Model quits Victoria’s Secret over Christian beliefs

Young beauty Kylie Bisutti is leaving Victoria's Secret at just 21 because modeling lingerie does not conform with her Christian beliefs.

Bisutti won Victoria's Secret Model Search in 2009 when she was 19, beating out 10,000 other hopefuls.

“Victoria’s Secret was my absolutely biggest goal in life, and it was all I ever wanted career-wise," she told FOX411's Pop Tarts. "I actually loved it while I was there, it was so much fun and I had a blast. But the more I was modeling lingerie — and lingerie isn’t clothing — I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it.”

Bisutti, from Simi Valley, California, was married shortly before getting her wings, and she said that was also a factor in her decision.

Continue reading at www.nydailynews.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

DRAGA

GOOD GIRL!!!
IT MAKES GOD PLEASED WHEN SOMEONE THAT HAS REACHED THE TOP AND AFTER READING THE WORD KNOWS IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR A CHRISTIAN,AND TO TAKE A STAND IS AWESOME. MAY GOD BLESS HER AND WISHING HER A LONG MARRIAGE
DRAGA
- daves
  
  It's funny which Zionica articles get the most comments. I believe us Christians are drawn to stories of sex.
  - Linda F.
    
    Maybe that's why YOU were drawn to this story, daves. But I was drawn to this story because of the fact that it focuses on a young Christian lady who chose to step away from a financially lucrative company for the sake of her faith.
  - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
    
    Wrong-O! Males are all drawn to this stuff.
    Once an 89 year old man was asked when he lost interest in women. His response: I don't know; perhaps you need to talk to someone older…
  - evermyrtle
    
    GOD made sex to be the only way, possible to have children, Did you know that Dave? Of course Christians are drawn to sex, to their opposite sex spouse. That is how HE made it to be. Any other way of sex of against GOD'S WORD. The infatuation with sex is evil.
    - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
      
      evermyrtle wrote: "GOD made sex to be…"
      
      God doesn't exist. God didn't make anything…
      
      evermyrtlw cont'd: "The infatuation with sex is evil."
      
      So why do ~you~ think God made us with feelings of infatuation so common? If it's so "evil" why would God conceive of it?
      - keyboardshark
        
        jatheist sez: "God didn't make anything… " Then who did? There's sure a lot of stuff hanging around in this universe whose existence cannot be explained by natural means. In fact, where did the universe come from?
        
        The idea that sexual reproduction could have evolved is absurd, because it would have required the simultaneous 'evolution' of numerous physical changes and nerve pathways all at once, not to mention that it would have had to happen simultaneously in males and females. You cannot have a 'partial' evolution of complicated systems that require all parts to be present at once. The fact that it was created all at once is the only logical explanation.
        
        evermyrtlw did not say that 'infatuation' was evil, but that 'infatuation with sex' was evil. Maybe the word "infatuation" would have been better stated as "obsession" but I think the point was clear that it it overemphasis on sex that he/she was referring to. Of course anyone who has been or is a teenager knows that infatuation is a normal emotion, but it should be only temporary.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        This claim is an instance of the argument from incredulity. In all specific instances of this claim, there are ways for the organs and organ systems to evolve gradually. The idea that they could not evolve usually involves one or more of the following errors in thinking:
        
        that organ parts appear suddenly. This seems to be an artifact of creationist thinking. Evolution, however, is not creationism; parts change gradually.
        that organs less developed than what exists now must be completely useless. This is nonsense. A light-sensitive patch on the skin may not be as useful as the eyes we have now, but it is better than nothing. And just a little bit better is all that is required for the trait to evolve.
        that parts must evolve separately. Coordinated innovation between parts of an organ or organ system is possible. Indeed, if the parts evolve gradually, it is inconceivable that parts that interact would not coevolve in such a way that changes are coordinated via natural selection.
        that parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.
        
        The invalidity of specific examples of this claim are seen in the the bombardier beetle, the giraffe neck, the woodpecker tongue, and the fangs of venomous snakes.
      - keyboardshark
        
        It's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument from science and logic. There is no known mechanism that can create vast amounts of new genetic information that would be required for highly complex structures such as eyes and systems such as sexual reproduction. A "light-sensitive patch of skin" is laughably simple when compared to the incredibly complex structure of the eye.
        
        There would have to be literally millions of 'just-so' chance changes to go from a light-sensitive patch of skin to a functioning visual system. Keep in mind, it would require not only the eyes themselves, but also new sensory pathways, and changes in the brain itself. And all this without a mechanism to even produce the changes? I think not.
        
        Let me give you a very simple example. A woodpecker needs not only a hard, sharp bill to drill into trees, it also needs a reinforced skull to withstand the impact. Let's just say that somehow, for the sake of argument, that a hard, sharp bill developed on the woodpecker. Mr woodpecker sees a tree with some fine, tasty bugs below the surface, and begins to furiously peck away with his new bill. Guess what happens. He smashes his skull. No woodpecker left to carry on the new trait.
        
        Or Mr. woodpecker somehow develops the reinforced skull only. He then proceeds to peck away furiously at the tree as in the first example, only this time, he is left with a smashed bill. He then dies for lack of nutrition because he cannot eat. And this example does not even include the changes to the musculature necessary for the furious pecking, nor the knowledge to know to do it.
        
