For anyone in need,I am having A "free stuff" thing this weekend at my house.House hold stuff,blankets,coats,whatever.If anyone has anything to help donate,feel free! You can find my address at stop n go on Mt zion and Mil. st. or at Obama office.We are only 1 family so there isnt much but what we do have may help SOMEONE!

I am of a different opinion.

Posting a definition was your undoing earlier.

Re-read the posts.

Darwin was the blind squirrel to whom I referred.
Here is a definition of sleight of hand
1. A trick or set of tricks performed by a juggler or magician so quickly and deftly that the manner of execution cannot be observed; legerdemain.
2. Performance of conjuring tricks.
3. Skill in performing conjuring tricks.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I wouldn’t want you to accuse me of making up my own definition.
The only one you deceive with that "deft sleight-of-hand" is yourself. If you had proof then sleight of hand would be unnecessary.
It does seem as though you cannot keep the 2 issues separated in your mind. Perhaps you should have posted your comment with the link on that story comment board instead of this one, unless your intent was more "deft sleight-of-hand".

By deft sleight-of-hand I proved you lack the foundation for a good discussion of evolution.

Documents from the Catholic Church are not an issue. It has been proven time and time again that child-rape in that church is a matter of constructive institutionalization. See posts below.

No on the hangover.

Re: your metaphor: blind squirrel finding a nut. If I am the blind squirrel, what are you?

If you scan down the list of comments you'll find that the proof I seek here from you is of evolution. Perhaps you refer to a request I made from you for Catholic Church documents institutionalizing child rape on the comment board from another story. The link you provided offers no such proof for that or this.
Saturday morning hangover?
Didn't get any "hair of the dog" yet?
You would do well to heed this sage dictum of the Prophet of Evolution who managed to exhibit rare wisdom (for him) with the following, "An American Monkey after getting drunk on Brandy would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men."- Charles Darwin. There it is, proof positive that even a blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut even if it can't prove the theory of evolution.

How's this for proof.

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/oct/25/...

OMG!!! IT TOOK ME ALMOST 10 MINUTES TO SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE END OF EVERYONES "BIBLE THUMPING".S T O P I T !!!!!! THIS IS GROSS!LIKE I SAID SEVERAL DAYS AGO,IT IS JUST A FEW PPL AND A FEW CHURCHES HELPING THOSE IN NEED. GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!!!!

another quote from a non-believer

Good, now go and sin no more.

Whatever you say preacher.

billnewbie, your remark is nonsequitur.

Gazettefan, practise what you preach.

bibledude: Thou Shalt Not Be Sarcastic

optimism wants to be the peacemaker. Funny you should have a problem with that!

Thank you Optimism, suddenly I feel peace with my inner child.

;~)

Ewww knock it off. Science really can't explain "poof" and poof can't explain science...so seriously all of you, step back take a big breath and realize that both arguments make sense in their own ways.....now I said...step back, take a deep cleansing breath, let go of everything, and think about the other without any interference.....the both make sense....seriously, they really do...you just have to decide which one you believe, and realize that there will NEVER be PROOF POSITIVE for either one......Loves, hugs and kisses to all....

It's an admission of defeat alright, your defeat.

billnewbie, your last post is non-responsive and contains an admission of defeat. Read some recent Theory of Evolution books not written by religionists.

You should think about why you can't consider these two possibilities:

The Theory of Evolution is true and evolution followed from god creating the universe and then just letting it go on its own.

Or that god just outright began evolution and then let it go on its own.

The fact that your religiosity doesn't allow you to do this says a lot about religiosity and how you as an individual think.

You should be willing to abandon at least a little of what you believe. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

Gazettefan-Nailed us? What kind of dream world do you live in? You're like the guy who tried to hammer a nail and hit his thumb instead. The only electronic item I own was formed from some metal scraps in my garage that formed a toaster when a wind blew in.

You had your chance. I waited days for your proof. We could have had a reasoned discussion. But I've had enough of your condescension. Besides, I'm too stupid to satisfy you no matter how I answer. So go ahead, thump away. You'll find it just as hollow as your boast.

billnewbie, bibledude et. al., opinion,huh?

Think of all the electronic and non-electronic items you depend on everday. Now tell me the existence of those things and your reiiance on them is based on "opinion" and not, at a minimum, acquiessance to science and the scientific method.

optimism, right now I'm thumping my chest over how I got billnewbie, bibledude, et. al. nailed. (If you'll pardon the reference.)

Bill- For me to be mistaken for you is a compliment, not sure how good it is for you to be mistaken for me though:)

It does semm that some have difficulty distingueshing between you and me. I even got an e-mail from another who mistakenly took me to task for something you wrote, and then a few minutes later sent another retracting the first.

Bill-The thumper reference was from me. On another board Gazettefan called you, myself and others Bible thumpers. I then asked him what kind of thumper is he? A chance thumper? etc.

I just hope you'll take my advice and read those books. See for yourself whether there is anything of value in them.

So....how about that men's shelter?? I actually learned a lot from this blog, and enjoyed debating with all of you, and I sure hope there aren't any hard feelings... :o)

Optimism, I don’t remember asking Gazettefan what kind of “thumper” he is. He called me that on a different story comment board and I wrote that it was a graceless cheap shot. Of course the only thing that makes such a title a cheap shot is the connotations Gazettefan attaches to the word. Beyond that I don’t believe I made any other comment.
Of course the title is nonsense as applied to me. You can search my archive and you will find scant references to biblical passages. If I were a (bible) thumper, my posts would be filled with biblical chapter and verse references. But in the eyes of some, even 3 or 4 references out of almost 800 comments qualifies one as a “thumper”. Maybe that qualifies Gazettefan as an anti-religious bigot.

AMEN!

Billnewbie ON FIRE!

Gazettefan, I say the same about you. Which is right? That is a matter of opinion. I listed all those definitions to make that point. Evidence is also subject to opinion, both of its validity and its applicability. Proof is not subject to opinion. When the astronauts watched the earth rise over the moonscape of which they were in orbit, that was proof of a round earth. When you burn your finger in a flame, that is proof that it is hot. When you dig up a fossilized bone and recreate a skeleton out of plaster using that single bone as a model adding soft tissue and describing the creature’s habits, that is conjecture. Digging up fossils and dating them according to the age of the stone they are found in is conjecture. Dating stone by the age of the fossils found in it is also conjecture. It seems that scientists are just as prone to wishful thinking as you say deists are. Could it be that these paragons of humanity still possess the same human nature as the rest of us? Does a P.H.D. eradicate the evil side of human nature? Does a P.H.D. guarantee the integrity of its bearer? Do you suppose there have been any scientists that have assaulted children as some Catholic priests have? If so, would that disqualify evolution as you apparently believe that Christianity is disqualified?
I will now stop asking for the proof as none exists and as I am convinced that you cannot provide it.

GAZETTEFAN...I got it! Bill asked you what kind of thumper you are......you are a "Chest Thumper"......hehe just kidding...but I thought I'd help you out seems I didn't see you respond to that one yet. LOL. You must have been going in circles looking for the glass of Captain you lost....hehe. Oh wait, I forgot, You keep one in each room just for that reason, guess you must have taken a time out...hehe...(I am only kidding seriously)

billnewbie, you prefer the definition that doesn't apply.

Maybe sometimes when people stand toe to toe that have different views and/or beliefs, then maybe, just maybe, it's better to agree to disagree...

Also, I do believe that science is in no way a part of understanding our creation and as long as people try to depend on science to explain our existence, it won't ever happen. The truth is in the soul.

Now about my being open and accepting of other views. I am not accepting, I just understand what the evolutionalists are saying, and their argument does "sound" reasonable, so I can see how a factual, tangible person would lean towards that philosophy. I don't believe that to be true, but can understand that certain personalies can only handle the logical.

Bibledude...I TOTALLY "get" what you are saying! I believe that the world came to be as it says in the bible, even though I am not "book smart", as I have said in the past, but I do believe that God resides in my soul and he and I have a personal relationship like no other, and that I know he resides in the non-believers as well, they are just on a path that is paved for their own personal experience, and at their persise time, they will come to know the truth as it is. I want to have faith that every individual on this earth has a purpose, unfortuneately, even those of terrorism. I also disagree with the way they choose to justify their inhumane behavoir by saying they honor "their" God. This is a consequence of ones who are being taught by intellects, who, disgustingly, are members of a cult, and do not have a personal relationship with their God, only a relationship that has been learned. Although they are a threat to us, I believe that these instances have to happen in "God's" eyes to test the faith of the believers. You say my way of thinking is sweet, well, I don't mean it to be sweet, I am not disgustingly sweet, (somethimes can be very judgemental...but truly try not to be), I just want to respect the fact that there are only a select few universal truths, and the creation of "us" I believe is one of them, but many can't grasp that consept because the thought of a "poof" creation is just not believeable to them...."now". But, I do believe in the end, we all find the truth, even if it means a cycle of do overs, because a truth can only be true if one belives it, it can't be forced unless fear is used. I guess I am leaning towards the old cliche...everything happens for a reason, and is in our plan. I believe that our book has been written before we take our first breath, and God loves us so much, he allows us to make mistakes on the way, and intervenes only when necessary.

optimism-Please correct me if I'm wrong but your way of looking at the world seems to me to say "what is true for you may not be true for me. Truth is relative so let's all just find our truth and be happy." (My words not yours) However, truth is narrow and exclusive, two opposites can not be true at the same time. Gazettefan and others here believe that the world is a combination of time and chance, others like myself believe our world came to be by intelligent design. Those two opinions are exclusive, they can not both be true at the same time. Either the world randomly came to be or it came to be by God's design but not both. Either a person believes the Bible is a Divinely inspired book or simply a book written by man, it can not be both at the same time. Of course we should respect the opinions of others but I'm not going to value what I do not believe to be true. I can respect those who disagree with me, I can respect their right to voice that disagreement, I can value the person who disagrees with me but why should I value the position? Terrorists believe that killing innocent people pleases their God, should I value that? No, I abhor that value system. Your opinion sounds nice and sweet but when put to the test it doesn't hold water.

No Gazettefan, I'm obviously too stupid.
If I had deliberately ignored any of the definitions I posted, why would I post them? Unlike you, I don't ignore the things that don't fit my argument. It’s called intellectual honesty. It prevents self-deception. Honesty is often characterized as stupidity, especially by the dishonest.
You haven’t always called me stupid (I think it’s fair to characterize the list of derogations with which you attacked me and with which you enhanced your ego as the equivalent of calling me stupid). What do you suppose happened to me lately?
With such a superior intellect as yours, I should feel honored that you deigned to offer your intellectual critique of my meager intellect. I should just skulk away in shame, but I haven’t got the intellectual capacity to know when I’ve been put in my place. Only the proof will do that.
Still waiting for the proof…..

BILL...love the analogy of my husband saying I am mentally deranged for liking spinich...I have been accused of being a bit off my rocker....so you just might know better than you think...lol. I understood your point, and except your stance. Hope there are no hard feelings, I seriously believe and stand behind EVERYTHING I wrote, but I also SERIOUSLY value each and every other person's belief system as well. I was just trying to point that out and try and maybe just help one more person see it is ok to be different....and conformity is not always necessary.

billnewbie, in case you don't understand, your last post proves the nitpickery I'm talking about. You deliberately ignored the appropriate definition of "theory" and chose the one that doesn't apply.

billnewbie, your post is another example of how anti-intellectualism and laziness are crucial to religiosity and narrow-mindedness. The fact that you can only respond by making-up nonsense is consistent with your superstitious mentality.

tn...., don't be lazy. Make the effort.

the•o•ry (th -r , thîr )
n. pl. the•o•ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Late Latin the ria, from Greek the ri , from the ros, spectator : probably the , a viewing + -oros, seeing (from hor n, to see).]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I particularly like definition #6, conjecture, which is most appropriate in regards to evolution. Semantics is not proof.
Interesting tactic, trying to put the burden of proof on the scoffers. You are the one that claims there is proof, so you must know where it is. Don’t be afraid, you can tell us.

"This nitpickery is why I do not post one of the many examples of evolution here", come on GF, give us JUST ONE! Make it a good one that can't be questioned. There must be ONE that will stand up to "nitpickery".

The word "theory" as it pertains to science refers to a body of evidence that generates statements that are interconnected in such a way that related observations are explained. Testability is required in order for all this to hold as a theory. Like many words in the English language the word "theory" has different meanings. The word "theory" in the term "Theory of Evolution" is not the same word "theory" as it pertains to speculation.

The witting or unwitting application of the word "theory-speculation" to the term "Theory of Evolution" is an ongoing tactic of creationists. This nitpickery is why I do not post one of the many examples of evolution here. The creationists who have actually looked into the matter of evolution know these examples are abundant. Yet, without regard to the truth, they persist in their attempt to muddy-up the issue. Therefore, I welcome the creationists to post the proof here and then nitpick it. Maybe the truth will eventually rub-off on them. Don't be afraid.

