That there is no scholastic difference between completely random samples of student populations shows it is completely unsuccessful. That SOME students or their parents would desire to testify on behalf of the program is neither surprising or particularly relevant. All students and parents wanting religious instruction in public schools wouldn’t make it constitutional. The use of Locke v. Davey, a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a “degree in theology”, to argue government can fund religion through “people’s choice awards” is laughable. I think Jay has caught a case of elephant balls.

http://www.discoveringjesusfishing.net
Based on the testimony of Dr. Patrick Wolf, principal investigator for the congressionally mandated study of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, that “the program had a statistically significant positive impact on the test scores of students in reading”, I would not label the program unsuccessful Rev. Lynn. In fact, reading is one of the most important subjects to determine development of positive and successful intellectual and mental health. To underscore the importance of reading, one web site looks at the negative effects of poor reading skills
http://www.homework-help-secrets.com/importance-of-reading.html
* For children with reading difficulties, reading aloud is a painful experience. They stop and start frequently, mispronouncing some words and skipping others.
*The first casualty for poor readers is self esteem. They grow ashamed as they struggle with a skill their classmates seem to master easily.
*Poor readers are prevented from making the transition from learning to read to reading to learn which keeps them from exploring science, history, literature, mathematics and the wealth of information that is presented in print.
*Of the 10 million children with reading difficulties, from 10 to 15 percent eventually drop out of high school.
*Surveys of adolescents and young adults with criminal records show that about half have reading difficulties.
*About half of youths with a history of substance abuse have reading problems.
*In today’s globalized, flat, Internet-information-driven world, children that cannot read well will not be able to readily access the wealth of print information available on the Internet on just about any subject of interest.
Clearly, since reading is a key indicator to success in other academic subject areas, the DC Voucher Program’s statistically significant effect in improvement in children’s reading is a good indicator of the program’s success, attempting to balance the scales of poor disadvantaged children.
School vouchers do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and are a good option for parents who would like private education for their children.

Which word in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is unclear? A relgious school is as much an establishment of religion as a church being part and parcel under the same agency. To claim school vouchers do not violate the Establishment Clause is ludicrous.
School vouchers allow parents to send children, at public expense, to the school of the parents prejudice–economic, political, racial, or religious; and those schools don’t even have to play by the same rules as our public system. It makes no sense!

…”one possible explanation is that those children lagged far behind academically and had trouble adjusting to what may be a more demanding classroom.”
Another possible explanation is that the program doesn’t work as it was purported to do, but it does work as intended: blatant pandering by the Republican Party to buy votes in Washington, DC while making it appear that they are doing something for the academically challenged (black) students.
Go look at the facts: States (and the District of Columbia)with the highest percentage of blacks have the poorest showing in all educational standards; states with the lowest percentage of blacks have the highest showing, with the remainder of states corresponding.
It all has to do with values.
Everyone knows that the vouchers don’t provide enough for poor parents to send their children to the really exclusive private schools of the rich and famous. But they provide just enough to send them to substandard religious schools where they show little or no improvement over their public school performance. In the meantime, the real underlying goal of vouchers is achieved: the further deterioration and undermining of the public school system.

I just think first we have to get the state to stop killing the children before they are born. They don’t even get a chance to get an education. All the state did for them was to provide them with a death sentence. Not to mention the private act of murder performed by the doctor and their staff. After they stop killing them, then I wonder where they put God into the equation. All the education in the world is not going to save their life in the abortion or give them a way to survive in the world against evil, unless they teach them who God is.
Then we have the individuals who don’t believe there is punishment for evil. They just think there is some general God in the sky who just is there, a spiritual form. How is this going to help you if you don’t get some specifics on what God wants you to do and why. For example he wants you to turn from evil and go towards the right way of doing things.
Pippy

I’d love to get some specifics from God, but seem to have misplaced his number. Since it has been demonstrated that prayer is statistically ineffectual, I’d prefer to use the phone. If someone would please post his cell#, I’m almost certain to do as he requests. Being privvy to God issued specifics, I am certain to be doing right if I feel it is God’s will…yes? Hmm…how do I know that it isn’t just a case of me THINKING that I’m interpreting the will of God? I mean, if everybody with his cell# gets equally righteous specifics, what happens if two people reveal God issued specifics which conflict? Maybe a phone meeting could be used to settle the matter.

You can call God but there’s no one home. There is no God.

A religious school is NOT the establishment of religion. Schools are not churches. You go to church for worship, you go to school for education. All it means to be attending a religious school is that you are being taught by people who have a world view based on religious principles. But they are still learning math, english, social studies, science, PE, etc. To say that a religious school is just like a church being part and parcel under the same agency is intellectually dishonest. I don’t see a problem with vouchers and can attest that in some urban areas the safety of a private school is a welcome alternative to the public option. Perhaps the debate can be expanded to include how to improve educational standards in both public and private schools. Every child, regardless of where they attend, has the right to as good an education as they can receive.

It makes no difference if the program is wildly successful or a complete failure. If the government forces me, at the point of a gun, to pay taxes that will be used, even if only in part, to pay for religious instruction and inculcation, then vouchers are unconstitutional. The government should not be in the business of extracting my money by force and then transferring it to those who would use if for religious purposes. If one does not like the public schools and one wants something more in the religious vein, then one should take a crowbar to one’s wallet and pay for it. I am forever amazed that someone would have the hubris and arrogance to think that all taxpayers should pay into an exclusive and discriminatory private educational system.

When it comes to picking up the God’s cell phone, read the book. Or ask him yourself, what to do.
People always have their opinion on what to do and where to do it, so for those who don’t care and want everything for themselves and break your heart over and over again, stay away from them. If they keep doing the same thing and think that it is ok to hurt you and always tell you this one or that one is better than you. Not to mention, how they then tell others how your not right for the job or for them. You have to wonder why that is? Are they trying to ruin your life and take away all joy, while constantly flashing what they have taken from you before your eyes. Then they act as if they are doing you a favor. Nope, some alternative motivation there.
Taylor Anne

What insanity is this? The intellectual dishonesty is all John’s. To suggest that churches and their schools are NOT part and parcel under the same agency is lunacy. Funds are allocated to churches and their schools under the same administrative body. The same body overseeing church doctrine oversees its school’s curriculum.
The quality of education should be paramount in any system, but churches and their schools (both, without question, establishments of religion) are required to be self-sustaining. For the government to fund two separate sets of educational facilities and give preference to the religious facilities by virtue of applying less stringent rules, well, it’s crazy in so many ways it boggles the mind.

John,
re: “To say that a religious school is just like a church…”
Well, are they instructed in prayer and religion? Do they pray? Do they teach evolution and actual science or religious fables?
Yep, thought so. Sounds like a “church school” to me.
Don’t ask me to help you pay to enroll your child in a religious indoctrination center. Do that stuff on your own dime.

But they are still learning math, english, social studies, science, PE, etc. To say that a religious school is just like a church being part and parcel under the same agency is intellectually dishonest.
Boris says: According to the California state colleges and several studies, students at Christian schools are not being taught science or more importantly how to think critically. Also they are getting Christian historical revisionism is instead of history and a lot of other bad information.

