that do will come to realize that they built it themself. I have also said that Jesus went to hell by the act of taking ALL of the sins of All of humanity upon Himself, that is when He won the keys to the netherworld, hell and death. When Jesus said, “My God, My God why have thou forsaken Me?”, it wasn’t a chance for Jesus to say one of the psalms but was the time of it’s fulfillment. There was more than the “physical” going on at the crucifixion. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • razzl

    The irony here is that probably none of these people actually read Darwin’s “Origin of species” before they ordered up a printing of 100k copies or they would have realized what a bad idea that would be for their cause–Darwin is a reasonable scientist whose work is about defining and describing the mechanism of evolution, not about broader metaphysical issues. In the introduction Darwin offers the clearest and most compelling example of what he’s talking about, the breeding of domestic and farm animals in his own England. Every layman can understand that example and nobody, but nobody can deny that these breeds came about through selection by humans, so the process of passive natural selection over time is not going to seem like much of a stretch or something to raise much of an objection to…

  • Freestinker

    “What did you observe? Your conclusion doesn’t appear to be testable.” —- I have observed that many people believe in god(s). So all I can say with certainty is that god(s) are beliefs. ========= “My point is that we should avoid making untestable conclusions about the universe. ” —- You can test whether or not people believe in god(s) just by asking them or reading their opinions. What you can’t test is the actual presence of those purported supernatural beings. So that question remains open … but with the complete lack of empirical evidence compiled so far, it would be foolish to conclude that the existence of god(s) is very likely. A more rational conclusion would be that until any reliable, empirical evidence is found and confirmed, that god(s) are just beliefs and probably nothing more. So if god(s) are just mere beliefs, then every last one of them most certainly does exist … at least in the minds of the people who believe in them.

  • Fate1

    walter wrote: “do you really think “stars falling” and “son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” refers to the temple? really?” Well no, but the temple did fall as predicted. It has not been rebuilt. The generation passed looooooooong ago. Stars do not fall but wars and famine have come and gone. The sun and moon darkening is an eclipse, an omen in the ancient world, which has happened many times since then. So who is to say Jesus did not return? Christianity is worldwide. Who is to say Christ’s return was metaphorical (argh, a metaphor in the bible!?!) He could easily have been predicting the downfall of the hebrews and rise of Christianity. So Jesus may have very well returned, just not to everyone’s knowledge or in the literal sense. And I’ll concede the point about the guy on the cross. But there is still the question, did Christ say he would see paradise for his selflessness or for his belief, or both? I’d hate to think Christ sent the good samaritan to hell for not believing in Him.

  • Fate1

    Razzl, You are spot on. This is why in the religious times Darwin lived in, so religious he feared publishing his theory, it was so widely accepted. The simple notion that nature could do what man had done to farm animals was an obvious truth to anyone who knew about farming, and that was just about everyone back then. We only need to see the ignorance about farming coming from people like Ray Comfort, who used the modern banana as a proof of God’s existence since it is perfect for man to eat, not knowing today’s banana is the result of horticulture over the centuries to produce the banana of today. A wild banana would be unrecognizable to most people. (

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    fate1, you’re a reasonable person – it’s a pleasure conversing with you. “Well no, but the temple did fall as predicted. It has not been rebuilt.” so, he got part of it right… i know some people (zionists, millenial dispensationalists) believe somehow that the temple must be rebuilt before the second coming. i can’t quite figure out how that’s based on scripture. do you know? and indeed, jesus’ return could have been metaphorical – and thus the prophesy was fulfilled. you’ve got to admit, and i think you have, that (if the bible text accurately records jesus’ statements to the disciples) it sure didn’t seem to be metaphorical at the time…hence eschatology… “I’d hate to think Christ sent the good samaritan to hell for not believing in Him. me too. this is what makes all that “god is love” stuff ring hollow, and makes judeochrislam actually seem kind of mean to me. on your comment to razzl: “…people like Ray Comfort, who used the modern banana as a proof of God’s existence since it is perfect for man to eat, not knowing today’s banana is the result of horticulture over the centuries to produce the banana of today. A wild banana would be unrecognizable to most people.” that IS really funny! i hadn’t thought about that.

