Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

posted at 9:01 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And not just the Bible, but Piers Morgan wants to amend the Constitution, too. It’s a darn good thing that the CNN host needed work badly enough to emigrate to a place that he finds so disagreeable.  What did we ever do without him?

I have no issue with the concept of amending the Constitution — and neither did the founders, who accepted that it might prove flawed for later use.  That’s why they included the mechanisms for amending the foundational document of American law within it, mechanisms that have been used 17 times since the original passage of the Constitution.  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).  If Morgan wants to press for an amendment repealing the Second Amendment in whole or in part, he just needs to convince two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Have fun storming the castle!

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously.  He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

If Morgan was serious, then it’s still less offensive than humorous, but the joke is on Morgan.  If you believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then you know that it’s absurd to suggest that it be “amended” based on the latest human fashion, which is what Warren explains.  God is, after all, unchangeable — or He wouldn’t be God at all. It would be equally absurd to think that anyone would base their faith on the amended product, a Gospel According To Piers, if you will, unless people decided that Piers is either God Himself or a new prophet, in which case he’d probably have a better gig.

And if you don’t think that the Bible is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11

Does the proof of one negate the other?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

.
Yes. The whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to prove the Bible wrong.

That’s why the subject can never be separated from politics.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Evolution is a theory based on the faith that man was created from nothing.

I chose to have faith in the Creator, God, who created man. All scientific fact proves everything created has a creator.

dthorny on December 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM

No.

hillbillyjim on December 27, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Just being sarcastic. You are actually one of the very few who have said anything relevant to the original post.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM

You are completely obtuse. I am AGAINST science that is biased and based on political consensus. This makes it a religion; not science. Capice?

that why intelligent design is religion and not science, capice?

First read the last three paragraphs of your example. Also your example is a perfect example of “intelligent” design as the scientist had a direct hand in the change..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

wrong! the experimenter did not design any thing. it merely let the bacteria grow in a certain environment and documented the changes it went trough without his intervention. this is, the experimenter did not made the advantageous gene changes(evolution), they occurred naturally.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I read your description of a “such a being”, and they do in fact describe such a being. I’m not sure why you deny it.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

For one thing the Hindus believe in an impersonal god.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Wow. Silly socon dupes do 800+ comments on a Piers Morgan troll about the Bible. That figures.

When his CNN show gets renewed (or he heads over to MSNBC for another show), he will thank you guys for all of the free publicity and new viewers.

Moesart on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Yes. The whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to prove the Bible wrong.

That’s why the subject can never be separated from politics.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I understand that it is the purpose of some but is it a truth? That truth being that one proof definitely negates the other. I don’t get the connection.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I read your description of a “such a being”, and they do in fact describe such a being. I’m not sure why you deny it.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

For one thing the Hindus believe in an impersonal god.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

And I was being necessarily brief. God obviously has more attributes than I listed.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

that why intelligent design is religion and not science, capice?

Really, so how do you explain the panspermia I.Ders? What religion are they using? Face it, YOUR science is as prone to biased and political pressure and thus is polluted.

wrong! the experimenter did not design any thing. it merely let the bacteria grow in a certain environment and documented the changes it went trough without his intervention. this is, the experimenter did not made the advantageous gene changes(evolution), they occurred naturally.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM

They kept bacteria in a controlled enviroment. That by itself is a design. Plus the bacteria mutation is explained better by degeneration and not a mutation. Oops something that would happen when a bacteria is stored in a controlled enviroment.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Wow. Silly socon dupes do 800+ comments on a Piers Morgan troll about the Bible. That figures.

When his CNN show gets renewed (or he heads over to MSNBC for another show), he will thank you guys for all of the free publicity and new viewers.

Moesart on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Well you are posting here too. Did you need to post to get a little attention, sweetie. Here ya go!

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM

He must be an idiot to think there will be no repercussion for what he says….I’m sure his viewership will decline as well as his career.

jnrz on December 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I understand that it is the purpose of some but is it a truth? That truth being that one proof definitely negates the other. I don’t get the connection.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

My opinion is that God could have used evolution to create living things. He could have used a number of different processes. There are some theistic evolutionists.

But, having said that, I do believe that Darwinian evolution not only is unsupportable scientifically, but also Biblically.