What a great blog and debate. It is refreshing to see mature, logical comments being made in defense of opinions I personally don’t agree with.
I am a proud father of the most wonderful 9 month old boy in the world. I also teach public school, went to public school, and both of my parents did both as well. Now, both my parents educate other teachers in Masters programs. However, this does not make me a huge cheerleader of the public school system. Nonetheless, because of my family’s financial situation, my son will be enrolled in the public school system because vouchers are not available where I live.
I can understand people’s griefs with the tax dollar debate, but in this time of recessions and stimulus packages there’s just no end to the things American citizens will have to pay for that they don’t want. Aside from atheists or church and state separatists not wanting to fund a program for vouchers, I am a taxpayer who is considerably upset about funding any kind of government health program that would provide abortions. My wife volunteers at a pregnancy crisis center, why on Earth should our tax dollars fund what we believe to be morally and ethically wrong?
If you were a parent of a child in inner D.C., could you realistically reject a program that would give your children a significantly better education just because the school might have spin toward the faith-based side? In the end, you are the parent. If you do not want your child to share the school’s faith-based values and beliefs, then do something about it at home. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This is a biblical proverb, but it is true for all. People are who they were raised to be. If your children’s education and future hangs in the balance, why would you let a personal view against Christianity or any other faith stand in the way of that?

Rich,
Well, you must hate Obama’s Health Care plan because it’s going to force you at gunpoint to pay for any and every procedure that you may or may not agree with, along with stripping you of your freedoms to choose a doctor or have unfettered access to the any medical procedure you may want or need. Furthermore, I don’t have any children and pay taxes for every other set of parents’ children to attend public schools already. Many of those schools (Boris) teach revisionist history and inaccurate science, without any alternative to comparing the flimsy theories of evolution to the scientific facts of intelligent design. So, as a taxpayer, already being forced to pay for poor education I don’t believe in, nor support, there’s nothing wrong with asking other tax payers to up the ante to help pay for alternative, and frankly, BETTER education that THEY don’t believe in. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, gentleman. Lastly, Boris, don’t be so inclined to believe every little study that comes out liberal California. I’m sure they’re reporting “facts” that they want to have publicized, just like so many “studies” do. Instead, go back and actually research the history you’re talking about and learn some facts; many Christian schools are not teaching revisionist history, but CORRECTIVE history, correcting the revisions already made by liberal scholars that have been being dumped down innocent brains for nearly half a century. As Thomas Payne once wrote, “It is error, not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” I invite any of you to investigate the facts. Truth, will always expose error in the long run.

As a secular humanist, it bothers me that Rev. Lynn takes a position against vouchers. He is a popular face in secularist circles, and that makes his position on vouchers particularly annoying.
First of all, the debate over vouchers and their constitutionality has nothing do to with academic sucess. Both authoers (Lynn and Sekulow) cite achievement statistics that help them paint vouchers as good or bad, which really just serves as a smokescreen. Yes there have been some student gains, but it is true that the gains have not been enormous. So what? What does this have to do with the establishment or free-exercise clause? Nothing!
The bottom line is that in the DC program parents choose their child’s school. They can choose a Hindu school, a Muslim school, a Christian school a secular school, or something else. This fits nicely with the free-exercise clause, and does not violate the establishment clause. The government does not give preference to one religion over any other.
And, Rev Lynn’s fears that the schools discriminate is unfounded. Every voucher program has strings attached that require schools to accept anyone regardless of their background. If anything, vouchers will have the effect of secularizing religious schools because with sheckles come shackles. If anything, it is religious fundamentalists who should oppose vouchers for that reason alone. Secularists should have no problem with it.

Aaron, thank YOU for joining the debate and offering logical and well reasoned arguments. I completely agree with your stance on the healthcare/abortion issue. That’s a great example of people paying taxes for that which they don’t believe. I think if we’re all willing to realize that none of our tax dollars will ever be spent exactly the way we want them to, we might be able to see the light at the end of this argument. And for the record, I don’t think all public education is bad. I’m a university professor myself! As is my father. But some public education is horrific; and in areas of great need, an alternative choice is a progressive step for children. And kudos for the Proverb. I completely agree. As you probably know, Christian schools are not indoctrination machines. The outside world often sees religious schools as brain washing factories, but the critical thinking and freedom inside these schools is just the opposite. Certainly things of faith are taught, but Christianity is a faith with evidences–so those evidences are taught along side many other theories and children ultimately come to their own conclusions. It’s a positive system, and something not to be feared.

And to the secular humanist that joined the debate in favor of vouchers, though we would probably disagree on many issues, your legal and personal perspective on vouchers is extremely well thought out and refreshing. I respect what you added to the dialogue, very much.

And to the secular humanist that joined the debate, though we probably would disagree on many issues, I find your legal and personal perspective on vouchers refreshing. Thank you for adding very cogent thoughts into this debate. I respect very much, what you added to this forum.

John,
re: “you must hate Obama’s Health Care plan”
Well, yes and no. I don’t have a problem with paying for any specific procedures. I am generally skeptical of proposed funding methods and advertised benefits.
re: “comparing the flimsy theories of evolution to the scientific facts of intelligent design.”
Well, we are going to have a problem right there. There is no credible science supporting ID. It is clearly religion and not science. Evolution, on the other hand, is well supported and documented. Tax dollars should not be used to fund Astrology, Big Foot, Voodoo, Karmic Energy or Intelligent Design. None of these are science and have no place in a publicly funded classroom.
re: “I don’t have any children and pay taxes…”
Irrelevant really. We all benefit from an educated populace in many ways.
re: “revisionist history”
Not sure what your talking about. I would have to assume that you are referring to the efforts of the religious right to portray our Founders as intent on setting up a “Christian” nation when the facts clearly show otherwise, i.e. our Constitution and its lack of any preference for Christianity, our 1st Amendment, the “no religious test” clause and the refusal to pray during the Constitutional convention. Similiarly, the recent histrionics surrounding the attempt to portray the phrase “In God We Trust” on our currency as a heritage beginning with our Founders is quite dishonest and revisionist. Any study of the history of this motto shows an completely different story.
The real test to vouchers is simple; if my money is used to promote religion in any form, then it is wrong. Religion should raise its own money to promote itself, not tax the people. My rights as an American provide me the ability to completely shun religion. Once you start taxing me and forcing me to pay for religious instruction, you are stomping all over my freedom to refuse to support religion.

The secular humanist’s comment erroneously implies the Establishment Clause does not apply. Combine “shall make no law” (Establishment Clause) with religious schools (establishments of religion) and it becomes obvious that Congress doesn’t have the authority to grant public funds to religious organizations. It cannot be legally done.
I have no problem with parents who choose to send children to muslim, christian, hindu, or other religious schools; but I must insist that I not be required to provide financial assistance to them. The Constitution of the United States,”shall make no law”, makes it clear that I am not required to pay to promote religion.
I agree, however,that religious organizations are foolish to pursue government assistance given its proclivity to come bundled with regulation. (Government sponsors love to meddle in what they buy.)
But the reason, constitutionality aside, for the population at large to oppose vouchers is to preserve public education. Diverting tax funds from the public system is a disservice to that system, deprivational to it, and especially if the diverted funds go to competitive systems which promote divisionism, and are not bound by the same rules. How can that make sense?
Last note. It is nothing like the case of abortion being paid for with federal dollars because abortion is legal, whereas it is illegal for the government to provide public funds to religious organizations or make any law respecting those establishments.