No Gazettefan, the taunting from me started after Clouds555 wrote rather emphatically,” EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER” and then you wrote “Evolution has been proven time and time again”. You must know that these are overstatements as no such proof exists, evidence exists, but not proof as you should very well know. Am I wrong? Provide the proof. Show me where the scientific world has determined that the theory of evolution has now accumulated enough evidence that science is now willing to call it the law of evolution or retract your statement. An honest person must do one or the other.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. A preponderance of evidence can often be accepted as proof, but even then sometimes evidence gives the wrong impression and leads one to the wrong conclusion.
Optimism wrote “Yes, BILL...but for some reason you just can't accept that there is a difference in beliefs (&that's ok!!).....” I think you may have been addressing the question posed by Bibledude that reads “Optimism-Read the posts, the taunting goes both ways. Are you as offended when the posters of faith are taunted by Gazettefan?” I have no alter-egos on these comment boards, as it’s a violation of Gazettextra’s rules. I use only on moniker. I am sure that some do use more than one but I find that to be dishonest and as a result, I won’t do it. Bibledude is someone else. I’ll respond anyway as you have addressed me. I mock their statement that evolution has been proven time and time again. Even the most adamant evolutionaries such as scientists and museums of natural history still refer to evolution as a theory. If it were proven, would not such luminaries drop the reference to “theory” when discussing the “law” of evolution? They may have satisfied themselves that evolution is true but they are not willing to extend that belief into the realm of the absolute. And so it is with deists. We have no absolute proof. We believe.
I wonder what your attitude toward your husband might be if your husband stated that those who like spinach are mentally defective? I doubt that you would praise his powers of perception. I suspect that you would take such a statement as an insult and that you just might demand a detailed explanation for his contention and belittle him when he fails to provide one. Perhaps not, as he is your husband, unless you’re headed for divorce court. But suppose instead that it was a stranger in a restaurant? That may remove the temper from your temper and give you a new appreciation for disrespectful retort.

The taunting began after they claimed they wanted proof.

it is because of what GF said, "she is a true Christian"....(sarcasm)

The most crude and offensive posts have been by GF. Bill or True Science haven't come close to the hateful, disrespectful things GF has said. He wants everyone to respect his opinion, believe his false statements that he cannot prove while tearing at our beliefs and opinions. I'm not sure why you are trying to defend him.

Asking for proof isn't taunting....but picking on a given personal proof is taunting...

Optimism-Bill or anyone from either side of the issue asking for proof is not taunting. You could site other examples that would be considered taunting but asking for proof is not one of them.

Yes, BILL...but for some reason you just can't accept that there is a difference in beliefs (&that's ok!!).....you are persistant. And NO I AM NOT ok when others, including gazettefan, taunt, you just do it the most.....proof...proof..proof...and when someone gives you their proof derived from their truth, you mock them and tell them they are wrong...and you quote your truths from the stories of historians, and I don't doubt the "stories" are valid, because that is your right to believe what you believe, but, if you enjoy that right, then you need to return the favor....(this is my beliefs for all of society). It is not different than me liking spinich and my husband doesn't.....I don't belittle him and ask him for a DETAILED explaination of why he chooses NOT to like spinich.....see what I'm saying???? :)

Gazettefan-I read on another post you call people of faith bible thumpers (very creative). What kind of a thumper might you be? A nothing thumper? A chance thumper? A "free" thinker thumper? A intolerantoffaith thumper?

Optimism-Read the posts, the taunting goes both ways. Are you as offended when the posters of faith are taunted by Gazettefan?

Ok, Bill.......goodnight, and good luck with those purring cattails. I am guessing it might take a "long time" for them to mesh.... ;o)

Gazettefan....Good point.

BILL...I am not mad, I just get annoyed when taunting takes place as far as person beliefs. I understand that sometimes big words need to be used, and do understand most of them, but a person tends to get lost (just as they do in the bible) when there are too many all together. Lamen's terms could be used to broaden your audience. Proof isn't an issue as far as evolution, the exsistence of God, the capacity of the soul or any "thought to be's". The truth lies in the eyes, mind and body of the believer. And no amount of proof, as you put it, will ever be valid enough to convince the unconvinced. And as far as you asking me if I believe in all of those others, (i.e. plato etc..), I have heard of them from the print in historian's "stories", but I can't say that there is any valid proof they really exsisted. Just to revisit my stance, on this men's shelter, as well as the exsistence of God (which I believe in both), my belief comes from my own heart, all of the intellects in the world couldn't convince me otherwise. All the priests, ministers and pastors couldn't convince me of any other way to know the Lord, but I am open to their knowledge, but their experience would never be of use to me, because each experience with the lord is personal, and no two are alike. Just because we think we are right, doesn't make it true. That is what MY POINT is....don't ever be to quick to unload your truths on someone else, because unless it is universally true, proof does not exist. (and there is a difference between factual existence and emotional exisistence).

Interesting how some people who can grasp the idea of eternity are, at the same time, incapable of understanding that some things take a long long time.

There, there optimism, I can see you’re quite upset. I'll remind you and anyone else who is interested, that I am challenging those who claim that evolution has been proven over and over again to produce the proof. Since they will not yet they still assume an air of superiority, this method may be successful.
That is an interesting attitude you have of the historical record. No concrete proof of anything B.C.? So you doubt the existence of, and the survival of the works of such as Plato, Socrates, Confucius, Julius Caesar, Cicero and the like as well as Christ?
All of those I mentioned were deists, by the way. I find it amazing that evolutionists can so easily throw away that vast record of divinity in favor of what in comparison is brief and not at all well substantiated. If such substantiation were readily available, would not those staunch deniers of the Divine bring forth their proof forthwith, and put me in my place?
I noticed you used the term "B.C. days". Are you aware of what that means?
Sorry the big words offend you. Little words sometimes just don't do the job.

Your powers of perception are exceptional. Gamble much, other than on eternity?
Still waiting.....

BILL DARLRING........you really are quite intelligent, it is just too bad that you have to be sarcastic about things. You know you keep saying you need proof....from anything in the B.C. days there is NEVER goint to be any CONCRETE proof. Not even YOUR proof classifies as VALID proof. Words written are not considered valid if the event documented has not been personally seen or mathmatically worked. I could write down here that I am a millionaire (I wish), and some may believe it because it is in print, but in actuality, that is false. AND nothing from that period is in a tangible form. SO if you really want to get down low, there is really no such thing as proof when a universal truth is not known. SO, go on and keep impressing yourself with your super words, and belief that you have personal proof of evolution, and have a happy little bubble.

billnewbie, the redeeming thing about your last post it that you are obviously a drinker.

My human nature evolved, according to evolutionists. Did it start out cynical?
Are any of us immune to influences? Isn’t that why we invented schools?
If it’s O.K. to be different, then why do most strive to conform? Isn’t the purpose of evolution to conform the species to characteristics that maximize survivability? Aren’t you trying to browbeat me into conformity?
I wonder how it is that these ignorant, heartless and superstitious humans managed to be the basis on which was built the civilized, urban and compassionate society we have now?
Look how advanced we have become!
Sickly children are never abandoned anymore... well, O.K, bad example.
Ignorance has been eradicated…. that doesn’t work either!
Inarticulateness has disappeared…. except maybe on these comment boards.
No one lives in fear anymore…. With the possible exceptions of those who live in hurricane zones, earthquake zones, areas prone to drought and those few souls without access to modern medicine and face the certainty of their mortality. Even those who have the benefit of our modern marvels still do face the certainty of mortality. But we don’t fear our mortality anymore since science has discovered that there is nothing at the end of life. The abyss is nothing to fear???
And of course anyone who ever thought anything that disagrees with modern science must be mentally ill.
I reject the suppositions of those who claim that our ancestors were deficient compared to modern man. It seems arrogant to me that we think we can know what they were thinking, and that they had limited ability to think, thousands of years ago in spite of what they wrote. I contend that humans are just as susceptible to fables and wishful thinking as we ever have been and that we respond to fear as we have as well. Chiding deists for these failing while pretending they don’t exist in evolutionists is proof of their own deficiencies.
How can it be that every isolated pocket of humanity past has at its core a belief in a Supreme Being? From the Eskimos to the Aborigines of Australia, from the Aztecs to the Zulus to the Polynesians some belief of the divine is evident. Did they all hear the same voice telling them the same fable?
I ask for proof and I get rationalizations. And yet the proof eludes…..

BILL.....your question was....did cynicism evolve? Of course it didn't...it is human nature to doubt....but your cynicism is definately evolved!!! You obviously have had events in your life, or a "mentor", that has effected your thought process. Here's a new idea for you......IT IS O.K. TO BE DIFFERENT.

Belief in the supernatural came from the fear and ignorance of early humans. It was a way to make sense of the world around them. Early humans were inarticulate and groveled for everything. The courting process for early men consisted of raping woman. Sickly children were dealt with by abandonment. Humans have made improvements in all these areas of the human experience since then.

The first religious leaders heard voices; much like schizophrenics hear voices today. Eventually humans understood schizophrenics for what they are. And now even religionists wash their hands of schizophrenics as leaders.

This rejection of schizophrenics as religious leaders (relegating schizophrenics as mental cases) is an intermediary state of in the evolution of human thought. Current religionists are evidence that the changes required to evolve do not happen to all member of the species. The ones who fail to evolve will be left behind just as the schizophrenics were left behind.

Well, after a long night of attempting to cross pollinate cattails with cat's tails in an apparently futile attempt to produce either a purring plant or a cat that likes water, I’m going to call it a night. I’m sure the evolutionary anti-supernaturalists are busily compiling the volumes of proof they possess and will supply such at their earliest convieiance. I’ll check back frequently as I eagerly await the “proof”, or is that poof, no, no that would need a supernatural element. My bad. I guess I’m just a natural born cynic. You don’t suppose cynicism evolved too? I wonder what it evolved from. So many questions, I just have to be more patient. For that matter, from where did this bizarre idea of the supernatural come. From whence did it evolve? Just what creative spark from an unknowing, unfeeling and unreasoning celestial force induces these intellectual characteristics in this one peculiar creature of its construct, humans? There I go again. Patience, patience….

Wait a minute, hold the phone. I think I got taken in by a scam, kind of like a lot of other "proofs" of evolution that turned out to be con jobs. Guess I'll just have to patiently wait for the "defenders of the faith" to provide the evolutionary proof I seek.

I found it, I found it, the missing link!!!
This site rocks!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6sSExyn...

Were scientists on hand to engineer the first puddle of primordial soup? Well, perhaps one.

And still the proof eludes....
I sop up my crocodile tears with my copy of "On the Origin of Species".
It seems that it is easier to dish it out than it is to take it. What me to stop dishing? Firnish the proof, if you can take the time off from mocking the deists.

Thanks, optimism.

Looks like billnewbie's experiment lacks the scientific method.

Mockery is really quite immature. What are we trying to do here find out who the biggest bible bully is? And BILL...I sure hope you used puffs plus, because if you truly got my meassage, you should have been ashamed and overflowing with tears..... ;o)

I put some gravel dust in a bowl of warm water, dropped in a 9 volt battery, stirred it with my finger and put it out in the sunlight. It has been 3 months, no Engergizer bunny, no Eveready cat with even 1 life let alone 9, not even any coppertop dura mater, just primordial poop...er soup. Something must be missing. Maybe instead of my finger it needs the finger of God. No, no that cant be, evolution has been proven time and time again. I'll just have to keep waiting. It's just a matter of time and has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.....

The silence is deafening....

Still waiting for the proof....
Where, oh where is the missing link,
Oh where, oh where can it be?
He said there was proof so it must be true,
Oh where, oh where can it be?

bibledude: lol!!!

Isn't it ironic how GZ denies that God exists, the Christian church is in existance to abuse children, and that people who do believe in God are decieved and have dangerous minds, BUT, when optimism comes to his defense he calls her a TRUE CHRISTIAN?!

I never ridiculed him for being an atheist, just for avoiding the debate presented by true science. I respect the beliefs of atheists. I have a couple of good friends who are atheists and we have civil debates on our different beliefs. GF can't discuss it without ripping on the Catholic Church, priests, GIFTS and talking down to anyone who believes.

Thanks, optimism. Nice to know a real christian showed up. And I'm a man.

bibledude, very funny. I didn't know you were jocular.

What a great speech optimism. Pardon me while I go get my kleenex, I think I'm going to cry.

tsk tsk.....if all of you who imply that you are a child of God, then why on earth would you ridacule someone for not agreeing with your philosophy. Gazettefan has his/her right to his/her own beliefs just as all of you do. As a "family" we should all try to understand that everyone is unique and love them for who they are. I am not an atheist (sp), but I do see his/her points and can understand how he/she could feel they way they do, as we all should try to do.

I resent the implication

Correct upnorthwi. I suppose his double talk and name calling have fooled some people here, but the vast majority see he has been made a fool of and we can ignore his posts going forward. He is a legend.....in his own mind.

Obviously I can close the debate with GF. It has been fun.

What GZ wants is to have everyone bow down and tell him he is correct. GZ has a one track mind......him. HE is right about EVERYTHING. There's no reasoning with someone who is as whacked as he is. This was originally about the good of the shelter and look what GZ has turned it into. He twists everyone's statements, calls people names, and tries to belittle us by TRYING WITH ALL HIS MIGHT to make us look stupid. GZ, you are the one that looks like a complete fool here. If you were an ant I'd step on you!