Most evolutionists recognize that and therefore atheists. Some evolutionists in more candid moments have stated that evolution does not make sense but the alternative, believing in a God to Whom they are accountable, is repugnant.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

.
I understand that it is the purpose of some but is it a truth? That truth being that one proof definitely negates the other. I don’t get the connection.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

.
Yeah, I’d say they pretty much contradict one another.

They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right.

If that isn’t what you meant, you’re gonna have to explain it better.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Wow. Silly socon dupes do 800+ comments on a Piers Morgan troll about the Bible. That figures.

When his CNN show gets renewed (or he heads over to MSNBC for another show), he will thank you guys for all of the free publicity and new viewers.

Moesart on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And you and your airheaded pals can continue to watch him.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Some evolutionists in more candid moments have stated that evolution does not make sense but the alternative, believing in a God to Whom they are accountable, is repugnant.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

.
MONEY LINE !

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Wow. Silly socon dupes do 800+ comments on a Piers Morgan troll about the Bible. That figures.

When his CNN show gets renewed (or he heads over to MSNBC for another show), he will thank you guys for all of the free publicity and new viewers.

Moesart on December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Well you are posting here too. Did you need to post to get a little attention, sweetie. Here ya go!

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Like Moesart I was thinking the same thing and we’re mocking the doofi who have deemed this a worthy discussion.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Most evolutionists recognize that and therefore atheists. Some evolutionists in more candid moments have stated that evolution does not make sense but the alternative, believing in a God to Whom they are accountable, is repugnant.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Or some volutionists believe in aliens created life on Earth.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

dthorny on December 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Or some volutionists believe in aliens created life on Earth.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

dthorny on December 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

That’s pretty funny. That means that Dawkins was effectively an Intelligent Design proponent…

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Actually it didn’t evolve “citrate eating capability’ Ecoli already had that ability. There was already a pathway for that ability. The only difference is bacteria could now using it in aerobic condidtions whereas before it was only during anaerobic conditions. I don’t think that is a species change, but a mutation and thus is micro biology..

it was not a single mutation, it was a succession of mutations that slowly gave the species that capability.

“The bacteria could use citrate in aerobic conditions if a gene regulator that normally turns on the citrate transporter only in anaerobic (non-oxygen) conditions now losses a control function and now turns the citrate transporter on all the time. This is the equivalent of a door being jammed opened all the time so that it ceases to be a means of controlling what comes into the cell under different conditions. This however is a loss of function, i.e. degeneration, caused by the loss or disruption of genetic information. It is not a gain in complexity. It is not a gain in new information and neither is it a gain of a new function”

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

you took that from here:
http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/bacteria-evolution-lenskis-e-coli-experiment-bacteria-evove-information

an creationist site. lol! the funny part, is when they try to say dinosaurs all died in noas flood!

http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/dinosaurs-what-real-evidence-dinosaurs-buried-rapidly-noahs-flood

anyway, the experiment did show the gain of a new function “citrate eating in any oxygen condition” and they shown the complex succession of mutations required for it.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf died.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right.

If that isn’t what you meant, you’re gonna have to explain it better.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Does the fact (I’m taking it as fact for sake of argument) that some species of bacteria, over time and for whatever reason, will become new and different species of bacteria discount the Biblical record of creation? That I don’t get.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

you took that from here:
http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/bacteria-evolution-lenskis-e-coli-experiment-bacteria-evove-information

an creationist site. lol! the funny part, is when they try to say dinosaurs all died in noas flood!

http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/dinosaurs-what-real-evidence-dinosaurs-buried-rapidly-noahs-flood

anyway, the experiment did show the gain of a new function “citrate eating in any oxygen condition” and they shown the complex succession of mutations required for it.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

t

Yeah it is kinda like you posting theological evidence from a site that is “jesusisn’treal?”

You do realize based on Lenski’s own research he “froze” the bacteria- intelligent design. And his bacteria become more fragile in some instances. It was a form of degeneration.. something that tends to happen in a controlled enviroment.. Maybe you should do some additional research on YOUR own research..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Here Nathor is a article by Lenski himself that reiterates exactly what I said:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632098/

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM

anyway, the experiment did show the gain of a new function “citrate eating in any oxygen condition” and they shown the complex succession of mutations required for it.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Yeah and what I said before- it did not create a new species. It was a mutation. Guess what sparky? Most everyone believe in mutations and micro-evolution. You were asked to show a “new species”which you have yet to do..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM

You were asked to show a “new species”which you have yet to do..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM

“There is nothing new under the sun”

Rio Linda Refugee on December 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

This thread has little to no relevance to the original topic, but I will bite again.