Rich,
Let me first start with an apology. As a Christian, I am admonished to “speak the truth with gentleness and respect”, yet I fear my first couple of posts have come off arrogant and defensive—I am neither. Sometimes, it is hard for me to separate my immediate emotional response to a topic I am passionate about, so to you, or anyone else who would disagree with my perspective, I apologize for the tone of my last couple of posts. I think Aaron has done a much better job of presenting dispassionate logic.
Let me start by addressing your revisionist comment: The immortal words from the Declaration of Independence that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” jumps off the page and into my heart with the simple truth that from day one in our country’s history, the Author of freedom was not the state nor even the Founding Fathers. Our basic human rights and freedoms were-and are-”Creator-endowed.” I don’t expect to dissuade you from your own argument, but let it suffice to say, that for every “evidence” you might sight, I could counter with an evidence that many of our founding fathers were indeed Christian, and attempting to establish a freedom of that religious expression. That has conveniently been misinterpreted in this century to mean a freedom FROM religion, but the truth was that it was established as a freedom OF religion. The founding fathers were smart enough NOT to include only Christian language, as they wanted to promote COMPLETE respective religious freedom, though their language certainly expresses a theistic view. Why else WOULD there be language that involves the “Creator” unless that is what was explicitly meant. It was from THIS foundation that other foundational sayings like “in God We Trust” originated. Even our three-tiered government of legislative, judicial and executive branches has its origins from the biblical model.
Let’s move on to evolution: The Big Bang postulates that billions of years ago the universe began as an infinitely dense point called a singularity and has been expanding ever since. Though the Big Bang is not taught in the Bible, the theory does lend scientific support to the scriptural teaching that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). First, like the Bible, the Big Bang postulates that the universe had a beginning. As such, it stands in stark opposition to the scientifically silly suggestion that the universe eternally existed, not to the biblical account of origins.

Cont’d
Furthermore, if the universe had a beginning, it had to have a cause. Indeed, according to empirical science, whatever begins to exist must have a cause equal to or greater than itself. Thus, the Big Bang flies in the face of the philosophically preposterous proposition that the universe sprang form nothing apart from an uncaused First Cause. Finally, though evolutionists hold to Big Bang cosmology, the Big Bang itself does not entail biological evolution. In other words, the Big Bang theory answers questions concerning the origins of the space-time universe, as opposed to questions concerning the origin of biological life on earth.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, call evolution “a fairy tale for grown-ups.” The arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak. First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another. Furthermore, in Darwin’s day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple—for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance. Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
Lastly, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes—energy conservation and entropy—undergird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis. While I would fight for a person’s right to have faith in science fiction, I must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evolution is science.

Lastly, Boris, don’t be so inclined to believe every little study that comes out liberal California. I’m sure they’re reporting “facts” that they want to have publicized, just like so many “studies” do.
Boris says: You don’t know what you’re talking about and you obviously don’t listen to Jay’s show. Sekulow was mad as a hornet that California state colleges were rejecting students from Christian schools because they were scientific ignoramuses and completely unable to think critically.
As Thomas Payne once wrote, “It is error, not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” I invite any of you to investigate the facts. Truth, will always expose error in the long run.
Boris says: You Christians are so ignorant of history. Thomas Paine, not Payne, made that comment about Christianity. Did you ever read or hear of the Age of Reason? Here are some comments Thomas Paine made regarding the evil and false religion of Christianity:
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.” Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason”
“The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system.” – Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” (1795)
“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.” – Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” (1795)
“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.” – Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” (1795)
“That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.”
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.- Thomas Paine in “An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry” (1803-1805); found in manuscript form after Paine’s death
“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”
“It is of the utmost danger to society to make religion a party in political disputes.” Thomas Paine in “Common Sense” (1776)
“It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.” – Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” (1793)
“Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us to eternity.”
“It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner.”
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” – Thomas Paine in in “The Age of Reason” (1793)
“Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. ” – Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” (1793)

Let’s just put a bullet in the head of creationism right now:
John thinks: Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce.
Biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the “missing evidence” that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.
There you have it. Proof of evolution. John’s creationist delusions just went poof! ROFL!