TS, while imagination might be a part of the dynamic required to extrapolate, induce, and deduce, that kind of imagination is not the kind of imagination that has you believing in a personified god (Facts please!). Your attack on evolution and your defense of creationism is a desparate effort to bolster the delusion that is the basis for your delusional world view. Talk about avoiding the facts!!!

And if you're so smart, how come you haven't really figured out what I'm accomplishing here?

GF

Why do you continue to come out of left field with your comments? Of course Blythe "had nothing to do with natural selection as it pertains to one species evolving into another." That is because it does not happen in the real world! You go on to say that "Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace developed that research. Blyth lacked the intelligence to extrapolate, induce, and deduce in regard to his research."

Do you realize what you are saying here? You are saying that because Blythe didn't use his imagination and make stuff up (one species evolving into another) that he lacked intelligence! What an incredible statement! In other words, if we avoid the evidence and facts, like you do, than we are intelligent. But if we only stick to the facts of science and see that natural selection only allows for change within a species, that we are ignorant, stupid, and a danger to society.

Please refrain from asking any other questions until you offer proof for the false claims you have made already. After politely asking you now a fifth time to do that, I see no point in moving on towards any other questions. Once you do that I will go point by point through any other questions you may want to ask. You even had the audacity to chastise another person in this discussion by telling him to "Stick to dissembling the other person's point of view. This is a debate, that's what happens in a debate."

In all due respect, your techniques are pretty juvenile. You spew rhetoric and false claims. When you are held accountable to those false claims, you ask us to find the evidence for you and then post it ourselves. (An impossible task since there is no evidence to support your claims.) You claim it is above you to discuss the facts of science with anyone who questions the theory of evolution. Not only that, you infer that anyone who questions the theory of evolution is insane.

You are the one who makes it impossible to have a good discussion on the facts of science.

TS, do you know what this means?:

There was a time when creationists rejected the Theory of Evolution outright. Now the environment is making such demands that in order for creationists to survive (at least in a quasi-rational sense) they must rely on a hardwired ability to adapt -adapt by way of some semblance of reasoning:

Creationists now concede that evolution exists in the form of natural selection but at the same time claim that it is not continuous and that the occasional imposition of God is required to make it complete. This thinking is evidence of an intermediary state of adaption: like the early proto-eye that could detect light but could not yet see the finer details of that light's source.

TS, Edwin Blyth had nothing to do with natural selection as it pertains to one species evolving into another. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace developed that research. Blyth lacked the intelligence to extrapolate, induce, and deduce in regard to his research. You should ponder how much your daily life is based on these things.

"Operation science" (science in a laboratory) does not totally reproduce what happens in nature. You have yet to make a case for creationism.

Optimism

We would have no argument over your observations of species changing over time within their species. This is called natural selection. Natural selection was described by a creationist, Edward Blyth, some 25 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. Natural selection has been observed and confirmed through scientific observation.
The term evolution is often used to describe this fact. (This would also be referred to as microevolution.) However, macroevolution, or molecules to man, is what observable science has a huge problem with. There is not a shred of evidence that shows any species changing into another species. (If there is any evidence of this happening that any of you have come across, please, please let us know!) The only place this happens is in the imagination of those who believe in macroevolution.

In order for macroevolution to be true, an organism would have to increase the genetic information in its DNA as it moved from one species to another. Many evolutionists will say that mutation and natural selection are mechanisms which increase this genetic information. However, operational science (science done in the here and now) has shown that mutations and natural selection decrease or degrade genetic information. In other words the changes are moving in the wrong direction! Which make it impossible for macroevolution to take place.

GF

Nothing more needs to be said. Anyone following this blog can see that you can't provide any evidence for your false claims.

I felt I was within reason by asking you to provide the facts about the insects evolving from one species into another that you stated had been observed in a labratory. I think that cutting and pasting a link might be a pretty easy thing to do when someone has called you out on spreading lies. Show me the link, and I will eat crow and humbly ask for forgiveness. However, you and I both know that no such thing has ever taken place, and that is why instead of showing your source of information, you will continue to avoid doing so. I can guarantee that your next post will not include the source of information, but will again make numerous excuses as to why you don't need to do that.

Case closed.

Feel free to reopen it anytime with some actual evidence and not just your own rhetoric.

optimism, much of what you say leans toward sociologist Emile Durkheim's idea that society is god. Durkheim meant that humans are social beings who live best when they live in a society. Living in a society means you have to give something of yourself to others, at least in some way. Living by the golden rule would be an adequate way to live in a society. This is what holds it all together, a willingness to cooperate in a way such that if others cooperated in the same way then a society would exist. (Your mention of narcissism is important. Narcissism is diametrically opposed to society.)

This god, of course, is not a personage. It is a dynamic of human nature. It is the force that inspires Humanism. It is not the god of the Hebrews, Christians, or Muslims. It is not a god that has any special connection to churches, temples, or mosques, or collection plates. It is not a god that is supernaturally associated with the bible and the koran. It is not a god that has anything to do with evolution or creationism. It is not a god that supernaturally responds to prayers. And it is not a god that supernaturally and arbitrarily protects some while abandoning others.

Sometimes we benefit from the largess of others and sometimes we suffer at the hands of others and sometimes good things and bad things happen as matter of chance.

The need for society makes us think beyond ourselves. But first we have to exist. Nothing came before us. Existence precedes essence. Good people doing good work will hold a society together. RLUIPA is an affront to society.

Gazettefan...even though you and I have different opinions on the exsistence of "God", I do understand many of your points, and one step further, I do agree with you when you ask why one team who wins says it was a gift from God, and then the question is left, why didn't God grant the other team the gift. As well as why some are left to suffer while others are "taken care of" and have had angels on their shoulders throughout all of their turmoils....and have come out glorified. Well, I don't have an answer to that, and seriously no one in man form has that answer. I am certain of that (even though the theologists claim they do). But, the one explaination I can give, only from personal experience, because I think that is what belief and faith in God are based on, personal experience and unique lessons, is that truly God helps those who help themselves. Meaning, if you fall into the narssisistic role, you will remain a victim of curcumstance, and it will seem that you are not blessed, because you have no love for anyone else but yourself (and honestly, a person of this diagnosis really doesn't even love themselves). So, if you want a definition of "who" God is, I would have to say, God is LOVE. Love is not supernatural, it is a feeling. Yes, most decisions should not be based on emotions because emotions interfere with facts, but in this case, love can only reap blessings, therefore, leading a person to believe they are blessed because they have the capability to love. And wouldn't a person with a soul full of love really live life in a positive light and truly try to find the good in all curcumstances and not fall victim to detours in their path, but learn from the deversion, and make better choices in the future....so one could say "the Lord intervened" or that love shows them the way, but I do believe that God is Love, which means to love is to have God within your being.

optimism, I think I'm gettin' ya.

billnewbie, I didn't challenge TS for proof of creationism. Why would I? I asked him or another of the JC posse here to describe or define god and explain why it's more interested in Bret Favre than people who are being brutalized by atheists and religious people.

See my post below regarding posting and clicking on sites here.

TS, you must have come across proof of evolution in your effort to nickpick the hell out of it. I don't like posting sites nor do I like clicking on them here. Argue your points on the merits you can present in your own written speech.

Again, arguing with someone who opposes the theory of evolution is like a sane person discussing the state of the city of Janesville with B'moon.

You talk like you'd be doing me a favor by dumping the religious talk for science talk (way off topic). In fact, religious talk is baggage you'd want to unload for your own benefit. I don't blame you. By the way, I'm waiting for a description or definition of god. And some proof would be nice too.

You quoted me accurately but you missed the meaning: I said "evolving" not "evolved." The phylogenies of evolution are easy to find. Help yourself.

The bible didn't seem to be much help to Galileo when he was crucified by the church for asserting that the the earth revolved around the sun. The church's stance on that is an earlier version of the mentality behind creationism now. Hundreds of years passed before the church came clean on what it did to Galileo. It's just a matter of time with the theory of evolution.

And I also want to point out to you BIBLEDUDE, that it is my understanding the a theology is man-made and that is how some can only accept the fact that god exists. They can't follow the map that has been derived from their story that was written before their birth and experience life through experience, they need man-made laws that protect their souls as they see fit.

I want to clarify that when I was talking about evolution, my definition of evolution is that of things adapt to the environment they live in. For example, polar bears coats evolved over time to adapt to the temperatures they live in and that they need to hunt for their food in the water, so their coats are a very well insulator. I can't remember right off hand all of the information I read on this, but generally speaking, things adapt to their environment, or become exctinct. (which sadly the polar bear is in threat of becoming because of their adaptation to the environment, and now that environment is changing too rapidly for evolution to reverse. *(as gazettefan stated...evolution is a VERY SLOW process) I am tired right now after a weekend trip so mind is not grasping at other examples right now, but I know that is we all think long and hard enough we all can see how things have evolved over time. I don't believe that is how humans were become to be....i.e. from the evolution of apes, I believe that life is given to us by the lord, but in order for things to survive, they need to adapt to the environment they live in. The only sad thing in my opinion about this is the intellegence and ignorance of the human race adapts as well, and that is now how we live in a I NEED IT NOW kind of world, and that is why our earth is in such trouble because the people of the world are always searching for somehting bigger and better, and that is how greed is ruining the environment. And unfortuneately, the earth doesn't change it's evolution to suit our greed.

Gazettefan keeps writing about the proof of evolution while denigrating those who disagree. He challenged TrueScience to go find the proof of which he writes. Cut to the chased, Gazettefan, if you've seen this proof, don't send us all on an Easter egg hunt, produce it. You imply that you've seen it so you must know where to find it. Nothing will put us incorrigibles in our place faster than a simple reference from you. Want to silence the ignoramuses? Provide the missing link. Then the naysayers will all go away in ignominy which seems to be your goal.

Hey GF!

Thank you for accepting my apology. When I am wrong I will definitely admit it and ask for forgiveness and I was defintitely wrong for jumping to that conclusion about the date of the letter.

I will take your refusal to provide evidence for the statements you made as an admittance that no such evidence exists.

I would still love to have a discussion with you with the only criteria being the facts of science. Neither you nor I can bring in our religious beliefs, or worldview. And since you brought up the so called evidences that you wrote about earlier, I guess we could start with this one. You stated:

"Evolution has also been demonstrated in the laboratory where insects have been observed evolving from species into another."

Please show us the study you are referring to here as your proof of evolution? It should be easy to find as this would have been front page news and made everything from the Gazette to Newsweek.

And actually the bible showed that the earth wasn't flat long before the "science" of the day caught up with the proof. See Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:10; and Psalm 103:12

If you agree to talk about just science I will refrain from using any scripture in the future.

TS, apology appreciated.

But I still have no more interest in discussing evolution with someone of your bent any more than I would have interest in discussing the state of the city of Janesville with B'moon. There's no point in trying to deal with an arsenal that includes lies, deception, misreading, and delusion.

Do this: In your vast research you must have found many examples of evolution (that of course you disagree with). State one of those examples here and and then take it apart. It'll save me some trouble. And don't forget to employ ample use of the word nucleotides, ha.

A note on your demand for proof. Your demand for proof is especially interesting in that the underpinnings of your world view is based on fantasy. And this is while you ignore an important kind of proof, deduction and induction.

How did Ptolemy and Columbus know that the earth is not flat before anyone actually circumnavigated it? They figured it out with scientific deduction and induction. Gaps in the fossil record are profoundly filled with extrapolation. Like how Ptolemy and Columbus concluded that the earth was not flat.

Religion is the psychological version of the belief that the earth is flat.

My apologies Gazettefan. I stand corrected. I jumped to the conclusion that you were referring to the article and I was wrong.

I find your comment to me that stated: "Your blather shows that you lack the foundation to discuss evolution intelligently." quite ironic. I have asked you to discuss evolution intelligently three times now. You have avoided the claims you made earlier about insects changing into new species, phlogeny proving evolution, etc.

I would love to discuss evolution with you and am waiting patiently for you to back up your claims with science, not "blather" that avoids the topic at hand.

I would also be more than happy to discuss evolution, Darwin, and evolution's contribution to the holocaust. However, as in any good debate, it is better to answer the questions that are put forth to you without sidestepping them. I really thought we might have a good discussion, but it seems that you are not willing to stay on topic and discuss facts. So instead of going down these rabbit trails with you, how about you show us the evidence for your previous claims?

Gazettefan-Another swing and miss! He's on fire!

bibledude, go back and read TS's 10:23 post. Your misrepresentation of that post is further proof that you are projecting.

bibledude: It is you and your kind here who are on the ropes. You deal with defeat with the psychological defense mechanism of projection. You not only imagine pain in others but you then take pleasure from that imagined pain. Very christian of you.

You exhibit the kind of sickness important to RLUIPA. And this of the same kind of mentality that teaches junk science to kids. And this is along the same lines of indoctrinating kids that it's okay to have sex with adults. You better hope there's no heaven and hell!