I took genetics at university. Many times genes are duplicated over and over again so that there are many copies. Some of those copies can mutate and give advantage to the organism. That is a gain of function. Additionally, genes naturally rearrange themselves around in the genome and you can get situations where genes or parts of genes rearrange so that they give entirely new functions to the organism.

It happens all the time! Some leukemias, for example, have BRCA and ABL genes stitched together. This combination leads to cancer because of the effects of both genes together.

In the multi-colored ears of corn on ya’ll’s farmsteads, transposons hop from chromosome to chromosome and result in the pattern you see.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 8:05 PM

They are several hundred years late, given the number King James pulled on it – and lets not get into Joseph Smith.

It does always fascinate me when the more anti-Catholic elements of Protestantism berate the Catholic Church for doing things grossly out of alignment with the Bible when ours is the religion that assembled it when God only knew Martin Luther before he was stitched in a womb.

Though this is entirely tangential to the other discussions in the thread I suppose. And at least regular church-attending Protestants are acting in good, err, faith the overwhelming majority of the time. The Marxist interpretations of the Bible range from absurd and insulting to blasphemous and heretical.

BKennedy on December 27, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Yeah it is kinda like you posting theological evidence from a site that is “jesusisn’treal?”

the site is quite good! you should read it… lots of little nuggets there that i bet you dont know…

You do realize based on Lenski’s own research he “froze” the bacteria- intelligent design.

so what? freezing the bacteria is to stop them from evolving. and have a point of comparison with future strains. he even references it as “frozen fossil record”

And his bacteria become more fragile in some instances. It was a form of degeneration.. something that tends to happen in a controlled enviroment..

what you have too show me is a paper that freezing bacterias invalidates these kind of experiments when in fact the whole paper you shown me is about how the bacteria, freezing or not, evolved its penicillin resistance “Evolution of Penicillin-Binding Protein 2 Concentration and Cell Shape during a Long-Term Experiment with Escherichia coli”

Maybe you should do some additional research on YOUR own research..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

lol! you want me to set up a lab now?

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Liberals tend to be horrid people, and you’re one of them.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Well you tend to pontificate hypocritically.
Again, just don’t engage.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM

As far as what to do with Piers, I say we strike a grand compromise with the Brits who don’t want Morgan back and we fly him only half way across the pond, then kick him out into the middle of the north-Atlantic.

BKennedy on December 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I have no idea why Mazer9 turned away from the faith once delivered, but in my personal experience with people that have done as he has they have been deeply hurt by someone in the church.

It is sad that someone will abandon his/her faith through the misguided (and sometimes, willful) actions of other Christians.

I love when people who believe in talking snakes and virgin births try to psychoanalyze why someone indoctrinated at such a young age could dismiss it as superstition and mythology as an adult. You really can’t see how someone could dismiss such nonsense once their critical thinking skills matured? How in the hell you can believe the bible without willfully suspending your disbelief? I have read comic books that are more believable.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Some evolutionists creationists in more candid moments have stated that evolution creationism does not make sense but the alternative, believingnot believing in a God to Whom they are accountable, is repugnant.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

there, fixed!

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf died.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

.
Was enjoying the evening, till I saw that … : (
.
God bless his family.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I can respect that thoughtful people might be atheists. But you are not very thoughtful, though you would like to flatter yourself.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

what you have too show me is a paper that freezing bacterias invalidates these kind of experiments when in fact the whole paper you shown me is about how the bacteria, freezing or not, evolved its penicillin resistance “Evolution of Penicillin-Binding Protein 2 Concentration and Cell Shape during a Long-Term Experiment with Escherichia coli”

So freezing isn’t a form of change or meddling with a natural enviroment? Changing them from flask to flask can’t cause pollution of the source…? Mmkay…

And BTW, becoming pencillin resistance does not mean that ” a new speices” has been found which was YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION. Becoming pencillin resistance means that the bacteria mutated. Furthermore, there were other instances where the bacteria become more fragile with the mutation.

the site is quite good! you should read it… lots of little nuggets there that i bet you dont know

I highly doubt it.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I’ll give a great example. Myoglobin binds oxygen and resides in muscle tissue. At some point the gene that encodes it was copied many times resulting in hemoglobin, which is what carries oxygen in your blood. In this case, most hemoglobins have 4 subunits that are almost identical to myoglobin. One of the main differences is since there are 4 units, the protein as a whole binds oxygen cooperatively, meaning once one atom of oxygen binds the rest follow quicker.