Let me first start with an apology. As a Christian, I am admonished to “speak the truth with gentleness and respect”,
Boris says: You’re obviously a follower of widely discredited Christian cult leader and propagandist Hank Hanegraaf.
I don’t expect to dissuade you from your own argument, but let it suffice to say, that for every “evidence” you might sight, I could counter with an evidence that many of our founding fathers were indeed Christian, and attempting to establish a freedom of that religious expression.
Boris says: Name ‘em and claim ‘em. If you can prove ANY of the founders were Christians then go ahead and do it. We need to know the names of these people and see proof that they were indeed Christians if you say you can provide it. I can provide a lot of quotes from and about our founders that not only prove they were not Christians but that they hated Christianity and thought Christians were fools and hypocrites. So let’s see you back up your claim or retract it. One or the other but don’t ignore it now that you’ve cornered yourself with your own lie. Or the lie of your cult leaders anyway.
though their language certainly expresses a theistic view. Why else WOULD there be language that involves the “Creator” unless that is what was explicitly meant.
Boris says: No dice. The God mentioned by our founders was Nature’s God, the God of the deist, not the theist. Theists don’t give God second billing to Nature. Christians will insist anyone who speaks English and believes in some kind of God is automatically a Christian. You’re trying to give the impression Tom Paine was a Christian. That is typical Christian intellectual dishonesty. The first two sentences of the Declaration Of Independence were not written in order to declare that the United States is a Christian nation and they were not written in order to declare that the United States is a Deist nation. The first two sentences were written in order to tell the British that, “we are just as good as you are because God says so”.
It was from THIS foundation that other foundational sayings like “in God We Trust” originated.
Boris says: This motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. This was done in an attempt to frighten the atheist Russians as if God frightens people who don’t believe there is a God. This is a perfect example of the flaming ignorance of Christians. Just like when they threaten people with hell who know there is no hell.
Even our three-tiered government of legislative, judicial and executive branches has its origins from the biblical model.
Boris says: What a crock! Where in the Bible? The only models for governments in the Bible are brutal theocratic monarchies. There are no models of democratic societies pictured anywhere in the Bible even though democracy is a Greek word and the NT is written in Koine Greek. Our form of government came from the Greek and Roman democracies, not from the Bible.
Let’s move on to evolution: The Big Bang postulates that billions of years ago the universe began as an infinitely dense point called a singularity and has been expanding ever since. Though the Big Bang is not taught in the Bible,
Boris says: No because the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, never moves, sits on a foundation supported by pillars and is orbited by the sun every day. Unless someone stops it, that is. I want to see your scriptural evidence that the earth moves and orbits the sun. Don’t ignore this request John.
the theory does lend scientific support to the scriptural teaching that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). First, like the Bible, the Big Bang postulates that the universe had a beginning. As such, it stands in stark opposition to the scientifically silly suggestion that the universe eternally existed, not to the biblical account of origins.
Boris says: Science doesn’t make silly suggestions but your holy book sure does. You believe in a book that talks about angels, demons, Satan, seraphs, giants, unicorns, dragons, flying serpents, cockatrices, satyrs and a lot of other absurd beings for which there is not one shred of evidence. You want to talk about silly? Christianity is about the silliest thing man has ever come up with and the stupidest bunch of nonsense man has ever believed. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Furthermore, if the universe had a beginning, it had to have a cause. Indeed, according to empirical science, whatever begins to exist must have a cause equal to or greater than itself. Thus, the Big Bang flies in the face of the philosophically preposterous proposition that the universe sprang form nothing apart from an uncaused First Cause.
Boris says: We’re talking science not philosophy here. Science, by its very definition, disregards “common-sense” notions and relies solely upon experimental data to construct scientific laws. That’s right, contrary to what creationists believe scientific laws are human constructs that describe human observations. “Stated in terms of the First cause argument: For something to exercise a causal influence within or upon the universe, this causal agent must itself already exist. In other words, something nonexistent cannot possibly serve as any type of causal agent within or upon the universe. The entire concept of causation, therefore, assumes previous existence. But instead of recognizing that causation assumes existence, creationists espouse a perverse backward “logic” that existence (of the universe) assumes causation – i.e., that the universe was created out of nothing and thus requires a supernatural causal explanation. No scientist argues that a universe created by God out of nothing would not require a supernatural explanation. Creationists miss entirely the relevant questions which are: 1) What evidence is there that the universe emerged ex nihilo? 2) What evidence is there that mass-energy – which constitutes the universe – always existed? Answer: We have no evidence that mass-energy appeared ex nihilo; and we have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex nihilo. If we adhere rigorously to the scientific method, therefore, we are led to one conclusion: Our universe of mass-energy, in one for or another, always existed.” – Alan Mills
Finally, though evolutionists hold to Big Bang cosmology, the Big Bang itself does not entail biological evolution. In other words, the Big Bang theory answers questions concerning the origins of the space-time universe, as opposed to questions concerning the origin of biological life on earth.
Boris says: That’s right it does. And creationism answers no questions.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, call evolution “a fairy tale for grown-ups.”
Boris says: The beginning of the quotation, “Evolution is a fairy tale for adults” is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: “Transformism is a fairy tale for adults.” (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that “Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution.” (L’Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was … an atheist.
The arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak.
Boris says: Scientific theories are not supported by arguments. They are supported by evidence and arguments are not evidence. It is the theist that has no evidence and this why all we get from theists is arguments, the First Cause argument, the argument from design, the moral argument – all arguments, and all of which have been soundly refuted by scientific evidence.
First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists.
Boris says: That’s about as ignorant a claim a person could make. Evolutionary theory was developed to explain the evidence that is in the fossil record. ROFL! On the contrary the fossil record is an embarrassment for the creationists because not only does it thoroughly refute the biblical flood story none of the absurd animals described in the Bible like giants, fiery serpents, dragons, cockatrices, unicorns, satyrs, flying serpents or any other weird animals the Bible claims exist have ever been found in the fossil record.
No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found.
Boris says: One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:
A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.
The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed. – Brain Dunning
Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce.
Boris says: Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.
Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Boris says: This of course is just an outright lie as I already proved.
In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance.
Boris says: One of Hanegraaf’s pet sayings. “In an age of scientific enlightenment” we’re all going to reject every major scientific theory there is and go back to believing a bunch of retarded fairytales and barbaric myths. Dream on.
Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
Boris says: “This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/. – Brian Dunning
Lastly, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head.
Boris says: Straight from your cult leader Hank Hanegraaf’s collection of lies. You people parrot your cult leaders as if they’ve actually said something profound.
The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes—energy conservation and entropy—undergird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis.
Boris says: The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material. – Brian Dunning
While I would fight for a person’s right to have faith in science fiction, I must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evolution is science.
Boris says: If evolution isn’t science then why and how have evolutionary biologists alone been responsible for creating new antibiotics, medicines, better food crops and poisons to protect those crops from insects, and many other advances, all advances that have doubled the average lifespan of humans since natural selection was discovered? Contrasting that Intelligent Design magic hoaxers and creation “scientists” haven’t produced any new antibiotics, medicines or food crops or anything else using their “science.” For something to be considered science it must produce viable and usable results. Evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of the science you disbelieve does this and will continue to produce results. Creationism and ID magic have no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries and no way to produce results. This is because creationism and ID magic are not science they are religious dogma and nonsense.
The final nail in the coffin of creationism is the fact that every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolution and common descent. Of course the creationists have no response for this humiliating fact because most of them are unaware of it. The majority of creationists have never set foot on a college campus.
John if we want Hank Hanegraff’s lies and propaganda we know how to find his website and blog. We don’t need you parroting his favorite sayings and outright lies. I suggest you visit Mr. Hanky’s blog and read my posts on it. Then you’ll see just how easily all of his lies and nonsense are refuted.

Boris,
Nicely done. As I read your point-by-point dismantling of the offered and quite mistaken ideas, I was struck by just how difficult it is to dispel myth.
In my mind, the perpetuation of religious myth is similiar to violence, a destruction of truth if you will. It takes but a second to shatter someone’s leg with a bullet. It may take a doctor weeks using applied science to repair the damage. It only takes a few seconds to say that “evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, etc” yet it takes forever to repair and correct this mistaken notion.
It is a very good indicator of the hypnotic effect of religion that we so often hear the “in a closed system” requirement simply disregarded when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is mentioned.
The same applies to the the Declaration. The deservedly famous 1st paragraph refers to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, sentiments of a deist. Later Jefferson employs the phrase “endowed by their Creator”, a nicely poetic phrase. I find it interesting that Jefferson used this phrase rather than a direct reference to the Old Testament Jehovah.
As for missing links, seems to me there are plenty being discovered all the time. To perpetuate the notion that there are no transitional fossils seems odd to me, as if one would actually have to avoid reading the frequent news tidbits about new discoveries.
In general, what worries me most about religion is the ability to cover up facts, distort truth and squelch real science, taken all together, a great recipe for disaster.

John,
No need for apologies around here. I certainly think you are dealing with attractive half-truths and glittering generalities but I didn’t pick up anything inappropriate. Fire away, we are all adults here.
I would urge you to scrutinize Boris’ comments. His facts overwhelm and innundate your assertions. And again, they are facts, not religious dogma or mere beliefs. The idea here, I hope anyway, it to follow the facts to wherever they lead.