Gazettefan-TrueScience did not say Darwin's work was racist he said Hilter believed in survival of the fittest. No one in their right mind can argue against that. You're like a guy who picks a fight, gets the snot beat out of him and has the nerve to say to the person who just beat him up "do you give up or do you want some more?" You've taken it the chin pretty hard here tonight, just call it a night and go home.

TrueScience, go down and look at the year 1979 in your post.

Junk science is not science. Your blather shows that you lack the foundation to discuss evolution intelligently. For example: What Hitler did was a perversion of the theory of evolution. Spencer's social darwinism is what Hitler championed. Social darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin and the theory of evolution. Just like creationism has nothing to do with science.

Hitler and his movement was a messianic phenomenon. Hitler was regarded as Christ by the German people. His war against the Jews was a religious war. Like Hitler, you ignore that some of the language in the full title of Darwins's book is archaic. Darwin's book has nothing to do with racism.

WOW gazettefan. How you made that jump from a scientific discussion over your spreading of false claims, to the power at any cost mentality, is beyond me. Now you are really delving into topics that are way over your head. The holocaust was perpetrated on mankind because Hitler not only believed in the theory of evolution, but he tried to help it along. In fact the full title of Darwin's book is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Read up on your history to see that Hitler was just an evolutionist who lived out his worldview and tried to preserve the "favored race." So actually, your theory of evolution is what helped bring the Holocaust into being.

Your welcome gazettefan!

I have to say that I am disappointed gazettefan. I thought we might be able to have a good discussion on the facts. You made a number of false claims without citing any evidence. When I asked you to point us towards that evidence, you avoided it and instead made a false reference to a letter written in 1979. The article I shared with everyone was written in 1997. Once again you are writing things that are false without backing them up with facts. Instead of trying to refute the evidence presented in the scientific article written by a scientist with a Ph.D. you ridicule it because you erroneously think it was written in 1979. Why would that matter? Truth is truth, no matter when it was written. I am not saying Darwin's theory is wrong because he shared it with the world 149 years ago. It is wrong because the facts of science don't match up with it.
Why would I want to find stuff that backs up your viewpoint as you told me to do? I would much rather search for truth and facts and then use my intellect to see which worldview it fits with better. I guess I was surprised that you didn't jump at the chance to refute my claims that what you wrote was false. Are you willing to back up the claims you made with actual evidence or are you going to continue to spout propaganda. Once again I ask you:

I would love to see the study you referred to where insects evolved from one species to another. (No such incident has ever happened in a laboratory or in the real world)
I would also love to see you argue with the leading evolutionists of our time who state there are no transitional fossils from one species to another as you claimed. I noticed that you chose to ignore that also.
I would love to stick to a good discussion that involves facts of real science.

tjncj, thanks of adding so much to the debate.

Gazettefan is getting the crap beat out of him so he goes back to name calling.

I think True Science and billnewbie should write a book together. They could dedicate it to Gazettefan.

TrueScience, yours is the kind of power-at-any-cost-mentality that allows RELUIPA, the Holocaust, and the institutional rape of children in the Catholic Church.

Good evening clouds!

Actually by picking up my bible I will read about true science. Let me explain. Many times “natural selection” or changes within a kind is erroneously used as evidence for evolution. Natural selection or changes within a kind is an indisputable scientific fact has been tested and observed over and over and over. However this is not evolution. Evolution is “molecules to man” where organisms change slowly over time into new species. This goes against all scientific evidence, yet is treated as fact. There is no evidence that any animal has ever changed from one kind into another.
Changes within the dog species in no way proves evolution. In fact we have no argument that the dog species has changed over time. However, evolution by its very definition is the slow and gradual change from one species into another. There is not a shred of evidence of this happening now, or at any time in the past. (Please point me towards any evidence that contradicts this statement) Animals changing within their kinds, (For example: dog breeds ranging from St. Bernards to Chihuahuas, and the beak shape of finches changing to adapt to their environment) are exactly what you would expect to happen with a Biblical worldview. And that is exactly what science bears out. However, with a biblical worldview, you would not expect animals to change from one kind to another. For example, a reptile changing into a bird. Science also confirms this. No matter how many billions of years you want to add to the evolutionary time table, animals do not change into other animals in the real world – only in evolutionary textbooks.
The Bible says that God created distinct groups of animals "after their kind" (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct groups, or kinds. Our creative God placed phenomenal variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their belief system requires.

So I would ask you in your own words, that maybe you should "pay more attention to the world the really exist around you." In that world species don't change into other species.

So you're a creationist with the name of TrueScience! LOL! Your junk science will only fool your own kind. And you'll have to do better than cite a letter written in 1979. Do yourself a favor and find the stuff that will confirm my point of view. You'll end up enlightened. Here's something I wrote recently that explains you're current intermediary state of intellectual evolution.

--------------------------

There was a time when Creationists rejected the Theory of Evolution outright. Now the environment is making such demands that in order for Creationists to survive (at least in a quasi-rational sense) they must rely on a hardwired ability to adapt -adapt by way of some semblance of reasoning:

Creationists concede that evolution exists but at the same time claim that it is not continuous and that the occasional imposition of God is required to make it complete. This thinking is evidence of an intermediary state of adaption: like the early proto-eye that could detect light but could not yet see the finer details of that light's source.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size.6 If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.7

End of quote.

Clouds and watermelons are both more than 96% water. I would hope that evolutionists don't suggest that watermelons evolved from clouds?

Similarities might just mean that we all came from a common designer...

I would also love to see the study you referred to where insects evolved from one species to another. (No such incident has ever happened in a laboratory or in the real world) It is my hope that you have the evidence for that, or can point us to that particular experiment.

I also wanted to respond to your mention of the DNA similarities between Chimpanzee’s and humans. The correct figure is closer to 96% and even that figure may be flawed. As Don Batten wrote:

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.2 However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology).3 Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al.4 obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.5 Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Hey gazettefan! First of all, I have to give you your props for knowing that according to evolution, apes did not involve into humans, but supposedly had a common ancestor. Most evolutionists don’t know their own theory enough to catch that. So right off the bat, I respect your intellect. However, I do have to take issue with a few of the things you wrote. First of all you state that evolution has been proven time and time again. I would have to ask you what your definition of evolution is? Are you talking about changes within a kind or are you talking about molecules to man evolution. Changes within a kind is a scientific fact and has been proven over and over. Molecules to man evolution has never been proven and there is zero scientific evidence for it. I would be interested to see what evidence you say is out there to prove evolution. I would also like to see the series of fossils that you are talking about that demonstrate the evolution of one species into another. (Phylogeny) The only place that phylogeny exists is in the evolutionary text books. If I may quote the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History (The world’s leading museum for evolution):

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."--Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

Or these two quotes from one of the leading evolutionists from the past 100 years.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?" -Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.

I don't like bananas, but thanks anyways. I will let you folks believe what you want. I know God created me in His image, which I believe has not evolved over time. I don't have the ability to sit and go over every scripture with you (Genesis) so I guess you just read and think what you wish. People tend to pick out what fits them and throws the rest of the "crap" that the bible says out the door. I'll go with my faith, I'm better off. Have a great day and enjoy the last of the summer season!

north...... LOL

Whenever some members of a species begin the process of evolution, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other non-changing members die off. And Darwin nor any other evolutionist ever said that humans evolved from apes. The closet thing said to that effect was that apes and humans have a common ancestor. The DNA of humans and chimpanzees is 99% identical. You might want to remember that the next time you are enjoying a banana while scratching your arse.

Did you and Sampson ever wave to each other?

Evolution has been proven time and time again. Series of fossils that demonstrate the evolution of one species into another have been found. This is called phylogeny. Evolution has also been demonstrated in the laboratory where insects have been observed evolving from species into another.

We won't witness evolution in nature because each human life is too short and the span of time in which humanity will exist is too short. Evolution tends to be a very slow process.

It's not a put-down to have evolved from lower forms of life. In fact, it's a helluva interesting and exciting thing. Enjoy evolution.

In fairness GF, I agree with you about religious people in general. Most people are hypocrites. They say one thing and do another. But this is true all the time, not just when it comes to religion.

We all say we want to save the environment, but continue to live in a way that is destructive. Buying an “earth friendly” grocery bag and then filling it with beef products is hypocrisy. That is, to use your term, a salve. We buy the bag to make ourselves feel good, without making the hard sacrifices required to really make a difference. We buy products made in sweat shops, knowing what goes on there. We buy ribbon magnets and put them on our SUVs and believe that the simple act of doing so is, in and of itself, supporting the troops. Some of us try harder than others, but generally speaking most of us fail more often than not.

All of us need to be more honest with ourselves, and recognize those salves when we see them. We need be able to recognize the fact that a symbol is not a thing in itself. Wearing a ribbon tells the world you care about <insert cause>. The ribbon is not the cause; it is a symbol of the cause. Americans are so eager to relieve the guilt that we glom onto symbols and pretend that we’ve done our part, without actually doing anything. Likewise with religion, many of us go through the motions, and give lip service to our symbols without ever really understanding or living our religion.

To put it a different way, I agree with your statement that for many if not most people, religion is a salve. But where we disagree is that you’re going from the specific to the general. You’re saying that because people use religion to lie to themselves, religion is the lie. Since religion is based on the existence of God, God therefore must also be a lie. I don’t think you can make that argument, logically. I do, however, think you can make the observation that religion is but one of many salves used to allow people to dismiss their guilt without really dealing with it. This is not a criticism of religion, but of people in general. As I’ve pointed out, people do this even without religion. It neither proves nor disproves the truth of religion; any more than pretending to care about the environment proves or disproves global warming.

I am not giving religion a free pass. To the contrary- I am arguing that we need to recognize that religion is a human institution, and thus by definition flawed. As such, a church deserves no more special treatment than any other institution. Churches are not special, no matter how noble their cause may be. Separation of church and state is intended to protect the state (the people) just as much as it to protect the church. Telling a business owner he can’t build in a residential area because of the impact on traffic while letting a church build in the same location demonstrates that this separation has failed. In this, I think, we agree.

gazzettefan-Fulfillment of Biblical prophecies point to fact that the Bible is a supernatural book. Have you studied this subject? It is pretty amazing.

And it's up to each individual to believe in what they want, in what makes them sane at the end of the day. I believe in God but I don't go to church, I don't really pray often, I don't believe some of the crap in the bible. I pick and choose and some people (or most) would think thats stupid and nieve. However I feel God and I have our own little relationship and I know he wants me to be happy and I try my best to do whats good in my heart and thats all any one person can do.

God gives us the opportunity to do good but he isn't some mind controller playing us all like puppets down here. He granted us free will and thats why there are crimes and murders and homeless people. God has given him what he can and the rest is up to that person, it's not up to him to make your life perfect it's up to you!

upnorthwi: sure, cloud could read Genesis, but the discussion would be better served if you read something (other than a pamphlet you picked up in your church foyer) about evolution. Your lack of understanding of evolution is astounding. Thanks for the chuckle though.

God gives people the gift of knowledge, therfore we have doctors. When people are ill, we pray and take them to a doctor. Doctors can't heal everything, but we can ask God to intervene and heal. And, I do agree, some instances when your time is up, it's up. Christians can accept this easier than a non-believer because we aren't afraid to die, we know what's waiting for us "on the other side". It doesn't mean we wouldn't be sad because we are still human.

Cloud: first, as a rule I ignore posts in all caps. I am responding because GF asked. Second, don’t use science as your defense when you clearly don’t understand even the most fundamental rules of science. Specially, science has not “proven” evolution. Now, I’m not arguing the validity of evolution, I’m pointing out the fact that, per the scientific method, science can never “prove” a thing to be true.

For what it’s worth, I (and I’m fairly certain I am in a very small minority here) don’t necessarily believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. If you pay attention to the relevant scripture, God doesn’t magically wave his hands and create everything. It doesn’t say God created light and dark, it says he separated them. You see the difference? God is not performing magic, he is organizing chaos. What he creates is order.

In that context, evolution and creation can co-exist. Evolution is a natural process, and one that is observable. It is, for lack of a better work, a fact. But to get from A (chaos) to B (the world today) takes some pretty amazing coincidences. It is not unreasonable to believe (or at least not impossible) that God created the world by guiding evolution. Like I said, I don’t think this is what most people believe, I’m simply pointing out that evolution does not disprove the existence of God. You can have both.

As to all that about going to the Dr: duh. Anyone who sits home and waits for God to heal them instead of going to the doctor is an idiot. We’re supposed to use the tools were given, which in that case would be letting a Dr. do his job.

GF: re your question which is a variation on ‘how can God allow bad things to happen?’: it’s called free will. If God didn’t allow evil to exist, then how can good exist? It’s pretty simple, really. If you were never given the opportunity to fail, then you would be denied the opportunity to be good. The very existence of God requires evil to exist. Duality is fundamental to the existence of the universe. You don’t get to have the good without the bad.