People in high altitudes and babies in the womb have 2 different subunits than most adults. These differences make them more strongly attracted to oxygen, which is the reason why babies don’t suffocate in utero. They have a greater affinity for oxygen than the mother’s blood.

Not sure when the initial copying happened that modified myoglobin into hemoglobin, but it appears to have happened when vertebrates first appeared.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Yeah and what I said before- it did not create a new species. It was a mutation. Guess what sparky? Most everyone believe in mutations and micro-evolution. You were asked to show a “new species”which you have yet to do..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM

guess what? macro evolution is just a succession of micro evolutions
I am not sure those new bacteria can be considered a “new species”. what is requires? a genome diferent enough in %?its just a matter of time

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Thanks.
So to clarify, you would follow Deuteronomy 22 to the letter?
The punishments for various ‘offenses’.
(I’m sure you don’t, of course.)
Or do you see it’s moral lesson/application in present times to be justly and divinely different? Is there an interpretation to be made that you see I’m missing – and is it therefore not to be taken literally?

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I don’t find it inconsistent that punishments are allowed to change over time. It’s also meant to be taken literally in its context. Moses was recalling the history of the Israelites and warning them not to make anymore mistakes in Deuteronomy.

And on the subject of punishments, I’m reminded of the often misinterpretation of the “eye for an eye” scripture. It only means let the punishment fit the crime and nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that people get that wrong (even so in the past with judgement) is not the fault of Moses or God.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

A very well reasoned answer.
But as much as you don’t view this way, I see our answer as an affirmation of what I was suggesting…that the faithful don’t necessarily believe every word.
Just as a Constitutional reading suffers with a textural approach, the Bible requires an acceptance and knowledge of when it was written…and by whom.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 8:17 PM

How in the hell you can believe the bible without willfully suspending your disbelief? I have read comic books that are more believable.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

.
All that means is we have to pray for you. We can do that without your consent . . . . . . . . and if there’s nothing to it, we’ve wasted our own time; you’re out nothing.

Right?

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

guess what? macro evolution is just a succession of micro evolutions
I am not sure those new bacteria can be considered a “new species”. what is requires? a genome diferent enough in %?its just a matter of time

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

And that’s why Darwinian evolution is a theory as your first sentence is speculation.

And admittedly I’m not an expert on this, but I thought observable microevolutional changes tend to reverse.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM

So freezing isn’t a form of change or meddling with a natural enviroment? Changing them from flask to flask can’t cause pollution of the source…? Mmkay…

so you are trying these type of experiments are completly invalid from the start because glass flasks and freeezing does not replicate natural conditions.

And BTW, becoming pencillin resistance does not mean that ” a new speices” has been found which was YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION. Becoming pencillin resistance means that the bacteria mutated. Furthermore, there were other instances where the bacteria become more fragile with the mutation.

when a bacteria can be considered a new species?

I highly doubt it.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

give it a try… it has lots of pictures

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

guess what? macro evolution is just a succession of micro evolutions
I am not sure those new bacteria can be considered a “new species”. what is requires? a genome diferent enough in %?its just a matter of time

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

So you have “faith” that it is a just a new matter of time before a new species is formed. MMkay..

And no, macro and micro biology are entirely different.

One is basically adaptation which will reverse when the species needs it to. One is one species changing and remaining another species.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

so you are trying these type of experiments are completly invalid from the start because glass flasks and freeezing does not replicate natural conditions.

No I said it was a form of intelligent design..because it required meddling in the change.. Please follow along.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 8:25 PM

All that means is we havge to pray for you. We can do that without your consent . . . . . . . . and if there’s nothing to it, we’ve wasted our own time; you’re out nothing.

Can’t hurt, but I am not sure what a god who couldn’t even keep 20 innocent kids from getting massacred is going to do for an atheist such as myself. Based on the resounding evidence, he seems rather aloof.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM

As far as what to do with Piers, I say we strike a grand compromise with the Brits who don’t want Morgan back and we fly him only half way across the pond, then kick him out into the middle of the north-Atlantic.