There comes a point when you have to stick up for yourself. When others are putting you down right before your eyes, why is that? Are they jealous of what you are? Do you let them take away who you are by not becoming yourself?
When people lie about you and then put you in a terrible position and leave you all frazzled, do you give up and let them take who you are? I suggest to you to stay away from them as well and get into a safe place where you can grow and become who you are. When the job market is tough and your looking for a good paying job, don’t give up. Your still alive and you can still make it. Success comes when you don’t give up on your dreams and you become the best person you can be. Not what others feel about you, but what you can do. They may not like this or that about you, but don’t let that get you down. Realize you can only be your personal best, not theirs. Find people who love you and want the best for you and never give up on you.
Love yourself,
Taylor Anne

Pippy need to get some boxes, her rooms a mess. She needs to move. The lady she was staying with doesn’t like her very much and pulled her hair and called her names. She has been looking for a job for months and nothing has turned up. So she needs to go to a organization who will help her, seeing how she needs more money to get into a place and she does not have the deposit for rent, not to mention her bills stacking up. She looks for help and text her so called best friend of the past and she says good luck. How sad is that. A friend is someone who will stick close to you and help you through the tough times. Not someone who will stick you out on the streets and lie about you to friends and neighbors. How sad is that. You ponder, do you call relatives to tell them what happenned, do you just do what you can do? Let go of all the pain, I say and move on to bigger and better things, like people who truely care about you.
Go have a saled and put in some more applications and seek the city for help. See what they can do for you. Make yourself a nice cup of grean tea and call the doctor’s office if you need some medicine of some kind for the pain. Pray about it and do what you can to make the situation better.
Pippy
PS. Have a nice lunch kids. Hopefully your getting enough protein, fruit and vegetables.

Boris,
I think you might have the Bible confused with Shakespeare or any other writer of fiction. The Bible most certainly does not purport a flat earth. I used Thomas Paine’s quote for the quote itself about error and truth, not to suggest he was Christian. You obviously have a TON of knowledge about science, evolution, etc. I certainly respect how much time and effort you put into your post. I disagree with much of what you said, and certainly disagree with many of your conclusions; however, I’ll be honest: I don’t have the science background, nor the aptitude to take the argument much further, nor, based on your vehemence would I find the effort truly worth the time. You seem too stuck in your belief system that if you were countered with evidence that went against those beliefs, I think you’d simply argue yourself out of believing it anyway. You discount the Bible far too much for all the historical, archeological, scientific evidences that support it; not to mention the historicity of Jesus, nor the enumerable millions of testimonies that have changed lives since his sojourn 2000 years ago. And at some point, faith DOES play a major role in a Christian’s walk. It is not childish or a blind faith, it IS a faith with reason and evidences. If you investigated with any amount of integrity, you never know, you may find yourself a person of faith someday, yourself. I wish you the best.

It is when your slapped in the face for reading the bible that conscerns me. Not to mention accused as being mentally ill if you believe and do what it says. Crazy I know, that is what they said about Jesus too. Interesting to not how so called Christians put down other Christians for whatever reason that is. The christians that would put their own daughter on the street even when she could not find a job. While she was applying, it is saddenning to think of such a thing. It does happen. Pippy does have money, but not enough for a two or three bedroom place. She will keep looking. For it is not just herself, she has three kids. The mother doesn’t care if she has the children. How sad is that.
Pippy has worked hard at trying to find a job. She keeps trying. She was threatenned that she has to move out Sept. first. So she keeps applying. Eventually she will find a job and find people who will love her. She knows people love her. There out there.
If she could be the perfect girl. What a joke is that? What is perfection? is it looks, personality, designer dressing, the way the house is cleaned. Nope, we can never be perfect. That is my conclusion to the theory of perfection.
Pippy
P.S. Have a great night.

John,
I think you might have the Bible confused with Shakespeare or any other writer of fiction.
Boris says: No, it is you who cannot recognize all of the elements of fiction that are present in the Bible. First of all no historical narratives contain tales of the supernatural. But more importantly the Bible is full of dialog between people speaking in complete sentences. That is a hallmark of fiction for no one speaks like that, there was no way to record conversations anyway, and no historical narratives contain the kind of dialog we find in the Bible. Only fiction does.
The Bible most certainly does not purport a flat earth.
Boris says: No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo or Copernicus until the 19th century. Up until 1835 all Protestant denominations held to the flat immovable earth orbited by the sun described in several places in the Bible and clearly implied throughout both testaments. Where is your scriptural evidence for a round earth and more importantly I asked you why you believe the earth moves. Where is your scriptural evidence that the earth moves?
I used Thomas Paine’s quote for the quote itself about error and truth, not to suggest he was Christian.
Boris says: Well your cult leader Mr. Hanky does. But using that quote is intellectually dishonest because Paine was talking about how Christianity shrinks from the truth. That’s what the quote is about. You see my problem with you using it? Obviously Paine wasn’t a Christian. The Age of Reason still stands as one of the best critiques of Christianity in history.
You obviously have a TON of knowledge about science, evolution, etc. I certainly respect how much time and effort you put into your post. I disagree with much of what you said, and certainly disagree with many of your conclusions; however, I’ll be honest:
Boris says: My academic background is not in science. I attended a private Christian college where I earned a BA in Ancient Near Eastern Studies for which my language was Ancient Greek. I’ve studied the Bible very carefully and in its original languages.
I don’t have the science background, nor the aptitude to take the argument much further, nor, based on your vehemence would I find the effort truly worth the time.
Boris says: Obviously I don’t care for Hank Hanegraaf. If you hadn’t repeated some of his asinine claims word for word I probably would not have responded with any perceived vehemence. Hank doesn’t know anything about science either nor does he have any understanding of atheism. Yet he gets on the radio and misinforms people concerning both of these subjects. This is the exact same thing he’s always accusing various other competing cult leaders of doing.
You seem too stuck in your belief system that if you were countered with evidence that went against those beliefs, I think you’d simply argue yourself out of believing it anyway.
Boris says: What belief system? I don’t have a belief system in that I don’t have any beliefs that I’m not willing to challenge or change.
You discount the Bible far too much for all the historical, archeological, scientific evidences that support it; not to mention the historicity of Jesus, nor the enumerable millions of testimonies that have changed lives since his sojourn 2000 years ago.
Boris says: Scientific evidences to support the Bible? You must be kidding. Christians have fought against and denied every scientific discovery and theory ever made ever since the Bible was forged and voted on. What scientific evidence supports anything the Bible says exactly? What historical evidence can you supply for the existence of Jesus Christ? Mentions of Christians by second century historians like Suetonius, Pliny, and Tacitus are hardly evidence for the supposedly “best attested event in history.”
And at some point, faith DOES play a major role in a Christian’s walk. It is not childish or a blind faith, it IS a faith with reason and evidences. If you investigated with any amount of integrity, you never know, you may find yourself a person of faith someday, yourself. I wish you the best.
Boris says: If you sat down and took a critical unbiased look at your faith you would reject it just like about 5000 other Christians in America every day. I suggest you start with Jesusneverexisted.com and go from there. You’ll see that Thomas Paine was correct when he said that Christianity evolved from sun worshipping cults in Egypt rather than from Judaism in Palestine.