        There are far more examples of complex systems that must have all of the parts in place for it to function. Even if there was a way to create the vast amounts of new genetic information randomly, the odds that they would all somehow come together as a functional system are beyond astronomical.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, it is an argument that says that because you cannot conceive of how it occurred, it cannot be true. That is an argument from incredulity. Scientists are always showing how these mechanisms evolve.
      - keyboardshark
        
        But what is the mechanism that creates vast amounts of new genetic information? Without that, evolution is a fraud. Information does not create itself and assemble itself into systems.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Mutation.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Mutation is not an engine for creating new genetic information. It has to start with existing genetic information, and virtually all mutations are harmful or neutral and result in a LOSS of genetic information. The few that might be considered beneficial only result in an improvement in the ability of the organism to survive under certain conditions, rather than an actual change in form or function. And the question still remains. Where did the original DNA (information) come from? Evolutionism has no answer.
        
        Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation).
        
        However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/…
        
        For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism’s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc.
        
        If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (e.g., it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.
        
        There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite—organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mut…
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        keyboardshark asked: "what is the mechanism that creates vast amounts of new genetic information?"
        
        Jeff is right – you're several decades behind (as are most creationists) in your scientific knowledge shark!
        
        Here is the answer to your "new information" question:
        http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
      - keyboardshark
        
        As I stated in my answer to Jeff, the few mutations that might be considered beneficial only result in an improvement in the ability of the organism to survive under certain conditions, rather than an actual change in form or function. The examples listed from your link verify that this is the case. For example:
        
        "RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)" This is only an improvement in digestive enzymes. No new form or function. The monkey is still able to digest its food whether it has the mutated enzyme or not, and we start with a monkey and end with a monkey. This is not evolution. Plus it appears the process was assisted by the researchers ("…was duplicated…") so it would not be an example of an entirely natural mutation.
        
        "Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)" The yeast was responding to the low-sugar environment, resulting in mutated hexose (sugar) transport genes. In other words, it was an adaptation of the organism to survive under certain conditions, not a change in form or function. Again we start with a yeast, we end with a yeast, and the mutation was assisted by the researchers by placing the yeast into an environment in which it is not native (low sugar).
        
        Neither of these examples proves anything about a mechanism for producing entirely new genetic information that would be required for new forms or functions. Both examples started with existing genetic information (enzymes) and the mutations only resulted in slightly altered abilities to perform better in certain environments. They started as enzymes, and ended as enzymes, and the host organisms started as a monkey or yeast, and ended as the same.This is a far cry from macro evolution.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      If you are talking about human children, that has been true so far. However, the day is not far off when cloning will occur with humans. It is also possible that science will learn how to allow women to create children by the process of parthenogenesis. That process is already seen in nature.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Cloning animals is fraught with major problems. First, The success rate ranges from only 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. There are also significant problems during later development, as well as abnormal gene expression patterns and telomeric differences. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloni…
        
        So cloning is certainly no replacement for God-given reproduction through the union of a female and a male. Why would we want to, anyway? Parthenogenesis is only seen in plants and lower animals such as insects, invertebrates, and a few vertebrates, but not mammals, and carries its own set of limitations, so this is not a viable option for human reproduction, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Many medical procedures have limited success when they are being developed. That does not mean that the procedure will not become more successful as people better understand the issues involved.
        
        Heart transplants are a great example. The heart was a major prize for transplant surgeons. But over and above rejection issues, the heart deteriorates within minutes of death, so any operation would have to be performed at great speed. The development of the heart-lung machine was also needed. Lung pioneer James Hardy attempted a human heart transplant in 1964, but when a premature failure of the recipient's heart caught Hardy with no human donor, he used a chimpanzee heart, which failed very quickly. The first success was achieved on December 3, 1967, by Christiaan Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa. Louis Washkansky, the recipient, survived for eighteen days amid what many saw as a distasteful publicity circus. The media interest prompted a spate of heart transplants. Over a hundred were performed in 1968–69, but almost all the patients died within sixty days. Barnard's second patient, Philip Blaiberg, lived for 19 months.
        It was the advent of cyclosporine that altered transplants from research surgery to life-saving treatment. In 1968 surgical pioneer Denton Cooley performed seventeen transplants, including the first heart-lung transplant. Fourteen of his patients were dead within six months. By 1984 two-thirds of all heart transplant patients survived for five years or more.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplantatio…
      - keyboardshark
        
        That may be true, Jeff, but replacing an organ in an existing human being is far different than attempting to create a new human being altogether. The person receiving the new natural or artificial heart had already been conceived and born in the usual way, and did not suffer from the chromosome abnormalities or telomere problems associated with cloning. Wonderful things can be done with advanced medical techniques, but there is an upper limit to how far man can go when it comes to equaling the reproductive abilities God has given us.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        We have already accomplished cloning with animals. It is just a matter of refinement of the process to get to successful cloning of humans.
        
        We keep pushing that upper limit on how far man can go. You may be willing to limit yourself. Do not ever assume that mankind shares your view on our limits.
      - keyboardshark
        
        I'm not referring to the limitations of man. I'm talking about biological limitations and irreducible complexity.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is nothing in biology that has ever been shown to be irreducibly complex.
        
        Besides, I do not understand your argument about limitations. If we can clone a sheep, what would limit us from being able to clone a human?
      - keyboardshark
        
        A cell is irreducibly complex.
        