Clouds, how has evolution been proven? If evolution were true, then why do we still have all the different species of animals etc.? IF we evolved from apes, then why aren't apes extinct? Humans continue to produce humans, correct? I have seen tadpole turn into frogs and die. I've lived longer than a frog and never seen it "evolve" into anything else. Remember Sampson at the Milwaukee Zoo? He was VERY old and he died, he didn't look anything like a human to me. We have a different genetic make up and our own DNA. So please don't tell me that evolution has been proven, it has not. Read Genesis.

MD.... again you are giving religion a free pass. According to you if someone does something bad they are not being religious. The reason I describe religion as a salve is because humans have an ability to work on dual tracks. A person considers himself religious but smokes and drinks all day in the presence of his children and/or while driving and is also a chronic liar. The person is still religious because he takes comfort from his beliefs. (I won't mention what the Catholic Church does to children this time.) People who are relatively good citizens are doing the same thing. To these people RLUIPA is a good thing while to others, RLUIPA is a way of ripping off other citizens.

Let me try a different approach. You hold that religion does not have exclusive domain over decency. I readily grant you that. You don't need God to tell you that the Ten Commandments, or at least those commandments that deal with how we behave with regard to one another, make sense. In order for societies to function, we have to have certain rules in place that govern how we behave. We must refrain from killing each other, from taking property that is not ours, and so on. Even something like observing the Sabbath makes sense from a strictly secular point of view. My point is that, in its most basic form, religion encourages people to behave in a way that is conducive to community building.

Going to crime and repentance specifically, what would be the conditions you would expect a person who wronged you to meet before you were satisfied that they had made things right? I expect that they would be not very different from the process I described: they would need to spend some time thinking about what they had done, they would need to try, if possible, to make it right, they would need to apologize and they would need to refrain from repeating the offense. Are we in agreement so far?

If so, explain what harm religion does? You call it a salve, I call it motivation. Does it matter that a person needed the fear of God to motivate them to make amends? As long as the outcome is the same, it shouldn't matter to you or I how they got there.

It could be argued that religion is harmful to society. That religion has led men to war, to commit atrocities. I would argue, however, that those wars were not about religion. Wars are always about one thing, and one thing only: money (or power and property, which are essentially different manifestations of money). Religion is just an excuse, a way to justify doing what you would do anyhow. The tensions between the West and the Middle East are not religious, they are economic. Just because some weak minded youth is convinced to be a suicide bomber in order to get into heaven doesn't mean it is a religious war- religion was just a lever used to move someone. Taking religion out of the equation would not solve the problem.

If you accept that argument (which, admittedly, is contentious), then I would further argue that the net effect of religion is beneficial to society. Yes, common sense and empathy should be sufficient motivation to behave well. It follows that if you want others to respect your life and property, you must do the same. Unfortunately, we, as a group, are not there yet. We need people to get together once a week to remind them not to hit each other over the head with a club. We need people to believe that, even if they don't see anyone watching, there is someone who will know what they're doing, and that they will be punished if they don't behave.

Simply looking at the state of the world with religion should tell you how bad it would be without it.

billnewbie, your last post and other posts of its kind are indignations. Stick to dissembling the other person's point of view. This is a debate, that's what happens in a debate.

Explain how god can focus so much attention on you while ignoring those who are truly suffering. Explain why your self-serving focus isn't shirking your existential responsibility.

You used the word "fools." Address clouds555's question and tell us which choice the fool would make.

bibledude, the bible is an interesting book. Everything good and bad in it came from humans. Humans who wittingly or unwittingly took the stance that they were channeling god. They did this for the purpose of controlling other people. Some of this intent was benevolent, some this intent was malevolent.

All of you should examine why you need the element of the supernatural in your lives. Life is limitlessly profound and textured without the fantastical supernatural.

billnewbie 5, Gazettefan 0.

Gazettefan:
Spare me your condescension. I've had all I want. If you must indulge yourself with stating your indignation, I'm sure that you'll enjoy yourself, but don't expect your words to have much effect as the self-indulgent usually impress only themselves.
We get that you think the concept of God is invented and perpetuated by charlatans and accepted by fools. Restating it ad nauseum will produce no new converts to your opinion. Beyond that, your efforts seem to be directed at putting the incorrigible in their place. The more ridicule that cascades from your keyboard, the less effective you are, and lately, you are very ineffective indeed.

Proartist-If I misrepresented your words I apologize.

MD.... , where is your evidence that refutes my first statement? Everyone knows that convicts are religious.

Incarceration is not forced repentance, it is forced incarceration. That convicts turn to religion is a well known fact. As a matter of fact it is encouraged by the institution itself. The religiosity that serves as a salve for convicts is as much a psychological ruse for them as it is for people on the outside. Sin and pray is the same pattern exhibited by law abiding citizens who are also unwilling to face the truth about themselves. This pattern also soothes the pain that comes from the unwillingness to face the truth about what human life is in general.

You speak as if all that praying actually amounts to repentance; it does not. Again, it's just a psychological ruse. And that's what religion is period, a psychological ruse.

That it isn't really repentance is the point. Nothing about religion is genuine. It's a mind game played by people who are in constant fear of what they are and what life really is.

You dispatched optimism nicely. Although I see optimism as the brightness of the bunch below. Speaking of which, I'll get back to the rest of you maniacs when I have the time.

Optimism: Empirically means to come to a conclusion based on measurable evidence. How you would come to believe in God based on empirical evidence is a bit of a mystery to me, since they very concept of faith precludes the existence of such.

GF: "The most religious people in this country are in prison. Prisons are overcrowded due to recidivism."

The first sentence is an unsubstantiated claim that you've made more than once with no evidence. The second is hardly profound. Recidivism is, by definition, repeating an offense. That recidivism is why most of the people in jail are there is self evident. Its not often that a person winds up behind bars the first time they break a law, even if caught. What that has to do with religion is unclear.

I'm going to take some liberty and try to work out what the point of your favorite quote is (and I assume your quoting yourself, since I can find no source for that particular phrase). Incarceration is, in essence, forced repentance, or at least part of the process of repentance. Since they are repeat offenders, that supports your position that religion allows people to behave badly, and then simply repent and get a clean slate, or as you put it "a salve used to massage continual bad behavior."
Unfortunately you don't really understand the process of repentance. You don't get to simply pray and poof, your forgiven. Repentance means:

Feeling genuine remorse

Restitution

Asking forgiveness not only of God, but also of those you've offended.

And (to address your comment specifically), not do it again.
Repeating the offense essentially negates the prior process, you have to start over. It is not easy, nor should it be. Otherwise, what's the point?

As you can see, in my haste to post I forgot to use the spellchecker. Oops.

Optimism:

I hope you don't mind if I offer you some advise. Don't wait for the truth to knock on your door. You may wait forever. We have to seek the truth. I can understand you hesitancy to embrace any particular sect or script. There are many out there and they all claim the truth but they seem to contradict each other and even themselves.
I recommend 2 sources that have had a profound effect on me. The first is the bible. Many would ridicule me for that but nearly all of them have not opened one voluntarily, let alone read more than a few verses. Start with the New Testament. The second source is an author, C.S.Lewis, who is more well known for his fantasy stories than for his theologic works. He was not a theologian, but a professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University. I recommend "Mere Chrisianity ", it will give you a whole new perspective. You can find it at the library or most book stores. These have not been my only avenues of investigation as I have also assessed other religions and atheism as well but for me, these 2 have made the most sense.
By the way, don't be too sure that this age is coming to an end. Many have predicted that before and have been completely fooled. Similarly, don't be too sure that evolution, as we think we understand it, is true either. I realize that most scientists embrace it, but then most scientists have embraced many things over history that have not been true. Scientific concensus does not nessissarily mean scientific fact. Scientists, like all other humans, tend to identify with their peers. People can be like lemmings that way, which is one of the arguments against religion, isn't it?

The Bible teaches over and over and over that we are to grow in our knowledge of God but that knowledge is meant to lead to devotion. My knowledge of God causes me to love Him more.

clouds555-I would hate the kind of church your talking about too but the church you are describing is foreign to my experience. I wouldn't set my foot near a church that preaches hate, passing child molesters on without justice is despicable, telling others how to live their lives without question would be a cult. As to taxes, we pay taxes on the land we have not developed. Proartist has some very interesting things to say on this, churches should not be big business but non-profit ministries that help people. In those cases I think the law is justified. Our church recently built a house for a poor family, give away thousands of dollars to pay for underprivileged children to go to school in a 3rd world country that will be visiting this upcoming summer to help more. That's just the tip of the iceberg and we are not alone, the good churches of Janesville are doing many positive things for the people of Rock County. A scam? Tell that to the people we've helped. Are their bad doctors around? Unethical judges? Corrupt law enforcement? Of course there are but they are the minority not the majority. Are there churches like you describe? You should not condemn the entire church because of the repulsive actions of a few. Sure, but they are the exception not the norm, you need to get your head out of the clouds and see the positive things too.

BILLNEWBIE...you just totally brought to light how the earth has evolved, and even though there are more materialistic things in our world today, the concepts of life really haven't changed. I am just wondering what this world's next life cycle will be like.....as this one is almost to the end.

BIBLEDUDE...my interpretation of how you know the Lord is through intellegence. Well, I feel sorry for you that you didn't get to know him through intimacy. Hopefully someday you will. A person can not teach on how to love, that is an inate feeling....that comes naturally, it cannot be forced, and when it is, it always turns out negatively.

Clouds555 makes some compelling points that I heartily agree with. Anyone who tells you how to live does not speak for God (although I would have no problem with receiving advise from a trusted advisor). Moving child molesting priests (as opposed to pastors which is a protestant term and the Catholic Church is the one that has this problem nearly, but not quite, exclusively) from place to place was indeed a scam to cover their proverbial butts. Propagating hatred in the name of God is something I would classify as much worse than a scam. Some who claim a clergical title do indeed filter the word of God for their followers, carefully screening out passages that may, for instance, challenge their claimed authority, among other things. Getting people not to think but to react to how they feel is the mark of a scam artist.
Do these despicable acts disqualify all who hold a clergical title? I think that would be an unreasonable response. It's interesting to note that Christ had issues with these "wolves in sheep's clothing' as well. In his day they went by the titles of Scribes and Pharisees. They were officials within the clergy of the organised Hebrew religion of the day in Palestine. They issued official opinions on what people had to do to comply with the religious law. They were especially good at exempting themselves from the rules they made for others. Christ detested them and told them as much on many occasions, referring to them as vipers. I wonder, Clouds555, did you know you had this in common with Christ? Maybe there are other ideals that you and Christ share.
Is hell a scam? That I would have to disagree with. We all have a sense of justice within us. When it comes to our own actions that sense can get a little fuzzy in that we all seem pretty good at rationalizing away our own guilt. But when it comes to others, most of us can tell an evil act when we see it. Some people are really good at hiding their evil until they exceed their own ability to conceal what they've done and then their evil is on display for all to see, such as those previously mentioned molesting priests. Most people agree that people such as those deserve nothing better than eternal damnation for the harm they cause as their acts offend our sense of justice. Yes, I do believe there is a hell, but I can see why people would disagree about how one earns such punishment and who should be assigned there. Dante Alighieri wrote in the Divine Comedy that there were multiple levels of hell and that the worse your deeds, the deeper you were sent. Dante's story is strictly speculation, but it does seem to satisfy our concept of justice.

cloulds555-So you think that someone who has no Biblical knowledge can interpret the Bible better than Pastors who have a degree and have spent years going to school to study the original languages, culture, grammar and historical backgrounds of books of the Bible? And how is the church in all its forms a scam?

Optimism-I think its true that some passages are hard to understand. I know you mentioned you are not attending any churches right now. There are some excellent churches in Janesville that are teaching the Word of God every week. You should think about checking some of them out.

And to be honest, I don't think it has to be as difficult as some make it out to be. Honestly, to the average joe, like myself, some of the scriptures in the Bible are truly hard to understand and interpret.

What I believe is God is Love and to love God, we must love eachother.

I guess what you are telling me is over my head. Because I do listen to God, and how I know that is when I was WAY OFF TRACK in my life and stopped listening that is when I got into vicious cycles. When I began listening again, that is when my faith returned, and when I knew that God never left me, I just chose to ignore him. What you are telling me, I don't reject, I guess I just don't understand it at this point in my life, and I have faith that if that is how I am to know the Lord, than at my precise time, I will.

Optimism- God wants us to draw our Theology from His Word not our feelings. John's gospel ends with this verse, "but these have been WRITTEN so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." I hope some day that is what you put your trust in and not in yourself.

BIBLEDUDE.....My theology is based on my own faith I would have to say. As I stated before, I don't attend church (did when I was younger), and I guess I am not "book smart" as far as the bible is concerned. I tend to think that the way I know the Lord is the way I am suppose to know him, just as each individual's experience with him is personal. I didn't need some intellect to teach me who he is, I have felt that on my own. My temple is within my own soul. I am not sure if that makes sense to you or others, or if even seems possible, but it is. To me my personal experiences mean more to me than the most educated man/woman could ever teach me.

Whew!

yes!

upnorthwi- You're referring to Gazettefan right?

Once again, another biblical reference from someone who does not believe. The unbeliever will look to the bible and twist scripture to satisfy their own twisted thoughts.