BKennedy on December 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Onto the Azores and let Portugal handle him, perhaps?

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM

And that’s why Darwinian evolution is a theory as your first sentence is speculation.

And admittedly I’m not an expert on this, but I thought observable microevolutional changes tend to reverse.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM

the experiment shows how a succession of mutations gave rise to a new capability that is advantageous in the bacteria environment… in other words, a sucession of “micro evolutions” gave rise to a new function “macro evolution”. is this reversible? i have no idea.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:32 PM

O T: . . . . HEY !verbaluce !

I knew you’d be back . . . . .

I saved this from six days ago (because I didn’t get a response):
.

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM

.
How are any of the hypothetical proposals presumed to do that?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM
.

Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

.
Is this for me?
Yes, that seems to be the essence of what’s be proposed.
Again.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
If you’re acknowledging this, then it’s hardly “hypothetical”.
The Second Amendment is FIRST, about self defense against a Tyranical government. Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess the same weaponry as your local and state police. Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.
.
My 1:24 PM comment is for you, as well. Reposting:

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
For full-auto, I’m for licensing. Should licensing be Federal or State controlled? That’s another argument.

Civilian (semi-auto) models of fully-auto military rifles and carbines should be no more restricted than a breech loading single shot .22LR.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

There is an aquatic slug that can support chloroplasts like a plant. It sucks out the contents of seaweed and keeps the chloroplasts in its body, using them to survive. Analysis found it has a gene necessary to keep chloroplasts alive, and that gene is identical to the seaweed it eats. At some point horizontal gene transfer happened, which radically changed its mode of life down to the germline. (Sex cells, for you folks in Rio Linda).

So yeah, not sure why we are a-talkin’ about evolution.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Peerless Morgan will be judged as will all of us by God’s Word which He exalts above all things (along with His name). Yes even with all the science and opinions all mankiknd tries to throw against it, the Word will prevail.
Deuteronomy 32:46-47, “…all the words I have solemny declared to you…are not just idle words…they are your life.

Sure there are many things I don’t understand but I do have more faith in God’s word than all the science and imaginations of the whole human race.

wepeople on December 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

For one thing the Hindus believe in an impersonal god.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Mainstream Hindu belief is in a personal god. The Bhagavad-Gita in the Upanishads is quite explicit about God as a personal God.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

OT…and I’m beat.
Late where I am.
Save this for another thread?
(And I can’t quite make out your question here.)

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Can’t hurt, but I am not sure what a god who couldn’t even keep 20 innocent kids from getting massacred is going to do for an atheist such as myself. Based on the resounding evidence, he seems rather aloof.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM

He tried. But the libs wouldn’t let Him. He gave it to man to manage our affairs, but we won’t take the necessary precaution or prescribe the necessary punishment to stop this kind of madness.

Blaming God for the actions of man only serve to reinforce your own beliefs which perpetuate these atrocities.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Blaming God for the actions of man only serve to reinforce your own beliefs which perpetuate these atrocities.
davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Not to jump in here, but I don’t think the avowed atheist is blaming God…

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

…Purse Morgan….the Bible’s version of the donkey !

KOOLAID2 on December 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Sure there are many things I don’t understand but I do have more faith in God’s word than all the science and imaginations of the whole human race.

wepeople on December 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Well, I, for one, find it reassuring that you vote in the republican primaries. Science and imaginations be damned!

Ridiculous.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

So yeah, not sure why we are a-talkin’ about evolution.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

i read about inter species transfer of genetic material trough viral infections. viruses when they infect hosts end up carrying a portion of the host dna and if they infect another species, they can end up leaving that dna there.
is this evolution? i am not sure…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

He tried. But the libs wouldn’t let Him. He gave it to man to manage our affairs, but we won’t take the necessary precaution or prescribe the necessary punishment to stop this kind of madness.

Blaming God for the actions of man only serve to reinforce your own beliefs which perpetuate these atrocities.

Didn’t know your god needed permission. Keep making excuses for him though, makes him look more omnipotent.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Mainstream Hindu belief is in a personal god. The Bhagavad-Gita in the Upanishads is quite explicit about God as a personal God.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

It is a hodgepodge of polytheism, pantheism, and self-theism.