        A human is far more complex mentally than a sheep. Even the few sheep that have been cloned has come at a cost of 97% or greater failure rate, and most surviving animals are unhealthy. If a human were to be cloned, there is no telling what effect it would have on the brain, much less the personality of the 'clone'. We would be playing with fire if we attempted human cloning. There are very serious ethical issues involved when dealing with people.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        However, whether there are ethical issues or not, that has nothing to say about whether the procedure is possible. It will take longer to clone a human, but the procedure will eventually occur.
        
        And cells are not irreducibly complex. Sorry, that idea keeps getting shot down.
        http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reducib…
      - keyboardshark
        
        So scientists don't think that creating a cloned human that could wind up being a mindless zombie is a hindrance to moving forward with human cloning? Not to mention the 97%+ clones that would die or have to be destroyed because of fatal defects? I know you are saying that it will occur whether there are ethical issues or not, but if they attempt to do it with these very real problems in mind, what does that say about the supposed 'progress' of science?
        
        The article you cite has a serious logical flaw, namely, begging the question. They start with the premise that evolution is true in order to prove that it is true: "Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells." Pure speculation based on the assumption of evolution being true.
        
        "According to evolutionary theory, however, cellular complexity is reducible. It requires only that existing components be repurposed, with inevitable mutations providing extra ingredients as needed." Again, citing evolutionary assumptions to prove that evolution is true.
        
        Even evolutionists themselves admit there are problems with irreducible complexity: "Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. "
        "Biochemist Michael J. Behe,2 though an evolutionist, has challenged this widely held and incessantly taught notion:
        ‘What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional’ [italics in original].
        Behe then presents several biochemical examples of irreducible complexity. Certain evolutionists, notably those reviewing Behe’s book, summarily dismiss his argument and insist, in a purely arm-waving manner, that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex system. Given enough time, with the wonder-working power of natural selection acting upon genetic mutations, even seemingly impossible things can happen. Yet despite this bravado, there are other evolutionists who, without mentioning Behe or using the phrase irreducible complexity, acknowledge that it is a very serious problem for evolutionary theory. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defence. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"[47] and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[48] Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years… could be produced over three and half billion years."[49][50][50] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        To demonstrate the improbability, Behe does some math. He calculates the probability that such interactions between amino acids could evolve, assuming that a precise set of amino acids is required. Not surprisingly, it turns out that getting by mutation a set of three to four amino acids required for only one protein-protein interaction is very low (mutations in the DNA affect the building blocks of proteins, since DNA codes for a sequence of amino acids). It is especially low because Behe requires all of the three or four mutations needed to create such an interaction to arise simultaneously. Since any one mutation is very rare (on the order of one in a billion in any given generation at a specified DNA site), the chances that a specified group of changes could arise in one fell swoop is unimaginably rare. And this is for only a single pair of interacting proteins. When you consider the thousands of proteins in a cell that interact with others, some with as many as five or six others, evolution looks impossible.
        
        Wrong. If it looks impossible, this is only because of Behe's bizarre and unrealistic assumption that for a protein-protein interaction to evolve, all mutations must occur simultaneously, because the step-by-step path is not adaptive. Yet Behe furnishes no proof, no convincing argument, that interactions cannot evolve gradually. In fact, interactions between proteins, like any complex interaction, were certainly built up step by mutational step, with each change producing an interaction scrutinized by selection and retained if it enhanced an organism's fitness. This process could have begun with weak protein-protein associations that were beneficial to the organism. These were then strengthened gradually, involving more and more amino acids to make the interaction stronger and more specific. At the end, you get what we see today: many proteins interacting strongly and specifically. What seems improbable in a single leap becomes much more likely when it evolves gradually, step by step.
        http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1271
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        A simple example shows this difference. Suppose a complex adaptation involves twenty parts, represented by twenty dice, each one showing a six. The adaptation is fueled by random mutation, represented by throwing the dice. Behe's way of getting this adaptation requires you to roll all twenty dice simultaneously, waiting until they all come up six (that is, all successful mutations must happen together). The probability of getting this outcome is very low; in fact, if you tossed the dice once per second, it would take about a hundred million years to get the right outcome. But now let us build the adaptation step by step, as evolutionary theory dictates. You start by rolling the first die, and keep rolling it until a six comes up. When it does, you keep that die (a successful first step in the adaptation) and move on to the next one. You toss the second die until it comes up six (the second step), and so on until all twenty dice show a six. On average, this would take about a hundred and twenty rolls, or a total of two minutes at one roll per second. This sequential way of getting twenty sixes is infinitely faster than Behe's method. And this is the way natural selection and mutation really work, not by the ludicrous scenario presented by Behe.
        
        As for Behe's assertion that mutation and selection cannot produce "coherence," it is absurd. Coherence is precisely the product of natural selection working with mutation. Yes, mutations are random in the sense I have described, but to say that an evolutionary step taken by an organism is unconnected to its predecessor completely ignores the fact that during evolution organisms are adapting to something in their environment, and that this adaptation can involve a coherent, coordinated response of many features. Consider the evolution of whales from terrestrial animals, now documented by a superb fossil record. The fossils show a wolf-like creature gradually becoming aquatic, with the hind limbs being reduced and finally lost, the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and the nostrils gradually moving atop the head to form the blowhole. How can anyone say that these changes (which of course look planned at the end) are unconnected or incoherent? They represent a case of natural selection eventually turning a land animal into a well-adapted aquatic one.
        http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1271
      - keyboardshark
        
        The dice example is wrong. Each die has six faces, so there is a one in six chance of throwing a six. But to get 20 sixes, it would be 6 X 6 X 6 X 6 etc. or 6 to the power of 20. It would take far more than 120 rolls to come up with 20 sixes. I don't have my calculator handy, but it would obviously be a very large number.
        