Rich,
Thanks for reading and responding to my posts. Those arguments are easy to dismantle because I’ve heard and seen them worded exactly like that from Hank Hanegraaf many times. So when Hank’s clones repeat them like John did I know exactly how to cut them off at the knees. John sent up the white flag pretty quickly didn’t he? That’s because he just saw his cult leader’s best arguments and pet phrases utterly demolished, mocked and ridiculed. He has no more material, no way to respond and no way to refute anything I’ve said now.
When you argue with one creationist you argue with them all. They all read the same nonsense off the same creationist websites. So you’re going to get the same stupid arguments over and over and over again. Almost all of the creationists have a particular cult leader who they trust implicitly and whom they plagiarize without conscience the way John did. It’s pretty easy to tell fairly quickly what cult leader a creationist is following. John’s cult leader is Hank Hanegraaf but it could have just as easily been Gary DeMar, Michael Brown or some other creationist wacko. It doesn’t matter I’ve heard all their nonsense and know just how to refute it. But an intelligent third grader could do that.

Still, it’s freakin’ hilarious!

Boris,
You have hardly cut me off at the knees. Rather, “When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.” Proverbs 10:19
Secondly, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” Psalm 14:1
Lastly, you show ignorance beyond comprehension to challenge the historicity of Jesus. How many Jewish (at the time:Jesus hating) historians does it take to attest to the personhood of Jesus Christ? There are plenty of Jewish and Roman (non-biblical) historical sources who all attest to the person of Jesus, his ministry and his crucifixion. You know this is true so to argue would be pointless, and to deny it would be more “stick-your-head-in-the-sand” philosophy. If you cannot believe in the divinity of Christ, that’s another conversation, but don’t increase the size of the target on your chest labeled “idiot” by saying the person never existed! There are too many sources you can find in your local LIBRARY that would prove you wrong, emphatically, and without question.
But honestly, your ilk has been crying and whining for 2000 years; you categorically fit into very easy stereotypes: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser that man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” 1Corinthians 1:18-25
No white flag here, Boris. Your turn to run.

John,
You have hardly cut me off at the knees.
Boris says: The readers of this blog disagree.
Rather, “When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.” Proverbs 10:19
Boris says: Especially when he’s seen all of his best arguments demolished huh?
Secondly, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” Psalm 14:1
Boris says: That’s because the wise man shouts it at the top of his voice for all to hear.
Lastly, you show ignorance beyond comprehension to challenge the historicity of Jesus. How many Jewish (at the time:Jesus hating) historians does it take to attest to the personhood of Jesus Christ? There are plenty of Jewish and Roman (non-biblical) historical sources who all attest to the person of Jesus, his ministry and his crucifixion.
Boris says: Name ‘em and claim ‘em. Exactly who are these historians, when did they live, when did they write and what exactly did they say about Jesus? If there are “plenty of Jewish and Roman” historians whose writings support the case for a historical Jesus you should have no problem telling us all exactly who they are, when they lived, when they wrote and exactly word for word what they wrote. Too bad you bought this apologetic nonsense without actually checking it out for yourself. Now you have a very good reason to check it out. Let’s see what you can find John. I say you’ll find nothing that could convince even you that Jesus Christ ever existed from anything outside the Bible. Not a word.
You should be aware that the entries in the works of Josephus are widely accepted by even conservative scholars to be forgeries done by church liar and propagandist Eusebius. But even if they weren’t there is at least a sixty-year span between the time these events supposedly occurred and when Josephus wrote. Anyone else you mention will have written in the second century.
You know this is true so to argue would be pointless, and to deny it would be more “stick-your-head-in-the-sand” philosophy. If you cannot believe in the divinity of Christ, that’s another conversation, but don’t increase the size of the target on your chest labeled “idiot” by saying the person never existed! There are too many sources you can find in your local LIBRARY that would prove you wrong, emphatically, and without question.
Boris says: Name these sources then. Then tell us all why there are so many Bible scholars who did not and do not believe Jesus Christ ever existed. Then tell us again who the idiot really is. ROFL! Who has there head in the sand and hasn’t done their research? Hahaha. You’re about to find that would be YOU! ROFL!
But honestly, your ilk has been crying and whining for 2000 years; you categorically fit into very easy stereotypes: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man?
Boris says: Still here. Richard Dawkins is one of many.
Where is the scholar?
Boris says: Still here. Bart Ehrman is one of many.
Where is the philosopher of this age?
Boris says: Still here. Chris Hitchens is one of many.
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Boris says: Nope. Rather scientists and philosophers are still here and have made complete and utter fools of Bible believers just like you.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser that man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” 1Corinthians 1:18-25
Boris says: Bible verses mean nothing to an atheist. Why should I believe the Bible when you won’t tell me why you believe the earth moves? Stop ducking this humiliating question. What scriptural evidence is there that the earth moves? I can’t believe a book that says the earth is stationary. Prove it doesn’t.
No white flag here, Boris. Your turn to run.
Boris says: Not happening. I’m going to stay right here and whatever you post will get another verbal body slam. You’re already on the run, avoiding questions and completely ignoring clear refutations of your absurd claims. Don’t tell me you weren’t shocked to see how easily your cult leader’s pet claims and phrases were demolished.

Pippy is no longer the Pippy of yesterday. She was told she has to be out Sept. 1 or she will be served papers. As if staying in a room and trying to get back on your feet wasn’t hard enough. It was not like she wasn’t trying either to get a job. There comes a point when you realize there will be people that will try and kick you when you are down. It is hard when it is your own family member raging with such anger at you. You do your best to keep the peace, never the less, you find that refuge is doing what you can and finding a way to make things better, despite the situation. When they are making you sound less then you know yourself to be, go to the people who will build you up. If there are no others around who will reach out and become a person who will be with you in your life, know that God loves you and he will bring you through this time no matter how challenging it gets.
Pippy
PS. Maybe if you get some more laundry done and get a quick bite to eat, it will make you feel a bit better. Folding laundry is always relaxing, don’t you think. Organize the mess you have in your house or room, that way you will feel a bit more in control of the circumstances. Peace, love and eternal grooviness.

Ahh, now you show your TRUE COLORS. Richard Dawkins and Bart Ehrman? Thing One and Thing Two? Dummer and Dummer? Truly? These are the atheistic cult leaders you’ve been in bed with? It all makes sense now, Boris. When you let pathological liars and scientific obstructionists dictate your arguments for you, you become the little bird that swallows the regurgitated crap for nourishment. No wonder you’re so mislead and confused. ROFL! What good is quoting the Bible to an atheist? What good is quoting a fallible, finite, unbelieving dipstick to Christian who has the truth?
Remember what Stephen said to the Sanhedrin? “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him–you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.” Acts 7:51-53. These people openly rejected prophecy and Christ himself because of their wicked hearts, even though they had the advantage of receiving the very law that predicted his coming. Vehement un-believers are the same today. They have all the evidence in front of them; they have received and have access to both covenants of God, but they remain stiff-necked people.