They view life as cyclical which precludes a beginning.

It is fraught with eastern mysticism, which is goes against the philosophical understanding to which my line thinking leads.

Like I said, my posts were abbreviated. When I can overcome the power of procrastination I want to develop my argument more fully.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

i read about inter species transfer of genetic material trough viral infections. viruses when they infect hosts end up carrying a portion of the host dna and if they infect another species, they can end up leaving that dna there.
is this evolution? i am not sure…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Might not be, but science is still kind of cool anyways.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Well, I, for one, find it reassuring that you vote in the republican primaries. Science and imaginations be damned!

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Your words, pumpkin.

And how very liberal of you to be so concerned that another party is voting.

MelonCollie on December 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Blaming God for the actions of man only serve to reinforce your own beliefs which perpetuate these atrocities.
davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Not to jump in here, but I don’t think the avowed atheist is blaming God…

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yes, that would be a bit inconsistent.

But not believing in God (or god) because of the acts of man seems to me a bit like blaming God. However, I will concede your point.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Didn’t know your god needed permission. Keep making excuses for him though, makes him look more omnipotent.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Look, you want my understanding or not?

You said you tried Christianity, but the comments you make cause me pause.

I can only infer that your foray into Christianity was superficial at best.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:03 PM

i read about inter species transfer of genetic material trough viral infections. viruses when they infect hosts end up carrying a portion of the host dna and if they infect another species, they can end up leaving that dna there.
is this evolution? i am not sure…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

The issue is information. Micro-evolution, which creationists recognize, produces no new information. Macro-evolution would produce new information.

Macro-evolution has never been shown to occur.

That’s the biggest problem with debating evolutionists. They continually equivocate the terms.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Look, you want my understanding or not?

You said you tried Christianity, but the comments you make cause me pause.

I can only infer that your foray into Christianity was superficial at best.

My foray into Christianity was much like anybody else’s: indoctrination by practicing parents. No need to question my sincerity as a practioner, it is irrelevant to whether or not an invisible god exists.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Sure there are many things I don’t understand but I do have more faith in God’s word than all the science and imaginations of the whole human race.

wepeople on December 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Comments like that will get you mocked by those whose faith is in their own limited understanding.

Never mind that the Bible is more coherent than all of science.

I don’t mind the mockings. I’ve doing this for a long time. I was called a liar by name in the newspaper for my creationist stand.

But while the eternal Word of God will hold us in good stead, the science is against the evolutionist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

My foray into Christianity was much like anybody else’s: indoctrination by practicing parents. No need to question my sincerity as a practioner, it is irrelevant to whether or not an invisible god exists.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

May the wounds you carry heal, in the Name of Jesus.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Almost 900 comments and no Good Lt.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

And how very liberal of you to be so concerned that another party is voting.

MelonCollie on December 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yes, well, I love it when people say

Sure there are many things I don’t understand but I do have more faith in God’s word than all the science and imaginations of the whole human race.

wepeople on December 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

and

Never mind that the Bible is more coherent than all of science.

I don’t mind the mockings. I’ve doing this for a long time. I was called a liar by name in the newspaper for my creationist stand.

But while the eternal Word of God will hold us in good stead, the science is against the evolutionist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

That really makes me comfortable, as a non-believer, in what people who think this way want to use their big government to do to me.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

But while the eternal Word of God will hold us in good stead, the science is against the evolutionist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

if you force too much, you end you bending your perception of reality so that it fits your beliefs…
you can see the same process happening with other religions, are you sure it does not happen to you?

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

May the wounds you carry heal, in the Name of Jesus.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

lol! magic talk…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

But while the eternal Word of God will hold us in good stead, the science is against the evolutionist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

That is outlandish. the eternal word of god is the musings of some middle easterners from 2000 years ago. Science has progressed a lot since then.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

i read about inter species transfer of genetic material trough viral infections. viruses when they infect hosts end up carrying a portion of the host dna and if they infect another species, they can end up leaving that dna there.
is this evolution? i am not sure…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Nathor, I don’t usually agree with you, but this is an important point. I came up with the term “Epicurean evolution” to describe this in opposition to “Darwinian evolution”.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

May the wounds you carry heal, in the Name of Jesus.