        Whether they are rolled simultaneously or not, each die still has the same one in six chance of being a 6, and since you need all 20 to be a six, the probabilities of each event must be multiplied together (1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6, etc.). Rolling them individually does not change the odds.
        
        "Consider the evolution of whales from terrestrial animals, now documented by a superb fossil record." Begging the question. Fossils don't tell us anything about the origin of the fossilized animal. The evidence must be interpreted. Creationists use the same fossils evolutionists use, and interpret similarity in design to a Creator using a common design in similar creatures.
        
        "The fossils show a wolf-like creature gradually becoming aquatic, with the hind limbs being reduced and finally lost, the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and the nostrils gradually moving atop the head to form the blowhole." Pure speculation. How do the fossils "show" this? That is simply his interpretation based on his evolutionary presuppositions.
        
        Besides, that seems entirely backwards from the usual evolutionist's arguments that land-dwelling creatures evolved from sea creatures. Why would a land animal 'evolve' back into a sea-going creature? What survival advantage is that? Is this reverse evolution perchance?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03….
        
        If you go to this link, you will find a JavaScript widget that will roll dice for you until you get ten sixes. You will see that it does not take long at all. The odds change dramatically when you only need one six at a time.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03….
      - keyboardshark
        
        That would be true if the events were independent. If you were to toss one die until it got a six, and then set it aside, then yes, the odds would be much lower.
        
        However, when you are looking at a system consisting of 20 parts that supposedly arose by chance, each part cannot be randomly arrived at and set aside. They all must be in place for the system to function. If they were randomly created, how would "chance" know when the 'right' part was made and then set aside? This would require intelligence, not chance.
        
        So in other words, going back to the dice example, there are six possible outcomes for each: 1,2,3,4,5,6. If we assume an outcome with an even distribution of numbers from our predetermined number of rolls, then we would have a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6 (it takes 6 rolls on average to obtain a specific number). We repeat with all 20 dice.
        
        We now have 20- ones, 20- twos, and so on. But they still have to be selected from the pile, and if done randomly we are right back to the 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6…… odds we had calculated at the beginning.
        
        If we had intelligent intervention that 'knew' that 6 was the right number, and could pick out the sixes, then yes, the odds would be greatly decreased. But then it would not be random selection.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC wrote: "If we had intelligent intervention that 'knew' that 6 was the right number…"
        
        Ah – you're talking about natural selection… good to see you coming around! Noting that natural selection is the "intelligent intervention" is a big first step to curing your ignorance.
        
        YEC cont'd: "it would not be random selection."
        
        Since there is nothing "random" about natural selection it appears you haven't learned anything after all… why do creationists have to keep parroting the claim that evolution is a "random" process?! It's not! It's driven by natural selection…
      - keyboardshark
        
        How is 'natural' selection intelligent? Natural selection only occurs in response to environmental conditions, and it uses pre-existing genetic information. Natural selection does not 'know' anything.
        
        Natural selection could sort out some random individual mutations based on environmental conditions, but since we need 20 (the number is usually far greater, but let's say 20 for the sake of argument) to build a functioning system, they still must all come together at once.
        
        Selecting a single mutation (which are entirely random and often result in a loss of genetic information) based on environmental conditions is one thing, but building a functioning system consisting of hundreds or thousands or even 20 parts with varying functions cannot be achieved by natural selection.
        
        Remember, the only examples of 'beneficial' mutations you provided previously were ones that improved an EXISTING function (enzymes improving digestive functions) possibly increasing the chance of survival of the host organism. This is certainly NOT the creation of a new form or function which evolution claims to be true.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC asked: "How is 'natural' selection intelligent?"
        
        In that it is guided by a known process to achieve a goal. It is just a way of pointing out that the selection isn't "random" as you claimed.
        
        YEC cont'd: "Remember, the only examples of 'beneficial' mutations you provided previously were ones that improved an EXISTING function…"
        
        You really need to take off your tinfoil hat when you read the pages I direct you to… like this one (which contradicts your 'no new information' meme):
        http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
      - keyboardshark
        
        I have already addressed this particular page you link to. Please re-read my post above about 18 hours ago.
        
        You seem to be confused as to the distinction between 'intelligence' and a 'process'. A process operates only within certain parameters. Intelligence operates outside of parameters and has the ability to make decisions based on many variables. A process is not intelligence.
        
        Wow, you seem to really like that reference to tinfoil hats. You got some shares of stock in Alcoa or something?
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC wrote: "You seem to be confused as to the distinction between 'intelligence'"
        
        No… just trying to point out that you are wrong when you claim evolution involved "random selection". There is nothing "random" about natural selection – do you agree?
      - keyboardshark
        
        I did not claim that evolution involves random selection because evolution never happened nor is happening now. I was pointing out that even IF mutations and natural selection were able to produce new forms and functions (which it is not) that the odds against it occurring are astronomically large. Natural selection happens. Mutations happen. But not macro evolution.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        You wrote, and I quote, : "If we had intelligent intervention that 'knew' that 6 was the right number, and could pick out the sixes, then yes, the odds would be greatly decreased. But then it would not be random selection."
        
        Perhaps you mistyped… but you certainly wrote "random selection".
      - keyboardshark
        
        Random selection is not intelligent intervention, nor is natural selection. Not sure what your point is. Intelligent intervention would be able to recognize that '6' was the 'correct' number and then would proceed to pick out all the sixes.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Behe was right, evolution does look impossible, because it IS impossible.
        