I never said that between you being "mr. right" and having faith that my bets are on God (in other words) that was someone else. I'm not betting on God, I have FAITH that God exists. I'm sorry, but, I believe that the devil is working through you to get to others. God is stronger and your "work" here isn't getting accomplished. Move on.........

optimism-it means to know through experience. When you say they are people "thought" to exist I imagine then you feel the same way about Julius Caesar or George Washington? After all, we have no pictures or recordings of them. How do we know about their lives? From what was written down for us. The life of jesus is written about not only in the scriptures but there are references to Him outside the pages of the Bible as well. This is very important because there are many "show me" people out there. If all we have is our feelings and experiences alone with nothing to back them we are not on solid ground. If you don't agree with that I'm sorry. On what basis do you base your theology? I base mine of the scripture. The Bible contradicts your theology. It would be wondeful if all came to know the Lord as you say but the scripture says that narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it. It also states in Heb 9:27 "it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement" Not you keep coming back till you get it right. You are practicing syncretism by blending Christianity with a belief in reincarnation it would appear.
I don't want to base my eternity on a doctrine I made up but upon His truth as it is revealed in the scripture. Fulfilled prophecies have proven it is the Word of God.
Bilnewbie-Write a book, I'll buy it. You are fun to read.

In a chaotic universe filled with catastrophic events characterized by destruction and degradation resulting in apparent regeneration and re-creation without purpose, rationality, or compassion (since the workings of the universe are simply that the bodies and forces do what they do according to their nature without direction or purpose) came forth a creature (humans) capable of perceiving purpose, rationality, and compassion and fully aware of the lack thereof in the universe. How can this be? If there are no such characteristics existing within the mechanism that spawned us not only should we be devoid of such characteristics but we should also be unaware of them. The fact that we perceive such things within ourselves but do not observe them in nature leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there is something beyond nature that possesses these traits and has replicated them in some measure in us, unless one is truly able to accept the proposition that charging elephants colliding with trees produce pianos.

Empirically? What does that mean? (seriously)

I want to emphasize that I DON'T believe that the historians aren't correct, I just understand how some can't except that as truth. Gazettefan has a valid arguemnet, and expresses his point very well, and obviously he/she is person of facts, and needs tangible facts to base exsistance on.

I understand what you meant by faith being a result of historical events, but unfortuneately, WE in the HERE AND NOW did not EXPERIENCE the events written in the bible. We only have the words written by people that are only "thought" to have existed. I as well as you am thankful I have the ability to believe in the "unknown", and that I take the bible as validity. But, I can also understand how the otherside can't. I do believe that ALL of us will come to know the Lord, when and how is the question. He does say that until you except him as your only God....key word, until....and I do believe all will. Even if it takes ANOTHER round at this LIFE to do it.

Optimism-You were missing the point I was trying to make to Gazettefan. He speaks of the Christian faith as a myth, similar to the tooth fairy. I was establishing the fact that unlike the tooth fairy our faith is established in history. Some people come to Christ as you say through emotions and empirically but other through the intellect. Both are valid experiences. I recognize the worth of experience but I'm thankful that that is not all we have.

BIBLEDUDE..I get the scriptures you are quoting. I understand them, but my point was, some people don't have enough faith to believe in something that is only in the form of documentation to "them". Yes, those things are universally known, but for a person who has a tangible exisistance, they can't believe anything that isn't a "personal experience" or that can't be physically felt or seen. I am just asking you to understand things from the other side as well. Not all can take documentation as truths.

Gazettefan....I can't argue with you that your point makes sense. I too have thought those exact thoughts....with going through a SERIOUSLY bad time with postpartum depression after the birth of my third child, I got down right hateful with God. People would tell me to pray, blah blah blah, well with no idea how to get from one second to the next praying wasn't in me because I couldn't understand why he would put a new mom through something like this. So, yes, I do understand what you are trying to say. But, I do have a twist to this story. ALthough I was going through hell on earth, this crisis brought my family closer to me, it showed me just how many friends I have and it really made me a better person, friend, wife, daughter, sister and mother. (I used to be a real loner....liked to be alone, very independant...didn't need help from ANYONE). THis to me was God working even when I lost my faith. This was the end of my lonesome exsistence. I wouldn't make that choice on my own, so I believe this was an intervention from the Lord. When we are going through things that suck we don't always understand why, but if we truly sit back and look at things afterwards with an open mind and logically, there is always a LESSON to be learned, and I believe that all things are necessary that we go through. We may not like them, understand them or want them, but there is a plan in order for every one of us, and if the lessons being taught to us aren't learned, then we continue the cycle until we do....or there is devine intervention. I understand your point, all I ask is please try and understand mine.

Gazettefan- I believe in the existence of God based upon evidences I see in the world. In high school, college and grad school I've studied such philosophers as Aristotle and other such dangerous minds. They espoused the Uncaused Cause or Unmoved mover and other cosmological arguments. I also looked at teleological arguments that say there can not be design without a designer and the reality complexity of life. It is the only explanation that makes sense to me. I simply don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

With 2 minutes to chime in I'll suggest this simple reason-man was given free will, and remember what happened with that...Adam and Eve. (whether you believe that story or not-you've probably heard of them.) But it isn't in the here and now we get our just deserts (and yes-that's the correct spelling for this purpose)...it's in the hereafter-so, (sad as it sometimes can be-what we are capable of doing to each other), what happens here doesn't stay here.

billnewbie and bibledude and whoever:

I've already responded to the issues you mentioned. To expand on all this you have to tell me what god is. I want to know if I'll be required to respond to weasel words such as: to believe in god or Christ is to believe in a spirit in the the same way that belief in the Easter Bunny or belief in the modern idea of Santa Claus is belief in a spirit.

When members of a team that won a football game attribute the victory to prayer and the belief in god, are they correct? How did god decide to side against the losing team? If god regards the outcome of the game as important, why doesn't god regard the victims of all the brutality that took place around the world during the time of the game as important?

What can you point to as evidence of the existence of god that cannot be countervailed by overwhelming evidence that god doesn't exist (the aforementioned brutality)?

Does god get credit for the good stuff while humans get the blame for the bad stuff? Isn't such a belief misanthropic? Isn't this misanthropy a way of beating up humans for the purpose of making them followers?

Isn't it narcissistic for someone to feel they are in close communion with god at the same moment others are being brutalized? Have any of you considered the possibility that your belief is merely a self-serving psychological mechanism symptomatic of narcissism?

Why does disbelief in the being described above mean I've been forever closed to the idea?

Refute the allegation that RLUIPA is a manifestation of the special privilege that comes from belief in a supernatural being.

Gazettefan-Very interesting, the disciples felt the same way. The miracles they saw, especially the resurrection defied reason and they had to be convinced against their better judgement. A reality they would be martyred for.

tjncj, does Ecclesiastes allow a time to be ridiculous?

bibledude, re: your 7:29 post: I already conceded that Christ was an historical reality. The myth I refer to is that he or anyone else exists or existed as a supernatural being.

You are ridiculous.

upnorthwi, if the lord exists, I doubt he or she or them or it will equate hedging your bets with faith.

(I'll get to the others as soon as I can.)

tjncj, if you're ever in serious trouble and I'm around, you're better off believing in me and not the lord.

The second post made it about religion. Certain posters need to realize that if you live downtown you are going to have homeless people around. I think I would rather have them sheltered and fed then cold hungry, destitute and possibly desperate.

Bilnewbie, your response was fantastic.

Ok. This is to the point of irritating!It is simply a few churches helping those in need.I would do it myself,if I were able.Has nothing to do with god. Just people trying to help.

Optimism- I would like to present some proof to you that producing proof for faith is not as undesirable as you are portraying it. Jesus offered His miracles as proof of His identity. John 10:38 "but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, BELIEVE THE WORKS (proof), so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
His resurrection is proof that He is who He claimed to be. Acts 17:31 Paul says "having furnished PROOF to all men by raising Him from the dead." Paul spoke of the resurrection of Jesus and His subsequent appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus as proof. The apostles and Gospels used Old Testament prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as proof He was Messiah. 1 Cor. 15 is based on Jesus many resurrections appearances over a period of 40 days as proof of His Lordship. I could go on but I think I've made my case sufficiently.

Churches, temples, etc. have long been places where the homeless could find shelter and the hungry food. Society has recognized the intrinsic value of religion, all religion, and has excluded their property from many regulations that it places on businesses and individuals. RLUIPA is just another deference to these places and is not solely responsible for the privileges granted those places. Those privileges have been tested in court many times and have not been found to be unconstitutional, quite the contrary. Therefore if some want to remove those privileges, they will have to do so within the democratic process as judicial fiat appears to be unavailable.

It seems as though Gazettefan has a fondness for religion. Some of the things he’s written are positively stunning.
“Believing in a powerful being that doesn't exist creates dangerous minds.” He chides believers in God as dangerous yet states unequivocally that God does not exist. How does one achieve such absolute knowledge? If a person made such a resolute statement in favor of the existence of God, Gazettefan would no doubt castigate him for his audacity. I would ask you, Gazettefan, what evidence so convinced you that you stopped seeking the truth in this matter? Did you fall into the trap that since so much evil is done in His name that no such being could exist? What if you’re wrong? Wouldn’t it then be true that believing in the non-existence of that powerful being creates dangerous minds, particularly for those who hold such beliefs?
“There are far too many religious people doing horrible things.” There are also far too many non-religious people doing horrible things. Have you not heard the story of the wolf in sheep’s clothing? Isn’t it possible that some horrible people look at religiosity and religious professions as a convenient cover for the horrible things they want to do? Your statement would make more sense if the religions that these horrible people claim to profess actually condoned the behavior you condemn, but they do not.
“If all this isn't bad enough, religionists shirk their existential responsibility to courageously take on the true drama of life. A drama that ranges from fright at the enormity of a heartless universe to shear joy at the bewildering luck that gave us a chance to be alive -at least for a little while. Instead the texture of this drama is stunted by a belief that is tantamount to the belief that the Tooth Fairy puts the dollar under the pillow.” For an existentialist, as you appear to be, the universe seems to be a chaotic place that defies explanation. Since you see no order or evidence of intelligence, you are appalled that others do. That seems peculiar of you as you have demonstrated an understanding on other subjects that 2 people can look at the same object and arrive at 2 different conclusions as to its nature. Why are you so perturbed in this case with people who see differently than you? Why do you expect the religious to accept existentialism and to behave accordingly? Your reference of the tooth fairy is a clever insult that tries to force the religious to defend their God as if he were no more than a tooth fairy, and interesting ploy but somewhat dishonest. I would point out to you that the tooth fairy myth draws some, but not all, of its attributes from God and not the other way around just as does Santa Claus and a variety of other mythological constructs, but that is not evidence that the source of those attributes is itself a construct.
All in all, you seem to have a very closed mind on the subject, which seems to be what you imply about the religious.

Optimism-
Not at all, whether or not a person believes in the Divinity of Jesus is more a subjective matter of faith. The question posed, however, is one more of an objective nature. Even the most hardened skeptics for the most part do not question the historicity of Jesus based on Biblical and Extra-Biblical sources and evidences.

I can understand where the proof seekers would doubt the fact that Jesus exsists etc.... being the only proof there is, is documentation that has been suposedly around since the beginning of time. But, in order to truly experience the existence of the Lord one must open their mind and soul to the unknown....and as I said before, God is people helping people. That is just the start. God is LOVE. If you are a person who needs concrete proof of something, I pray for your acceptance some day, I hope that your awakening happens sooner than later. But, I choose not to tell you your wrong, because your not, that is just what your personality is, and I can except you as you are, I just hope you find your love someday and lose your cynicism. (spelling is prob...wrong??) P.S. I am not a "bible banger", I don't attend church, I just choose to live life through faith.

Bibledude, don't you think that the answer to your question lies within the soul of the believer? To have faith is to believe in the unknown. I do, you do, many do but not all do, and we can only hope they do by the time their number is called.

Gazettefan- I'll answer after you address my point. Was Jesus a real historical figure or just a myth, a figment of the imagination like the tooth fairy?

Gazzfan, I didn't think I had to mention the fact that a minister preaches his sermons about God, Godly duties etc.. A minister IS CALLED BY GOD to live the lifestyle and preach The Word. Now, I suppose you will twist that by saying "we are all to spread the word". Yes, that is true, but not everyone has the gift to be a preacher. I too, would rather believe in a higher power, God, and if I'm wrong in the end then I'm out nothing! As far as my mind goes, believing in God has made me a better person, not a dangerous one.

I believe in a higher being. Gazettefan believes he is right all the time. I'll put my money on a higher being.

So far, I have been reading a lot of religious stuff on this subject but not one person has noticed the fact that homeless men have nowhere to go.Women have assistance and shelters,but where can the men go?Have a heart and let these people help them!

bibledude, nice play on "tooth" "teeth.