“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:42-47
I’m glad for you Boris, that you have your scholastically inept friends to tell you ALL the details concerning Josephus or Tacitus, et al. I guess any evidence of their non-biblical acknowledgement of Jesus you’ll just conveniently write off with some academic excuse you’ve decided to swallow since it lines up perfectly with your own atheism. Hey, if that’s what your itching ears want to hear, I guess you can search and believe even the most obscure rantings against proven historical accounts. Also, the Bible is history. What do you think happened, genius, a bunch of illiterates got together and said, “hey, let’s completely fabricate a story that goes against everything logical and against our own major faith, that we give a ton of details about but has no evidence, and because we believe it so strong, people will get very upset and kill us!” Sounds like fun, Boris!! That’s awesome logic. No, these very simple and un-educated men (at least some of them) who encountered the real person of Jesus Christ and had their life changed and then summarily were willing to die for what they witnessed and preached about. Those kind of convictions don’t take hold of liars, nor the simple minded threatened with death and given every opportunity to recant. These men saw and experienced the resurrected Christ, and were therefore unafraid of death, knowing there was a greater truth that awaits them. So you don’t believe in the historicity of Jesus? Okay. You look like a fool, but okay. Certainly you’ve then heard of the martyrs and read their stories. Normal people don’t do that for a lie, Boris. That’s basic human psychology. And if you want to say they were mislead or duped, okay, but then they must have been duped by JESUS–hmm, but you say Jesus never existed–so WTF about the martyrs?

Boris,
I don’t know why you bother. You should know by now that people like John without the capacity to think logically for themselves will not be swayed by reasonable and logical arguments. It is clear that all he can do is quote verses from something he calls a bible, which is clearly a work of fiction. He might as well be quoting from The Lord of The Rings, it would have as much impact. That is what people of his ilk can’t understand. They think that a verse in the “bible” that justifies their lunacy can serve as some form of proof. Those of us who actually use our brains look for empirical validation of such claims, and find them woefully lacking in any of these mythical texts.
I appreciate your arguments Boris, and applaud your trying, but you are tilting at windmills when trying to argue logically with a fundamentalist.

Myths don’t have real historical people with real places and events Craig. I think you have the Bible confused with the works of Homer, perhaps. Listen, if you haven’t experienced the truth, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. You remain deceived. That will always be the basic problem. Also, 2Corinthians 4:4 states, “The god of this age (Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” That’s not said in arrogance, that’s just how it works. Atheists live by a basic rule that there is no supernatural. Obviously, people of faith disagree and have the experience to back that up. The supernatural is the next level in anyone’s experience of life. Until you experience it, you’re like a seed buried in the ground without any idea there’s a whole other area of air and space above you. It doesn’t mean that air and space don’t exist, it just means you haven’t taken your head out of the ground to know the difference. From both our perspectives, we both end up spinning our wheels. Your journey isn’t over yet, Craig. You never know, you might come across evidence–if you bother to look for it–or you might meet someone who can lead you in a way others haven’t been able to. But it’s awfully arrogant to say millions of brilliant minds, philanthropists, artists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, singles and married, children and the elderly that profess the name of Christ are just idiots. Obviously, there’s something very compelling about the arguments for the Bible.

I was raised Jewish, so am used to being persecuted, especially by so called christians, and am comfortable with uncertainty. In Judaism there is a belief in a soul, representing something greater than the physical manifestations of humans, yet we are also taught that it is not for us to know what happens to our soul when we die. That is unknowable by any of us.
I have studied christian texts and find nothing compelling in any of the words or arguments. I have listened to priests and ministers in many different settings and have heard nothing that makes any sense, or that would compel me to follow any of their dogma. The only thing compelling in any biblical arguments would be for someone who wants to take the easy way out and have all their questions answered in some nice pat way. It is a way to avoid uncertainty and to not have to think for oneself. I will say that anyone who believes in such nonsense is delusional at best, regardless of how many people that may represent. Call me arrogant, it’s probably an apt label.
It is however very convenient to say:
“The god of this age (Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” That’s not said in arrogance, that’s just how it works. Atheists live by a basic rule that there is no supernatural. Obviously, people of faith disagree and have the experience to back that up.
I would like to see even one piece of empirically reproducible evidence to support the experience that you claim “people of faith” have. What experience can anyone have to “back it up?” Christianity was created by one group to control large numbers of people and so must have statements and rules that support belief and find convenient ways to label and explain those who don’t believe. Satan is one of those convenient lies.
Actually, as an atheist I don’t believe that there is nothing supernatural, I just haven’t heard any of the so-called evidence of supernatural events presented by any individual or group, religious or not that has anything empirical that can support it. I believe that there are probably beings that if we were to experience them would appear to be god-like to us. Given the vastness of the universe it seems likely to me that other life forms exist that are much more advanced than us. That doesn’t mean that any human conception of anything supernatural represents any of this accurately.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything that has empirical evidence to support it. Creationism (and it’s incarnation as intelligent design) are based on NO empirical evidence. They can never be tested. In fact, which creation myth should one choose as correct? There are literally hundreds of variations. The teaching of these myths rather than science does and will continue to diminish the capacity of our youth to perform scientific research. That is why people such as yourself who refuse to see any facts that may contradict the stories in your book are dangerous.

Oh, and yes, many myths are based on real historical people and events, just look at all the legends of King Arthur. There is some truth in those stories, but most of it is embellishment. What corroborating evidence do you have that any of the stories of the bible represent actual events or people, or if they do that such representations are in any way accurate? No, I stick to my comment regarding the “bible” as allegorical at best and pure fiction at worst.

John,
Ahh, now you show your TRUE COLORS. Richard Dawkins and Bart Ehrman?
Boris says: I’ve been an atheist my entire life. The only people who have influenced my atheism are people who believe in God. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Evolutionary biologists are not obstructing science they are using science to create antibiotics, medicines, better foods and a lot of other products that make our lives longer safer and more enjoyable. The only people attempting to obstruct science are the exact same people who have stood in the way of scientific and social progress for almost 2000 years: Bible believers. Bart Ehrman is not a pathological liar. You are John. Bart Ehrman is telling the truth about the Bible as are Thomas Thompson and a lot of other Bible scholars.
What good is quoting a fallible, finite, unbelieving dipstick to Christian who has the truth?
Boris says: I’ll match my knowledge of the Bible against yours anytime. Where was Rachel buried? What were Solomon’s mother’s name and her father’s name? Who killed King Jabin of Hazor? Who killed Goliath? Was Jesus crucified before or after the Passover meal was eaten? After the Midianites were wiped out to the last person how did they reappear a generation later so numerous they were like locusts on the land? What scriptural evidence is there that the earth moves? You have the truth? Sure you do. Hahaha. Prove it Bible man. This is going to be really fun. Don’t avoid these questions. You say the Bible is true so prove it.
Vehement un-believers are the same today. They have all the evidence in front of them; they have received and have access to both covenants of God, but they remain stiff-necked people.
Boris says: What evidence do we have for the absurd claims of Christianity? What evidence is there for angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, seraphs, giants, heaven, hell or any of the rest of the retarded things you people believe in? All you believers have is arguments and arguments are NOT evidence. Conversely what scientific humanists believe is based solely on the evidence and not spurious arguments and ancient superstitions.
I’m glad for you Boris, that you have your scholastically inept friends to tell you ALL the details concerning Josephus or Tacitus, et al. I guess any evidence of their non-biblical acknowledgement of Jesus you’ll just conveniently write off with some academic excuse you’ve decided to swallow since it lines up perfectly with your own atheism.
Boris says: I have studied all 24 sentences from all 4 non-Christian sources that Christian apologists use to try to make the case for a historical Jesus. You obviously have not or you would not be so quick to make such a foolish boast. You are the one who scholastically inept. You can’t read either Hebrew or Greek and you never bothered to look for yourself at what apologists claim is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. I asked for proof from outside the Bible that Jesus Christ actually existed. You failed to supply anything. That hasn’t gone unnoticed and all your bluster isn’t going to change that.
Hey, if that’s what your itching ears want to hear, I guess you can search and believe even the most obscure rantings against proven historical accounts. Also, the Bible is history.
Boris says: What historical narratives contain dialog, entire conversations between people speaking in complete sentences? What historical narratives contain tales of the supernatural including angels, demons, Satan or dead people coming back to life? The Bible is written exactly like the rest of the fiction of its day.
No, these very simple and un-educated men (at least some of them) who encountered the real person of Jesus Christ and had their life changed and then summarily were willing to die for what they witnessed and preached about.
Boris says: The gospels weren’t written by any disciples of Jesus. Like Jesus, the disciples are fictional characters, part of the story. You Bible believers are so naïve and your approach to the Bible so infantile.
And if you want to say they were mislead or duped, okay, but then they must have been duped by JESUS–hmm, but you say Jesus never existed–so WTF about the martyrs?
Boris says: Stories about Christian martyrdom are nothing but lies invented by the church. Origen admitted that there were very few Christian martyrs. Give me some historical proof that any Christians were ever martyred. The truth is that the Christian church has been the mother of all persecutors since its inception.