        "In fact, interactions between proteins, like any complex interaction, were certainly built up step by mutational step, with each change producing an interaction scrutinized by selection and retained if it enhanced an organism's fitness." Begging the question by assuming that mutational ascendancy, and therefore, evolution is true, without offering any proof of this supposed "built up step by mutational step".
        
        "This process could have begun with weak protein-protein associations that were beneficial to the organism." COULD have? Pure speculation.
        
        "What seems improbable in a single leap becomes much more likely when it evolves gradually, step by step." Yeah, except that there is no evidence that proteins, much less entire organisms, could ever be built up step by step. If it cannot be duplicated and observed in a laboratory setting, under controlled conditions, then it certainly could not occur under UNcontrolled conditions as is supposedly the case.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The fact that these processes take millions of years is hardly an indictment of evolution.
        
        It would be the same as demanding that you and your wife create a child in the next minute.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Nothing took millions of years. The universe as well as the earth is only about 13,000 years old.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Starlight alone shows billions of years.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Starlight alone shows billions of years." Except that the speed of light may not be a constant. It is now believed that light once travelled much faster than it does today:
        
        "A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science — that the speed of light has always been the same – is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light — 300 million metres per second — is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees – light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/9910…
        
        "It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does…
        
        Another possible explanation: "Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale." (same ref.)
        
        Also: "Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today." (same ref.)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You could also argue that magic elves created starlight. It is just as reasonable.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Of course they could just ditch the tinfoil hats, accept the evidence and join the rest of us in reality… but that doesn't seem to be acceptable to these wingnuts.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Since there is no evidence for the existence of magic elves, it would be illogical to conclude that they had anything to do with starlight. However, there is ample evidence for the existence of God so it would be reasonable to conclude that He was responsible for starlight.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is also no evidence of any gods. That is all that atheists have ever asked for is real, tangible, unequivocal evidence.
        
        But what we get is contradictory stories that may or may not have been from the person they are attributed to. We get stories that have been shown to be altered over time. We get bombarded by bible verses which Christians seem to believe will sway us, not comprehending that we completely discount their origin being the inspired word of God. We are shown prophecies which are proven by the bible saying it was fulfilled. Some are so vague that any event could be used to prove it. Many of these prophecies have been shown to be completely false, yet they are continually shown to us as well as “proof”.
        We are asked to believe stories that contradict known scientific fact. We are asked to believe stories that cannot have occurred the way they are described in the bible.
        In other words, what we get is nothing of any substance at all.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Since there is no plausible natural explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it, the inescapable conclusion is that an Eternal, Creator God created it. The evidence is all around you.
        
        Evolutionists want us to believe that order can come from disorder, contrary to known laws of science. They also want us to believe that complex creatures evolved from simpler life forms, even though they have no explanation as to where the 'simple' life forms came from, nor can evolution be observed, tested or repeated.
        
        Please give me some examples of prophecies that "have been shown to be completely false". The Bible has stood the test of its critics who have tried to destroy it for thousands of years, yet have always and will always fail. The Bible is not only the most popular book of all time, but also the most burned book of all time. Why do unbelievers feel so threatened by this one Book? I think we both know the answer to that one.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        “Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. Yet thus saith the Lord God; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered. And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.”
        —Ezekiel 29:9-15
        
        I think we can all agree that this never happened.
      - keyboardshark
        
        There are two possibilities: It is a future prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled. This is also spoken of in Zechariah 14:17-19: "And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
        18And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
        
        19This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
        
        OR
        
        The number 40 is used in the Bible as a figure of testing or judgement: It rained 40 days and 40 nights, Israel wandered 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted 40 days of the devil, etc. The 40 years could be a figurative way of indicating past or future judgement coming upon Egypt.
        
        In fact, Nebuchadnezzar did invade Egypt:
        " About Babylon, it is true that Nebuchadnezzar imposed a stunning and devastating defeat on Egypt at the battle of Carchemish. Although he did not occupy the entire nation of Egypt, his defeat of Egypt at Carchemish made him the major power in the Middle East, and Egypt was subject to him through tribute. Then, much later in 568 BC Nebuchadnezzar did in fact actually invade Egypt proper. A fragmentary historical document indicates that Nebuchadnezzar actually campaigned in Egypt, subjugating parts of the country during the rule of Amasis, about 568 BC. Naturally, during this campaign, Nebuchadnezzar took massive booty, as predicted by Ezekiel. Ezekiel never prephesied that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Egypt. It says that he will campaign there, taking land and plunder as his reward. Ezekiel 29:19 was in fact fulfilled at that time to the letter.
        As for Ezekiel 30:12, let me quote: "They [the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar] will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain. I will make the streams dry and sell the land into the hands of evil men. I will bring destruction on the land and everything in it by the hands of foreigners. I, the Lord, have spoken." Note that nowhere here does it say that the Nile River will run completely dry. To be honest, this prophecy is really somewhat vague (unlike many other extremely precise and specific biblical prophecies). It seems to describe a campaign in Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar–almost certainly the one which we know happened in 568 BC. At the time it is prophesied that the streams will dry up. Presumably this means that it will be a time of drought. I do not see a reason to doubt that this prophecy was fulfilled, although I do not know of the actual rainfall pattern in Egypt that particular year. Either way, I do not see the biblical 100% accuracy rate for historical prophecy challenged by this one. http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?…
        view&id=4943
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        In other words, one can try to rationalize an explanation because the event is not true.
      - keyboardshark
        
        All prophecies listed in the Bible are not past prophecies. Many concern future events, such as the return of Christ, the end of the world, etc.. You are rationalizing that this particular prophecy was 'supposed' to be fulfilled in the past but wasn't.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        As Stephen Hawking writes: "the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." Hawking, A Brief History, p. 136.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Hmm, let's see. Completely self-contained. Not affected by anything outside itself. Can be neither created nor destroyed. Is self-existent.
        