Spare me with the character assassination on account you can’t defend your ridiculous beliefs.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Almost 900 comments and no Good Lt.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Yeah. Maybe he’s on vacation.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

That really makes me comfortable, as a non-believer, in what people who think this way want to use their big government to do to me.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

There is that socon boogie man again.. Boo!

I find it just as uncomfortable to be around people who are sure that science is 100 percent unbiased and settled. One person KNOWS THEY ARE RELYING ON FAITH;the other doesn’t.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEdpkdkjLf0

The Bible is perfect.

There is so much evidence supporting the miracles of the Bible it is amazing. The above link has evidence of the real Mt. Sinai.
The things people have discovered over in the desert.. the split rock, the real Mt. Sinai, other evidence of the old testament.
There is one youtube video that several people put together with visual evidence that is just stunning. It’s all right there. They entire exodus from Egypt and all the miracles sitting in the middle of the desert. I think the above link is that video.

More people will more easily believe in UFO’s than they will believe in the miracles of the Bible.. even if the evidence is just sitting right there.

I remember how NASA found some small rock in the antarctic a few years back, that proved there was life on Mars. Really? And yet you find some 3 story rock, split down the middle in the middle of the desert.. rock that appears to have had water flowing out of it (because of the smoothness.. as though a river had gushed from the rock.. that leads to a dry lake bed… where no water should be) and the same people who believe in UFO’s will reject it.

JellyToast on December 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM

i read about inter species transfer of genetic material trough viral infections. viruses when they infect hosts end up carrying a portion of the host dna and if they infect another species, they can end up leaving that dna there.
is this evolution? i am not sure…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I would say yes. Whenever you get ill from a bacterium or virus this is what happens. Your cells get new DNA or RNA that messes them up and repurposes them into something different. When we look at the genomes of many animals we see evidence for infection with herpesvirus and other viruses that have introduced new material.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM

It is a hodgepodge of polytheism, pantheism, and self-theism.

They view life as cyclical which precludes a beginning.

It is fraught with eastern mysticism, which is goes against the philosophical understanding to which my line thinking leads.

Like I said, my posts were abbreviated. When I can overcome the power of procrastination I want to develop my argument more fully.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

You are mostly wrong about Hinduism, but it’s worse than just being wrong. Besides being wrong, it is condescending to contrast Hinduism as mysticism with Christianity as leading to philosophy.

When atheists mock you, you reap what you sow.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

wepeople on December 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Just like spring follows winter, see the loving comments I got.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You are mostly wrong about Hinduism, but it’s worse than just being wrong. Besides being wrong, it is condescending to contrast Hinduism as mysticism with Christianity as leading to philosophy.

When atheists mock you, you reap what you sow.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Show me in the vendettas where I’m wrong. There’s only a couple hundred of them. Surely you can find it somewhere.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:30 PM

When atheists mock you, you reap what you sow.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Getaclue. Atheists’ mockings bother me not one whit.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Macro-evolution has never been shown to occur.

That’s the biggest problem with debating evolutionists. They continually equivocate the terms.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM

That term was created by creationists and is not something recognized by science. No one ever spoke of either in any of my studies. I have given many examples of “new information” or new functions. Most occur through viral infections, gene transfer, duplication of the genome, and rearrangements of the genome.

Entirely new functions can also arise simply by where a certain gene is expressed, (or not allowed to be expressed). Homeobox genes are responsible for the layout of the limbs of most every animal and are the reason a lobster looks different from a silverfish.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I find it just as uncomfortable to be around people who are sure that science is 100 percent unbiased and settled. One person KNOWS THEY ARE RELYING ON FAITH;the other doesn’t.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I am not at all 100% sure science is unbiased, and science is NEVER settled. I like there are plenty of biases in science, and I think science can be wrong (I disagree very much with the whole man made global warming scare). I’m open to alternative theories. I’m not against the idea that there was a creator of some sort even… however, there is no proof of a creator, and mounting evidence of evolution.