  • Carstonio

    “What you can’t test is the actual presence of those purported supernatural beings.” The reason for that may be that the “supernatural” concept is a tautology – it assumes another type of existence undetectable from this one. While I don’t reject that possibility, I also see no need to make the assumption in the first place. Another possibility is that “natural” and “supernatural” objects really have the same existence, with the latter detectable with methods we haven’t discovered. “but with the complete lack of empirical evidence compiled so far, it would be foolish to conclude that the existence of god(s) is very likely.” I would agree, as long as we make it clear that it’s the idea itself that is foolish, and not the people who hold the idea. Intelligent people can sometimes believe in things that appear foolish. “A more rational conclusion would be that until any reliable, empirical evidence is found and confirmed, that god(s) are just beliefs and probably nothing more.” We should avoid that type of certainty, because certainty amounts to a rejection of the possibility of contrary evidence. We can say that it’s extremely likely that gods are merely beliefs. I sometimes say that I cannot be certain of anything except what my senses perceive at any given moment.

  • ccnl1

    test

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1, re: the apocalypse: “Yes, which he said would happen within “this generation”, which would have been the generation of the apostles. And historians find an apocalypse happened in 70AD when the temple was destroyed.” i know that’s what you’re supposed to say, because jesus hasn’t returned yet, so far as we know. but he promised the destruction of the temple AND his second coming (on a cloud, with trumpets, no less!). while i’m sure the destruction of the temple was a horrific event for local Jews, it can hardly (with any intellectual honesty) be compared to Jesus’ end-of-the-world prophesies. review mt24. after predicting the destruction of the temple, jesus talks of “signs” of famines and plagues and war (always safe predictions…). then he says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other….So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” do you really think “stars falling” and “son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” refers to the temple? really?

  • ccnl1

    Fate1 noted: “But how about the criminal on the other cross who asked for pity for Jesus, who had done nothing for his crucifixion. Jesus told him he would see heaven. He did not first ask if he believed in God.” See Professor Crossan’s books, Who is Jesus, The Historical Jesus and The Excavation of Jesus, for a discussion of the Jesus’ crucifixion. Conclusion from these books: There were no eye-witness accounts of said crucifixion e.g. there could have been 100 thieves crucified that day or none.

  • Freestinker

    “We should avoid that type of certainty, …” —— Exactly. That’s why I said that “god(s) are just beliefs and probably nothing more”. The operative phrase here being “probably nothing more”. If religionists would simply judge the probablity of their god(s) existence by the very same standard they apply to everyone else’s god(s) and imaginary beings, I think they would see my point.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    Fate1: “As for good people going to hell and not heaven without belief, I’ve already discussed the good samaritan. But how about the criminal on the other cross who asked for pity for Jesus, who had done nothing for his crucifixion. Jesus told him he would see heaven. He did not first ask if he believed in God.” i think it’s great that you think “good people” who don’t “believe in god” go the heaven. i wish all christians (heck all religious people) thought that way, but i don’t think that’s mainstream doctrine? is it? btw, check out Luke 23:39-43 “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” Well, jesus didn’t have to ask him, the guy called him “lord” and mentioned “your kingdom” – it was clear to jesus the guy believed.

  • braxton1218

    I used to post on this website and stopped over a year ago as now I remember why. Let me first speak to those who profess that we don’t know God but God told you to speak for Him. I remember this is in Jeremiah 27-28 as He would never tell you to preach a false gospel to please men. In addition, didn’t Jesus state: Narrow is the gate that leads to life (eternal) and few find it and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many are on that path. Instead of respectfully, disagreeing, those on this post spew mean and hateful things about someone who you don’t even know. Living Waters and Way of The Master do very well as they teach biblical truth. Also, anyone who is a biblically sound teacher who writes or posts on here (say a John MacArthur, or someone who has diliently studied God’s word), are spoken of in disrespect. All I can say in closing is make sure you are sure about eternity because after 70 or 80 years of what you call life there’s another life. Search for truth in a repentant, contrite heart knowing that you’ve trashed the God who created EVERYTHING…

Read More Articles

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

noplaceonearth
An Untold Story of Bondage to Freedom: Passover 1943

How a foxhole that led to a 77-mile cave system saved the lives of 38 Ukrainian Jews during the Holocaust.

shutterstock_148333673
Friend or Foe? Learning from Judas About Friendship with Jesus

We call Judas a betrayer. Jesus called him “friend.”

shutterstock_53190298
Fundamentalist Arguments Against Fundamentalism

The all-or-nothing approach to the Bible used by skeptics and fundamentalists alike is flawed.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

shutterstock_185995553
How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

HIFR
Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

shutterstock_186364295
This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

SONY DSC
Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.