        Sounds like God to me. All Hawking is doing is deifying the universe rather than acknowledging the ONE who created it.
        "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
        
        21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
        
        25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The key difference is that Hawking is using science as his foundation. Theists are using magic.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Damn that scientific evidence for Quantum Theory eh?! Not being able to understand the science seems to lead god-believers to assume that it must be taken on faith and therefore god-did-it is just as valid.
        No – there is ample evidence for Quantum Theory, the Theory of Gravity and the results of these theories… not be able to understand the science doesn't mean god-did-it, it just means you should take post-graduate level physics if you ~really~ care to understand it.
      - keyboardshark
        
        jatheist: Quantum theory offers no plausible explanation for matter or energy arising from nothing. It still starts with something–energy. Where did the initial energy come from? Sorry I'm not a post-grad physics genius like you, but I know enough about it from research I have done to know that it certainly offers no explanation for the universe arising from nothing by natural means. If you are trying to rationalize that it does, you are way off base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
        Quantum_mechanics
      - keyboardshark
        
        Hawking is the one using magic. He is irrationally ascribing supernatural characteristics to a physical universe. I fail to see anything scientific about that.
        
        God, on the other hand, possesses supernatural characteristics because He IS supernatural. Far more rational to believe that than to believe Hawking's irrational ramblings.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        keyboardshark wrote: "The universe as well as the earth is only about 13,000 years old."
        
        OMG! You're a young earth creationist!? Here I am presenting you with scientific evidence for evolution and you ignore basic geology and think the Flintstones was a documentory?
        
        Dude – you are WAY out there, there is absolutely ZERO reasonable grounds on which you can make such a statement. It is beyond anti-science conspiracy theories – you're either really REALLY ignorant (which you don't appear to be) or you're a con-man… either way you clearly don't respect science, scientific evidence or the many scientists who have given us so much knowledge – you are a lost cause…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers — much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.
        
        The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they sometimes react with a tiny number of mineral atoms which create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz which is near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 8,500 years for "recent" glacial moraines in Newfoundland and 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        As you wrote in an earlier comment – starlight is all you need to show that the universe is billions of years old.
        
        You have to be a certain kind of crazy to fall for the young earth creationist lines… to get around starlight they actually posit that God or god(s) or the devil made starlight appear the way it does as a trick!! Like that is a rational explanation! ;)
        
        When dealing with YEC it becomes apparent that you're wasting your time… there is no getting through to someone ~that~ deluded/crazy, there really isn't. I suppose others might learn from the comments – but clearly keyboardshark has left reality and gone so far from it that he's unlikely to return.
        
        A 13,000 year old universe! Too funny right?!
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It would be funny except that too many people agree with him. And they all do it to try and make a book of fables sound less crazy.
      - keyboardshark
        
        jatheist says: "As you wrote in an earlier comment – starlight is all you need to show that the universe is billions of years old. " No, that was Jeff's comment I was quoting.
        
        You can wave your arms and proclaim how crazy I am, but that does not avoid the inescapable conclusion that the majority of time clocks indicate a recent creation rather than the billions of years nonsense propagated by evolutionists using flawed dating methods based on assumptions. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for…
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Of course it was Jeff's comment about starlight – Jeff values good science, you clearly do not.
        
        YEC wrote: "the majority of time clocks indicate a recent creation rather than the billions of years nonsense…"
        
        I've left my tinfoil hat at home today… your anti-science rubbish will not be well received by me. Seriously – having admitted that you're a YEC you have lost all, yes every last shred, of credibility. Not that you had much to lose…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Apparently your tactic is to ridicule the messenger because your own arguments lack validity. But I understand your reaction. Criticism is inescapable when you do something that challenges other people's beliefs. I'm OK with that.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        I ridicule you because you have ridiculous beliefs… That an adult would willingly admit to being a young earth creationist in 2012 points to something REALLY wrong with that person. It shows a complete lack of critical thinking. It shows a complete disdain for evidence.
        
        In short – you should be embarrassed.
      - keyboardshark
        
        And your evidence my beliefs are ridiculous is…….?
        
        By ignoring my source that lists 22 time clocks pointing to a young earth shows your complete lack of critical thinking and a disdain for evidence.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC wrote: "And your evidence my beliefs are ridiculous is…….?"
        
        The fact that you believe the earth is 13,000 years old for a start! That idea is beyond ridiculous!
        
        Dude – your "time clocks" are a joke!
        
        The first one they list is the "receding moon"… a long debunked idea. For a look at why this receding moon isn't evidence for a young earth look at:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
      - keyboardshark
        
        (FROM YOUR SOURCE):
        "Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970)."
        
        Utter nonsense. You cannot state that a fossil is millions of years old in order to prove that the earth is millions of years old. That's circular reasoning and begging the question.
        