In your post you don't speak of Christ as the son of god or a supernatural being of any kind but only as a helluva good historical figure. Is he merely a philosopher to you?

gazettefan- Your continual attempt to dismiss Christianity as the equivalent to the tooth fairy may be a feeble attempt to be condescending but it certainly has no teeth. Santa Claus is a myth on the otherhand St. Nicholas was a historical person. He served as a Bishop in what is now Turkey. He served the poor, participated in the council of Nicaea and suffered for his faith under Diocletion. One historical one a myth. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person who was born in Bethlehem. We can go to the Holy Land and see where He taught, walked, died and was buried. HIs teachings were written down, His life changed the world. The tooth fairy historical past is a little harder to pin down.

upnorthwi, none of what you said (however admirably you depict a minister) speaks for the existence of god. Believing in a powerful being that doesn't exist creates dangerous minds.

yes, we all know the countless hours it takes to prepare a sermon, the number of calls recieved to do last minute counseling, prepared bible studies, board meetings, funerals, weddings, and all the other activities that the minister participates in is worth nothing to you gazfan. The families of the minister puts up with a lot, they "share" him with the congregation. To me, a pastor could NEVER be paid enough for the countless hours spent on his calling.

tjncy, simmer down. And remember: Judge not and ye shall not be judged!

My stance on all this is somewhat different than proartist's:

For the sake of friendly argument let's grant that there is a portion of the world's religionists who do nothing but good things. Still, this possibility would hardly recommend religion. There are far too many religious people doing horrible things. Therefore religion in and of itself does not account for the good deeds of any of the religionists. What, then, accounts for the good deeds. The answer is: your humanity accounts for the good deeds. Why you have to dress up your good deeds with the idea of religion is curiosa at best and cause for great concern at worst.

If all this isn't bad enough, religionists shirk their existential responsibility to courageously take on the true drama of life. A drama that ranges from fright at the enormity of a heartless universe to shear joy at the bewildering luck that gave us a chance to be alive -at least for a little while. Instead the texture of this drama is stunted by a belief that is tantamount to the belief that the Tooth Fairy puts the dollar under the pillow.

Religionists have no monopoly on human decency. Religionists instead have the capacity to do the evilest of things. Click below to read a story about one your priests.

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

PEACE

Gazettefan-How about answering the other question on what happens if the schools and charities shut down? The priests I have known have all made huge contributions to society, more than you could ever dream of. Your usually civil comments now mean nothing to me, You have shown your true character on this subject.

A message through time from a Founding Father:

"James Madison was wary of giving religious endeavors any special treatment (i.e. FAVORITISM in the law) as exemplified by his statements: "Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. " - James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124

tjncj, what they are paid is an indication of what it's worth.

God helps people THROUGH people, let's all remember that. ;o)

what happened to all the comments??

All info is available on:

http://www.gifts-shelter.org/

Mr. Benish, thank you for all that you've done and continue to do with the GIFTS program. Is there a schedule / calendar of participating sites available for those of us who would like to contribute to the program as it moves around town?

Hey Folks, Thanks for standing up to the bloviating of a certain poster. She has a habit of opposing anything good. "Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." <Matthew 5:11> So, she's actually doing us all a great favor.
Last year, I answered her in detail here: http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/may...
BTW Proartist, RLUIPA was signed into law on 9/22/2000 by Bill Clinton (going to vote Republican now?). It begins "An Act To protect religious liberty." Now, you may believe that that's important, but our founding fathers, and most of the rest us do. We're just putting our faith into practice. Bless all of you that don't just talk about making a difference, but actually do something about it. Have a great day!

proartist, it's not just doing God's work (By the way, I think you inserted the first misused biblical quote) it is being humane to your fellow human beings! Homeless shelters can only fit so many people and since the churches are big enough, and they are used for other funtions not related to church activities, why not just let this be? QUIT GOING INTO THE CODE RETORIC!! Obviously people are just sick of your narrow mindedness.

PROARTIST....enough is enough. Your point has been taken. And quite frankly, most of your jargen is really hard to understand. You do have a calling, but the gazette blog is not it.

Hockeyjockey, your comparison is the exact opposite of what it should be. proartist is the voice of reason in contrast to B'moon's preachment of God (that would be her) and the Devil (the projection of her personal demons onto the world). The slinging of God and the Devil for the purpose of special privilege i.e. B'moon without an ounce of rational support nor a modicum of practical wisdom wishing to rule Janesville, is indeed an attempt at special privilege.

The church and RLUIPA is B'moon.

Proartist - You're starting to sound like Andreah, only your irrational pet peeve is the church rather than Steve Sheiffer.

Proartist -

I must confess, even though I have difficulty understanding your point of view it is very refreshing to read an intelligent, well-written response rather than the usual diatribe of the mindless wonders who frequently blog these sites.

Thanks.

Religious landowners are unique because they and their faithful are absolutely sure beyond all doubt and reason that their mission is transcendent to all other things and that they can thus have precedence over others. RLUIPA tips the balance between neighboring landowners and equal protection under the law is violated. As on this message board, such dialog always ends up deteriorating with the zealous faithful calling anyone who would ask valid questions NIMBY's, atheists, and worse. Is it any wonder so few others participate in the discussion when they would face bullying by the pious? There always seems to be a sense of entitlement when any given faith perceives only they are capable of doing "God's work" and they don't believe secular constructs could be nearly as good. For those who'd like to explore the real issues of RLUIPA more rationally and learn why 2 different levels of law does impact everyone INCLUDING the homeless, I suggest reading, "God vs. the Gavel" by Marci Hamilton and then take a serious look around Janesville to witness, and try to understand, what RLUIPA has wrought for many of your neighbors.

All you that are making rude comments and saying bad things about this place are really gonna be glad its there when you become homeless.

PROARTIST...they are not LIVING there. They are using it as a "rest stop".

My guess is that Proartist is suffering from NIMBY syndrome. I can imagine how the sight of all those homeless men would be a disruption to a nice quiet neighborhood. We don't like being reminded that people like that live in Janesville, and that one serious medical problem can land each of us in the same boat. It is uncomfortable.

---

My hat is off to the churches involved in this. It is called putting your faith into action - even at the risk of upsetting a few neighbors. The volunteers from the churches can put in long nights to help supervise - often even when they have work the next day.

Proartist -

Without bloviating - why are you seemingly against GIFTS? What is so bad about this?

I wish I had all the spare time you do to be digging into state laws and codes. Be done with it already. All you are is negative and you make up scenarios so others will become negative against good things also. It isn't working here. Rant all you want. The community as a whole seems to think this is a great mission. Hope you nor any of your family are ever in dire straights and need help someday and someone like you shows up. I couldn't sleep if I were you. You're so wrapped up in your laws and codes it's unreal! Like someone else pointed out, be happy that this isn't costing the taxpayers a dime, it's all volunteer out of the GOODNESS of people's hearts!

SarahB: Good question. Yes, there is a legal difference between housing your friends and family in your home and housing other more specific groups of people under Janesville City Codes:

"...no person shall operate a roominghouse with accommodations available or intended for five (5) or more roomers unless s/he holds a valid roominghouse license issued by the city clerk in the name of the operator, and for the specific dwelling." 16.08.610 Janesville City Housing Code

Occupant is defined, in part, as "living and sleeping in a dwelling unit".

Of course, hotels where people stay temporarily have even more stringent licensing and codes to follow. For a secular shelter, housing issues would also fall under H.U.D. Fair Housing regulations which require handicapped accessibility, nondiscrimination (including by gender), etc. In Janesville, the differences in code occur between an owner who is permanently residing on a given premises with guests vs. an owner who is not and, with number of persons - four or more who are not members of the family. The city code also has a religious exemption allowing churches to discriminate according to their faith. Residential codes are more rigorous regarding housing that serves "transient guests" because those facilities are generally more strictly controlled by state and federal statutes. Local ordinances always bow to higher level government codes and laws when there's a conflict in the law - especially since RLUIPA has been added to the mix. There a multitude of other concerns covered in the city codes - environmental, health and safety, utilities, maintenance, structural, density, etc. You can read these codes at the City's website but, always keeping in mind, RLUIPA trumps lower level statutes.

Matthew 5:13-16

proartist..give me a break!!!! If you would truly read the bible instead of picking and choosing the scriptures that fit YOUR purposes you would know that we are to treat people as Jesus would. GIFTS is not a mission the churches are providing as a means to get to heaven, it is an OUTREACH TO THOSE HURTING IN YOUR COMMUNITY. The only means of people knowing about this is through the story in the gazette etc., it is not advertized to gain recognition but to HELP THOSE IN NEED IN YOUR COMMUNITY!!!!!!! So, try out Matthew 7:9-12, I'll find more if you would care to read.

And proartist, please do not use scripture to proof text your thoughts. What was being taught in Matthew is not even close to what you were trying to make it out to be here.

Just a thought here: What is legally different about a church providing overnight lodging, etc., for an occasional week than a family having friends from out of town visit for the same amount of time? Is there a difference according to local ordinances?

If you ever worked with anyone on the GIFTs board, you would know they are not in it for personal glory. They are not looking for a pat on the back or anything close to that. They do not receive government grants or money. They work hard and give up a lot to see that this is available to Janesville men.

It is easy to sit here and cut the program down and say things are not fair. But at the end of the day, men who need help are getting it. I have not heard of any neighboring places or houses experiencing any problems with the guys.

I still challenge you to come and help out a night or two...you will quickly see it is not about those who volunteer but those who get the help. My offer is still there if you want to help.

tjncj: I'll accept that you believe this shelter is not using any tax-payer monies but how would anyone know given churches don't have to be accountable for their use of tax-payer funds? Are G.I.F.T.'s books open for public scrutiny as any other secular charity? If so, I applaud their openness.
optimism writes: "it really has no personal effect on anyone who choses to NOT participate." That is also part of the RLUIPA issue for these ventures DO impact those who do not actively participate but who are literally forced into participation simply by location of their homes, day cares, schools, businesses, other group homes, etc. Ever hear a realtor say "location, location, location"?
Religious communities aren't anymore prone to perfection more than anyone else yet the government allows religious institutions a different set of laws to obey. Those who serve without expecting government favoritism of their particular charity are much wiser than those who serve for their own personal and institutional glory while ignoring the burdens (NOT insubstantial!) their service may also be causing. For those who prefer scripture to the Constitution and law for understanding, I refer you to Matthew 6:1-4

Yep Gazettefan, those priests are getting rich on $12,000 a year and no, churches don't provide them with a car. As I mentioned in another post, what would Janesville do without ECHO and all the other charity work done by the religious community? What if all the parochial schools closed and those 800-1000 students came flooding into the Janesville School system? Another new school and higher property taxes. Most churches are struggling to keep the schools open and continue with their charitable contributions to society. This ministry cost Janesville $0 and is done on a shoestring. If the government ran it the cost would be high and dumped on all of us. Watch out what you wish for, you may get it.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. Romans5: 1-5

Just as I don't agree with the RICH donating a large sum of money at the end of the year so they get a tax write off. But, I have to look at it in another light, although their intent was not to truly help someone, and basically it was to participate in tax evasion, they truly do help someone with their monies, and that in the end is what truly matters.

PROARTIST...and GAZETTEFAN, in most cases I agree with what you two have to say, and GAZETTEFAN, I find you very enlightening. My problem with your comments on here (my problem) is that you are typing all of this political commentary, which to most, is probably over their heads. This is something that a person has their own free will to participate in, agree with, dontate to or to be against. Please, if you are against it, can you please just ignore the fact that it is happening......it really has no personal effect on anyone who choses to NOT participate. I am only asking this of you because we have no idea what these men have been through that have placed them on the streets. We can speculate all we want, but some cases would be sure to amaze all of us. So, for the respect of a hurting spirit, please allow those who choose to participate and help a fellow american do that without ridicule. Someone who participates in a charitable way shouldn't have to defend their principles. There are some points you both make that I can't argue with, and if those points are valid to people, they will come to their own conclusions, please don't try to imprint these thoughts on the minds of those who have no understanding of it in the first place. The things you state are not UNIVERSALLY truths.

Romans 5:1-5

PLEASE.....if anyone has any information on how to volunteer my time to a "soup kitchens" or other charities in need over this holiday season, I would be super grateful. My oldest son and I are trying to find out how to volunteer our time, so if anyone has any info, please email me through the gazette....thank you so much. My amount of time to volunteer is limited being I run a lot for my three children, but I would like to do what I can.

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/may...

proartist - Enough already !!! This isn't a political forum. It's about the generosity of a community coming together to help a group of citizens who previously had nowhere to turn.

Please spend today doing something positive.