If there is some kind of creator, I highly doubt the christian bible is anywhere near the mark. I highly disagree with the moral standards set out in the old testament, and the new testament is mostly full of unbelievable fairy tails and feel good nonsense.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Show me in the vendettas where I’m wrong. There’s only a couple hundred of them. Surely you can find it somewhere.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:30 PM

In the first place, it is the Vedas. A vendetta is something else entirely. The Vedas have been supplanted in Hinduism by more modern teachings, like the Holiness Code has been supplanted by the New Testament teachings in Christianity or subject to rather extreme reinterpretation as in Judaism. Read Chapter Nine of the Bhagavad-Gita. It’s short and not unreasonable given that you asked me to show you wrong.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Show me in the vendettas where I’m wrong. There’s only a couple hundred of them. Surely you can find it somewhere.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:30 PM

The vendettas? I think you mean the Vedas. And there are more than a couple hundred of them. I have read some of the Vedic hymns, but I won’t live long enough to be able to read even a fraction of them all, much less understand them. Hinduism is not a single religion. It has immense variation. There are polytheistic versions, pantheistic versions, atheistic versions, and combinations of the above. The diversity in Hinduism makes Judaism, Christianity and Islam look like sects of the same religion.

HeIsSailing on December 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Well I was going to comment on the video clip, but I see the discussion has drifted.. anyway, what does he mean by ‘ammend’? By who’s authority? Is he just teasing Rick Warren or is he serious?

HeIsSailing on December 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Hinduism is not a single religion. It has immense variation. There are polytheistic versions, pantheistic versions, atheistic versions, and combinations of the above. The diversity in Hinduism makes Judaism, Christianity and Islam look like sects of the same religion.

HeIsSailing on December 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM

This is why I love about Hinduism. You find your own Hinduism, as most people find their own Christianity. Hinduism is upfront about it.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

When atheists mock you, you reap what you sow.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

.
Getaclue. Atheists’ mockings bother me not one whit.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

.
They hurt my feelings . . . . . I’m going home and tell my mommy on them.
Then my mommy will tell Ed Morrisey, and they’ll really be in “big heck”.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs. (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 10:15 PM

They hurt my feelings . . . . . I’m going home and tell my mommy on them.
Then my mommy will tell Ed Morrisey, and they’ll really be in “big heck”.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Go get ‘em, Tiger.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I remember how NASA found some small rock in the antarctic a few years back, that proved there was life on Mars. Really? And yet you find some 3 story rock, split down the middle in the middle of the desert.. rock that appears to have had water flowing out of it (because of the smoothness.. as though a river had gushed from the rock.. that leads to a dry lake bed… where no water should be) and the same people who believe in UFO’s will reject it.

JellyToast on December 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM

.
But believing a small rock in the Antarctic “proved there was life on Mars”, doesn’t require accountability to a higher authority.

If that same small rock proved “the existence of God” . . . . . you know the rest.
.
BTW, that split-rock is way cool. So are the chariot remains found on the bottom of the Red Sea.

Too many archeological finds that confirm the Exodus, right down to minute details.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

.
Go get ‘em, Tiger.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 10:16 PM

.
Sometimes, you just gotta have fun. . : )

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Answer the question, mazer……………

I have the evidence of constant experimentation to back me up.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Ah. That explains a lot.

What was it that you prayed so hard for…and God’s answer was no?

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM

My foray into Christianity was much like anybody else’s: indoctrination by practicing parents. No need to question my sincerity as a practioner, it is irrelevant to whether or not an invisible god exists.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM
.

May the wounds you carry heal, in the Name of Jesus.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

.
Spare me with the character assassination on account you can’t defend your ridiculous beliefs.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

.
You can accuse us Christians of a lot of things, but when did a prayer (based on your prior comment) become “character assassination” ? ! !

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Bacteria doesn’t become a new species when it develops antibiotic resistance, and antibiotic resistance is not the result of a a mutation. It’s the result of a gene that was already present in the bacteria, and it’s also nothing new.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm

Sep. 16, 2011 — Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.

Research findings published August 31 in the science journal Nature show antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern clinical antibiotic use. Principal investigators for the study are Gerry Wright, scientific director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research and Hendrik Poinar, McMaster evolutionary geneticist.

Even if you could establish that bacteria become new species due to antibiotic resistance, you have absolutely no way to establish a transition between single celled organisms and multi-celled organisms, which is a gigantic hole in evolutionary theory and an epic fail in explaining how life “evolved” on earth.

It’s becoming very amusing to watch idiots who think they know something about science try to “explain” life on planet earth…almost as amusing as the ridicule heaped on believers by the self-righteous atheists.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a complete boob who knows nothing about the constitution or the bible. :)

JannyMae on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

899

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 11:28 PM

900

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11