        Just because you think my belief in a young earth is ridiculous doesn't make it so. Care to try debunking the other 21 now that you've failed #1?
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC wrote: "you've failed #1"
        
        I have? My refutation of #1 included 4 scientific reasons why the idea is without merit – and you take issue with one part of one reason… I don't see that as a failure for ~me~.
        
        And I would continue debunking the other 21 if I could stop laughing at the site long enough – my current chuckle? They call dinosaurs "dragons"!!
        
        Yeah – that sounds like it must be a really reputable site… instead of writing "dinosaurs" they replace that with "dragons"… because everyone knows that dragons are real! ;)
      - keyboardshark
        
        If you believe you can refute the other 21 without using circular reasoning and begging the question like you did with #1, feel free to do so. Your mockery of the website shows that you would rather avoid the issue because your own arguments lack any substance.
      - keyboardshark
        
        jatheist says: "OMG! You're a young earth creationist!?" Yes, as a matter of fact I am, because the evidence best fits a young earth:
        
        "Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists (who don't want God to receive too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young-earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.
        
        In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY proclaimed — over and over — is incorrect." http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Your link is not working
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        It worked for me Jeff… and it's good for a laugh! It looks like it was designed by middle school students (which is fine of course) – but the content came from kindergarteners (which is why YECists are ridiculed)! ;)
      - keyboardshark
        
        Sorry about the link. For some reason it gets chopped off, probably because the comment boxes are shrinking on this thread. Let me try a little trick here and see:
        http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_
        for_a_young_earth.htm
      - keyboardshark
        
        No "peer reviewed" articles. Hmmm, I wonder who those those "peers" would be? Couldn't be evolutionists, could it?. And how could scientists "provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" when creation is a supernatural, not a natural, process. We already have an account of how creation occurred–the Bible.
        
        What does the number of prokaryotes (organisms without a cell nucleus) in a ton of soil have to do with whether evolution is true or not? The statement "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years… could be produced over three and half billion years." is meaningless speculation.
        
        Disulfide bonds play an important role in the folding and stability of some proteins, but even if prokaryotes were somehow able to produce a disulfide bond that is only a very minor component of a living cell and certainly does not lend any credence to macro evolution in which millions upon millions of far more complex structures would have to arise.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Scientists
      - keyboardshark
        
        Scientists, all schooled in pro-evolutionary universities, where dissenting views are not allowed.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Your persecution complex is showing.
      - keyboardshark
        
        No, it's a reality:
        
        "Suppression of dissent againt evolution is a widespread tactic of supporters of evolution. Suppression itself denies academic freedom and cases of suppression include denial of earned degrees, loss of careers, and refusal to publish in peer eviewed journals.
        
        "http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution
      - keyboardshark
        
        Link not fully showing above for some reason.
        http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Suppressio…
        dissent_against_evolution
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        YEC wrote: "No, it's a reality"
        
        You kind of have a point… creationists are suppressed by biologists in the same way that astrologers are suppressed by astronomers and alchemists are suppressed by chemists.
        
        Are you seeing the pattern here? There is a reason for the suppression – namely that it isn't science.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        However, that is not suppression. Anymore than allowing a paper to be published in a medical journal which discusses the merits of voodoo and the magic of witch doctors.
        
        It does not get published because there is no evidence for it.
        
        The witch doctor might complain he is being suppressed, but no rational person would agree.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Bang on Jeff… exactly right!
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff: If there was evidence to support voodoo as being valid, and yet it was suppressed, I would say we have a problem. However, no such evidence exists.
        
        But when creationists, many at the PhD level, supply scientifically sound arguments in favor of creation yet are suppressed by evolutionists because it contradicts their beliefs, this is unethical. Your apples-to-oranges comparison won't fly.
      - keyboardshark
        
        jatheist: Did you even bother to read through the web page? From your ignorant comments, it appears not.
        
        Glad to see that you admit that the unethical suppression of scientific information by evolutionists is occurring. At least we can agree on that much.
        
        Evolution is scientific? Please explain how. It is not observable, testable, nor repeatable. If evolutionists are so sure they are correct, why do they refuse to debate with creationists concerning the valid evidence that supports creation and shoots holes through evolution? I think we can both guess the answer to that one.
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      Show me in the Bible where it says sex before marriage is a sin….
      - myth buster
        
        1Corinthians 6:9-11 lists the sort of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among their number are fornicators.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Yes, if you use the modern NEW version of the word fornication it means that… But there are 3 instances of where fornication had different meanings and translations in the Bible. One meant Adultery, the other Idolatry, and the other as in Christians joining with unbelievers… This way of interpretation is only 100 years old – This word derives from the Greek word, No. 4202, porneia and is defined in the Strong’s as follows, "from 4203; harlotry (incl. Adultery and incest); fig. Idolatry: – fornication
- Byron
  
  DRAGA, SO-WHAT????!!!!
  - Linda F.
    
    You're running out of material, Byron. Go on. Lie down. I'm sure you've hurt yourself, trying to think of "witty" comments to post.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Luckily for you, you have never had to worry about posting a witty comment.
TOM

RESURGENCE IN FAITH GOING ON NOW.GREAT TO SEE
Roy

God will find away Kylie You did right by Him and he will always bless YOU.
- daves
  
  God might find near also. JK
Kalev

Well good for her.
Billy F.

Praise GOD, Almighty…..and Amen.
Bishop, Robert

Thanks Kylie,I am proud of you for the choice you made,I hope more young people will have second thoughts and get their heads out of the clouds and back to reality, May GOD BLESS you and yours.
Bill R.