Definition of audacity: to presume anyone who informs and educates that RLUIPA has (literally) destroyed lives in Janesville, as well as, helped some also leads an uncharitable life. I, too, HIGHLY recommend volunteering and encourage respect for others no matter which faith they choose or even lack thereof. I agree the rewards are very heart-warming and can help others positively but whenever volunteering, I also urge others to question and examine all aspects. There's difficulty that sometimes knowledge is a dangerous thing when others refuse to accept what is presented for their enlightenment. The integrity of GIFTS supporters on this page is not in question for they are simply doing what they feel is best to meet a need. But, they're also not asking questions to anyone except those operating/benefiting from the program. Could you have the same "open door" policy you encourage at your church in your home or business to serve the homeless? Of course not. That would violate city zoning and other regulations in place for not only your safety but ALSO for the safety of those served. YOU have to follow the law. Why are those laws in place and why is just one institutional group allowed to be exempt from them? Simply because they have an image of "being without sin"? Simply because they should be a trustworthy concern by the values they teach? Dogmatism and proselytizing zeal will never change the fact that there are now 2 levels of law in the nation now with only one type of institution so confident with it's ability to serve and judge all others without public scrutiny and accountability that it is allowed to put itself above all others in the law. I meet the challenge noted in comments here to volunteer and do so on a daily basis. Now I ask others who have put out this challenge to open closed minds and ask yourselves - aside from the good work you do, could there possibly be any "down" side of your volunteering for any of those you serve and your fellow citizens? If you're truly honest, there's only one answer. Then ask the more difficult question, is it moral to knowingly harm someone/one group of people while serving another? You now know it's legal under RLUIPA...but is it truly ethical?

Definition of resentment: You taking the poison and waiting for the other person to die.

It makes me sick that some people would rather complain then to help others...

proartist... I ask you to try volunteering at ECHO or the house of mercy and see what kind of people these "criminals" are. Just because they are down on their luck does not give you the right to shame them! Shame on you for being so close minded towards your fellow man.

gazettefan, I can’t fault you for what you think you are seeing-you are on the outside looking in. But I sure wish you would arrange a better view. I have never “followed” a pastor who had more than I do, which isn’t much-and I have seen them freely give of what they have, just like the rest of us. Not to say there aren’t your celebrity evangelists-but we are given free will and should use that and our powers of reason to decide if he is earning your respect. A minister is supposed to be a guide, not a god. And of course you are correct, religious people have no monopoly on human decency, but how can you say their acts of kindness are a salve to relieve themselves of sin, when it would be much easier just to have that built right in to the program if it was all a myth? Charity is a feeling as well as a “duty” of choice, not a 12 step program like AA.

proartist-I enjoyed most of what you had to say whether or not you have faith-but your question “how can we ever know if the government monies now going into church programs via the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives might have meant more efficient and effective operations of existing agencies that had already trying to meet such needs”....well, as a matter of fact, I subscribe to Charity Navigator-it gives you a good insight into the workings of charities, faith-based and secular. And if you think the government might be more efficient-would they willingly initiate such a program? But most churches are self-sufficient (thanks to their congregations), and don’t get government subsidies, even for these worthy causes.

MikeF-the best cure for those uh-ohseconds-for me anyway-would be to keep my eyes shut when I press “submit” and never look back. I would if everyone else would.

optimism and luvujvl-Amen to those comments-if I may say so. churches, including area churches, rivaled, and probably surpassed, what the government was able to do to actually comfort, on a one on one basis, those in Katrina (for just one prime example) and other natural disasters and situations. It did not cost us one thin dime of unwillingly given money for goods OR services. And it meant rebuilt homes, not trailers still in use today. And who put up the workers who traveled from here and everywhere to get things done there or in other parts of the country and world? Other churches and their congregations; and that did not cost taxpayers one thin dime, either. And it seems that hardly anyone hears of lives laid on the line, as well as snuffed out, to do missionary work in the worst places. Who could imagine that those people did it for financial gain, or to get out of paying taxes on their earnings? (little more than basic sustenance.)

I agree with luvujvl. Here we have a group of individuals, who happen to go to church, forming a group to help better the lives of men in Janesville. They are not asking us to open our wallets, just our hearts. We complain that we should do more for those that need it and then when that is done, we complain about it.

As for a short fix…not the case at all. Sometimes a warm meal and a place to sleep is all these men need to get back on their feet. The churches allow these men to leave their stuff by their bunk and go out and work or look for jobs. They provide them with places to wash their clothes and take showers. They allow them to use the church address as a place of residence and a phone number, so when they are applying for a job, they can put that information down.

Last year they had several of the men that got jobs and apartments. There was even one man who found out his family was looking for him and the volunteers help connect them. And that is just the start of them.

I have a challenge for everyone out there that likes to complain or point out how things are not fair or how these guys don’t deserve our help. I will be coordinating two weeks of volunteers for the GIFTs program and I would love to invite you to come and help for a night. Just show up with an open mind and see what happens. We will even feed you dinner.

Please, instead of wasting time and energy complaining, lets work together to help those that need it. Contact me and I would love to work side by side with you.

Unbelievable !! How can anyone read this story and respond with anything but positive comments?? Zoning, shmoning. These are not the boogey men and they are not congregating at these churches with the intent of doing harm to your precious neighborhood. They are members of our city who are in need of shelter and food. And they are fortunate enough that there are kind souls in our community who are willing to volunteer their time and donate food to fulfill those needs. How could there be anything wrong with that?

Sorry, the ability of GIFTS to exist does have everything to do with RLUIPA and, consequently, religious endeavors. Without RLUIPA this homeless shelter program, and some other faith-based charities in Janesville, would be ILLEGAL if operating without licensing, proper zoning, and more. It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with the very commendable level of anyone's faith, commitment to the needy, volunteerism, or all of us working together whatever our particular skills that all Americans be adequately housed, fed, and clothed. The basis of the issue is that the US now has two different levels of law - laws for 1) you, me, and secular institutions, and 2) a completely different level for religious entities thus allowing homeless shelters in areas previously considered illegal for a myriad of very honest and valid reasons.

Accordingly, how can we ever know if the government monies now going into church programs via the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives might have meant more efficient and effective operations of existing agencies that had already trying to meet such needs - especially if they, too, were given a federal-pass to ignore all other laws?

There have been widespread land use disputes since the adoption of RLUIPA which reversed all traditional deference accorded to local governments. Rather than what the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says (..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") there is now a separate tier of the law which equates to establishing favoritism to religious endeavors. Many legal cases well on their way to the Supreme Court will decide in the end if we are all equal under the (same) law ... or not.

Call it cynicism if you want, but churches are businesses. To be sure, they are bizarre businesses, but businesses nonetheless. The profits include, for the most "important" people in the church, a place to live, food to eat, vehicles to drive, and money to spend. These people are the merchants of the myth. Accordingly, it is unfair that theses businesses not pay taxes. This windfall allows churches to enact a form of aggression on the community in which they exist. All of this is of the same mentality as RLUIPA: Rights and privileges that other merchants and businesses do not have.

As for the value of religion, religious people have no monopoly on human decency. But instead, religion is, for many people, a salve used to massage continual bad behavior. Sin and pray, sin and pray, sin and pray. Forgiveness is there free for the asking.

For example:

The most religious people in this country are in prison. Prisons are overcrowded due to recidivism.

FIRST AND FOREMOST...this has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. It just so happens that churches have "open doors" (as in "open arms") and have the room to accomidate numerous people at one time. Religion and the government are of no importance in helping your fellow man in this case. It is unfortuneate that there are people out there without a warm place to sleep every night, and with the hopes that these men see this as something they want to maintain, I am willing to bet that some of the guests move on to better their lives. I believe there are three things an AMERICAN CITIZEN should NEVER be without.....Food, Housing and Insurance, especially a VETRAN. It is not beyond my reach to comprehend the fact that most will run and hide from the homeless because of fear, but I ask just one of you who are afraid to give a tiny part of yourself to help out with some sort of charity, and the amount of swelling you will feel in your own chest will show you how all this is worth it. Not to mention to see a pair of sad vacant eyes begin to sparkle with gratefulness.

RUSerious-
You have heard of the "nanosecond" and the "millisecond" right? Well you just described the "uh-ohsecond". The moment after pressing send or submit that you notice a mistake and frantically hope and wish you didn't actually click.

and of course, I meant benEfits with a second E. How come it is always after you press the "Post Comment" button that you see a typo flying by at lightening speed, too late to stop it?

proartist, thank you, I appreciate that information. I will suggest, though, that religious charities alone are not the intended beneficiaries of this government largesse, but it is intended for Faith-Based AND Community Initiatives-all of whom pass any possible benfits on to the public who need help. (And aren’t there grants of other varieties available to others as well?) Since many community and national charities stem from religious organizations, it seems like the most efficient way to do it. Because religious charities (as well as others) rely a great deal on support from the private sector, supplementing charities saves the government more than it costs them, unless, of course, they intend to do nothing anyway to take up the slack if those charities go under.

timsmom, I do know that one man from the church does take time to drive some men around to apply for jobs.. GIFTS mission is to offer food and shelter that is not available for them. The city already has the job center and various agencies that could help them find a job. You need to remember that these are volunteers that take time out of their lives to help these people. It's amazing, some people complain that the church is overstepping boundaries and others complain that it's not enough to offer a "quick fix"!

Not sure if you realize it or not, but, the women of the church donate and prepare food for the men. Some businesses also drop off food that is left over at the end of the day also. Not all conventions are through govt. grants either. Our church does not only sponsor the GIFTS program as a witness to others. They are involved in ministering to the RECAP program as well. But, I suppose that is awful too, since people from jail are allowed to attend church functions, after all, they should be forgotten because they are the society low lifes. Correct? Don't you realize that these people really need God in their lives and the only way it's going to happen is by the church witnessing and ministering to them? EVERYONE deserves the chance to be saved and turn their lives around. You should be wearing your religion on your sleeve, it is to share, not to keep to yourslf.

"Go past the shelter locations hours before the doors open and/or any morning where you'll see groups out front smoking.."
.
I was there at Asbury just before they opened and I saw 3 men standing outside the doors. One was Scott, a volunteer, and the other two were guests. None of the three were smoking. In fact, I would wager that none of these smoke at all. The third guest arrived after opening, so he wasn't "out front smoking" either.
.
You can use whatever scare tactics you want to stir up the neighbors, but the truth is you are wrong in your characterizations of the guests of the GIFTS shelter.
.
If you want to rant on about RLUIPA, go ahead, but do not make false accusations about the guests or volunteers.

RUSerious: Here is a link to the government's sponsored faith-based charity site where, aside from helping religious organizations apply for government grants, they also hold conventions and training sessions on the tax-payer's dollars:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbc...

proartist-this is just a suggestion, off the top of my head-but could it be that the church takes some of the burden off the government and the taxpayer by feeding, housing, and caring for the least of these without asking for any compensation except donations? I don't know, but it could weigh in.
By the way, in some of these forums I see people talk about churches getting government funds, benefit from taxes paid by others, etc...could someone enlighten me about that? <---serious question.

Proartist-Yes, amazing isn't it...how they find money for smokes and are asked not to drink alcohol before they show up at the shelters.....

Please explain - why is it okay for ANY entity (secular or religious) to have complete exemption to disregard local zoning, housing, health and safelty laws and more? Why should the federal government allow one set of rules for religious organizations (for which they also provide tax-payer funds to many) and another, more restrictive set of rules for the rest of society? Under RLUIPA, the government has to demonstrate "compelling interest" to force a church to adhere to building codes or anti-discrimination laws (among others!), but it does have to not bear that burden when dealing with an individual landowner, a private business or any non-religious group. In this way, a blatantly discriminatory class of "special rights" for religious groups and believers is created, allowing for a dual system of laws and regulations. Ordinances that apply to everyone and every group no longer apply to religious groups and this is, quite simply, unconstitutional.

Apparently we once again can see the Christian kudo of "Love your neighbor" only extends to those people whom churches can gain acclaim for serving. It is possible to do God's work without wearing it on your sleeve and it's also far easier to dismiss and demonize critical thinking about what actually happens and/or validate direct-witness than be open to enlightenment. "Hang out"? Go past the shelter locations hours before the doors open and/or any morning where you'll see groups out front smoking...

I know, proartist, shame on the churches for carrying out the will of God! It rotates, so it should only be by your house every 12 weeks. I hope you can "sacrifice your safety" for , maybe 3 weeks this winter. Remember, "what you do for my bretheren you have done to me". Don't email me about this either, I don't want to hear your bunk. Have compassion for these people for only a few weeks would ya?

Being homeless is not a crime and many of the homeless have never committed a crime. Everyone deserves a warm bed to sleep in and kindness from their fellow humans. Unless you have a bridge next door to you, Proartist, anyone rejected at the shelter will not hang out in your neighborhood. Pass through? Maybe. Hang out? Not likely.

Another example how RLUIPA (Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Person's Act) has impacted Janesville given that no secular organization, business, nor individual could operate such a shelter without strict licensing, adequately trained staffing, and rigorous adherence to federal, state and local laws and ordinances for health and safety, as well as other reasons. Thanks to RLUIPA churches are now essentially exempt from all laws and no citizen nor community has any real recourse for the adverse consequences that do follow. I wish the volunteers a rewarding and safe year. Equally, I wish the same for the families of adjoining neighborhoods who do not have the same legal luxury as GIFTS ("...conducting a police background check. Any open wants or warrants, or recorded sex-offender status will prevent an applicant from taking advantage of this ministry.") when GIFTS attracts various men to their neighborhoods and then can refuse to shelter such individuals.

Beautiful work! Thank you to all of the churches and volunteers that reach out to this too-often ignored, criticized and misunderstood population.