Craig,
Fellow tribesman here. My mother converted so I was baptized a Christian though. I’m not trying to change John’s mind about anything. When a person actually believes that there is a God that knows their every thought and will punish them for the crime of doubting the sectarian dogma other people have brainwashed them with they really cannot be reached by people outside their religious cult. John’s mind is tortured with a belief in hell and almost every thing he does he does to avoid going there after he dies. If John someday realizes hell is a man-made concept he’ll see absolutely no use for his religion and will reject it. The only reason John believes the absurd things he does is because other people have convinced him he’ll be punished with unimaginable violence for all eternity if he doesn’t. John really has no use for his religion other than that it will supposedly save him from hell.
I’m just refuting John’s claims for the benefit of other people who might be reading his nonsense. John has already seen is only arguments demolished and he knows they aren’t any good, but the next time he gets in a similar debate he’ll trot the very same arguments out again hoping that this next person won’t know how to refute them. John’s a phony.
If you don’t think our posts are driving john nuts think again. Look at the anger in his posts calling Richard Dawkins a “scientific obstructionist” as if refuting the lies, distortions and bad science of creation “science” and Intelligent Design magic is somehow obstructing science. The public has a right to know what these religious hoaxers are up to; that they are basing all their “science” not on evidence at all but on the Bible. The flat, immovable 6163 year-old Earth on pillars Bible. That they are not just denying evolutionary theory but also cosmology, geology, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, astronomy including the speed of light, cell theory, quantum physics and the rest of science as well.
John called Bart Ehrman a pathological liar as if someone exposing all the lies Christian apologists have fabricated about the Bible is a liar. John hasn’t read more than 10 percent of the text of the Bible himself and then only in his very poorly translated KJV yet he sets himself up as someone who knows more about the Bible than people who can read it in its original languages. Ever notice that fundamentalist Christians always know a lot less about the Bible than the rest of us especially we atheists? This guy knows almost nothing about it at all. Watch what happens if he tries to answer those questions about the Bible I gave him.

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Natasha says: No, the wisdom of the world has made belief in God foolish.
Bible thumpers have often rebelled against scientific discoveries, decrying many as heresy, before finally being forced by sanity and reason to accept incontrovertible evidence, and a re-examination of erroneous dogmatic certitude.

Natasha we must find moose and squirrel.

The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord.

Natasha says: Moose and squirrel are toast.
The beginning of wisdom might vary from person to person don’t you think? I don’t find wisdom (definition 2. common sense) in fearing a supernatural being. I used to, so I have no problem understanding how you might. I think maybe wisdom begins with tolerance and understanding, and that those who would force religious beliefs upon others demonstrate neither.

Wisdom begins with atheism.

Boris, I hope you’re still lurking ’cause I’d like your view—going off topic.
1. Gender discrimination law says genders are to be treated equally under the law.
2. The law tells women that the consensual sex act resulting in pregnancy DOES NOT EQUATE to a desire, decision, willingness, or ability to become a parent. It does this by allowing termination of said pregnancy upon her legal demand alone. (Note that I have no problem with women being given complete say over their own person. It is provided by nature that female humans give birth, so there is no legal recourse providable by law to a man whose desire for a baby are at odds with the female’s decision to abort.)
3. The law tells men that the sex act DOES EQUATE to a decision to become a parent IF the female chooses to complete the pregnancy.
4. This is discriminatory against the male gender in that it not only tells him something completely different than it does the female, it actually transfers his right to decide upon parenthood to the female.
5. I realize that, in addition to the legal issue, there are societal and moral questions involved. You strike me as sane and logical, Boris, any conversation to be had from you?

Gimme sum wizdum
Well there is actually a reason that men have no reproductive rights anymore. Men once were the ones with all the reproductive rights but they abused them in the past. Feminists of history like women’s suffrage and antislavery crusader Susan B. Anthony, who was also an atheist by the way, actually campaigned against abortion because it was then seen as an imposition forced on women by men. So we can’t go back to that can we?
It seems the pendulum has swung just a little too far in the other direction though doesn’t it? I mean we can’t force women to have abortions against their will but I don’t think men should have parenthood forced on them if they don’t want it or are not ready for it and especially if they don’t want to or even worse cannot pay for it. I’d like to see men have at least some reproductive rights because what this has caused is millions of children being born out of wedlock. Poor women have kids by men who they know up front don’t want them but know they can force them to pay child support anyway. I think a lot of women would reconsider having children out of wedlock if they knew up front that the guy did not want the financial responsibility and if he makes that clear from the start he cannot be forced to pay child support. Tell me that wouldn’t cut down on children being born out of wedlock.
I appreciate you asking my opinion on this because most people seem oblivious to the root cause of this problem or any of our societal problems, which is why we keep trying solutions that don’t work. Plus this illustrates perfectly what happens when you trample on people’s rights whether it was women’s rights two centuries ago or men’s reproductive rights today.

Boris, thanks for the reply. Most people seem quite put off by the subject, except for young men (heh, duh) and one middle aged female friend. She said she knew women who had abortions prior to landing that special bank account. Don’t get me wrong, I think having a child is marvelous–if that’s what you want. But yeah, it does bug me that men don’t get the same decision making rights. Most people tend to try and BLAME the male for the consensual sex act in some way, since that is literally the only input (heh) he has. I consider your reply as further evidence of your rationality.
I agree, I think children born out of wedlock would decrease…though there might be a temporary spike in demand for abortions and morning after pills. Thanks again, it’s a pleasure reading you.