This is a young lady with true christian conviction! GOD THE FATHER will always bless this young lady because she has blessed him……..MAY GOD ALWAYS KEEP YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WITHIN HIS OUT STREACHED ARMS.
- Blond1
  
  "True" Christian conviction? Wow, have we lowered the bar! This should be a no-brainer…..
Paul Molyneux

BRAVO once for your convictions and again for the courage to live up to them.
Kim

God bless Kylie for putting her faith, and love for God, above everything else. This beautiful young woman will be blessed!
- evermyrtle
  
  Kylie has made a wonderful discovery in finding JESUS and the decision she made to accept HIM. She has a terrific battle in front of her, she will need Christians to back her up, to give her strength and courage to follow through. I hope those around her will recognize this fact and will be there when her courage may falter, to back her up. The world will want her back and she will have temptations, which must be overcome but with GOD at her side pulling her along, the battle will be won. We, as Christian need to remember these brave ones in prayer every day.
A MOM

As a Mom I am very pleased.

My daughter was on their mailing list and these catalogues would come every month to our home; they are nothing but soft porn. Young girls copy the suggestive poses in these catalogues: dressing and acting seductively. Then they wonder why boys and young men treat them as nothing more than sex objects.

Congratulations to you Kylie, for standing up for your beliefs. God will bless you as you continue to shine your light in this darkening world!
- Deep_Thinker
  
  I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but I like to be the antagonist and so I will ask: Why is porn bad? If it allows men who might not be able to control their urges to fulfill them in a peaceful way? Is all porn bad? How does the Bible treat porn?
  - Linda F.
    
    I'll give you one example of why porn is bad: it objectifies people, mainly women.
    
    Believe me. Being objectified and treated like a piece of meat? It's not fun.
    
    It's a shame that you think it's okay.
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      So if a woman chooses to be objectified, that is not her choice to make? She doesn't own her own body?
      
      I never said its okay, I am trying to spark some intellectual conversation.. Did I say it's ok? No.
- evermyrtle
  
  As A Mom……….I usually pick up my mil at the PO and trash all such trash, never taking it home. Once when mail was coming to the house, one advertizing piece of filth, came to my house addressed to my little son. I opened it, trashed what was in it, put it all, in the postage paid envelope and wrote and included a note, advising that we did not want, nor did we expect any more such filth mailed to our address. It worked.
kat

What a great test of faith. She passed with flying colors! Praise the Lord!
- Byron
  
  KAT, SO-WHAT !!!!!!!!!
Linda F.

Good for her. I know there are some people (some of whom frequent this website) who are going to put her down and mock her and her beliefs. But I believe it takes a strong woman of faith to walk away from such a financially lucrative career, for the sake of honoring her Lord and growing in her faith.

I just hope that she will be able to continue to pursue her dream of being a model. I've heard that the modeling industry doesn't exactly cater to the beliefs of Christians and others who long to be as modest as possible.

God bless you, Kylie.
http://www.usaproductsnow.com decarlisle

Amen
SHARON

NOW ANOTHER WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF TRUE CONVICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD ! KYLIE'S NOT JUST BY WORD BUT BY DEED. KYLIE BLESS YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND WITH A BLESSED LIFE .
SO PROUD OF YOU!!
Byron

Most of you poeple should movie into a MONASTAIRY. There is NOTHING wrong with V. S . clothing on the runway!!!!!!!
- Godisalive
  
  Not only is their clothing overly suggestive, especially for young people, those "Angel underwear" ads are an abomination. Using a creature of God's to sell things that shouldn't be on TV anyway is disgusting to me.
- TSB
  
  Most of you "poeple" should "movie" into a "MONASTAIRY"……..Wow.
  You should probably move into a local tutoring center, focus on the spelling department.
- Mama
  
  If you are a christian it is wrong. Sounds like you are not a christian so why are you on Zionica.com unless you are here to be the bully and harassment gives you kicks and grins.____
- Mexseiko
  
  There would be something wrong if I saw this beautiful young lady in her underwear and thankfully she recognized and corrected it in her life. The mind is deceitful above all things and capable of justifying anything to itself.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Yes, she should wear a burka like the Muslims believe.
- bighoss
  
  Is a "MONASTAIRY" reached by climbing a flight of stairs?
marie

I'm with you Tom. I'm very happy about this and so is God.
marie

This is what God has been waiting for, people going back to him, loving him and obeying the 10 commandments. The more we do this, the more God is going to help us in this country of ours. Keep it up people…just keep it up and you're going to see the power of God work for those that love him. And I want to say, hooooo-ray for Kylie…she did the right thing.
DJ

I would love for the Lord to bless me with a wife like her, but I doubt that is in His plan for me….I'm already "older" and may die in battle with the enemies forces so I must seek His peace about it.
- Linda F.
  
  I know, all too well, what it's like to hope and pray for a Christian spouse. I've done that for a little over 8 years now (since January, 2004). Just remember what Isaiah 40:31 says about waiting on the Lord.
  - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
    
    I think DJ is referring to her physical appearance – not her Christianity… He's one of those rare males who wants a VS model for a wife.
    - Linda F.
      
      That's possible. But still, I hope that he will be blessed with a Christian wife. Loneliness is a painful thing.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Let's agree on that then – finding someone special to spend your life with is indeed something I wish for everyone…
      - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
        
        Tell me about it. My wife of 31 years died five years ago. Now I live only with my dog. I wouldn't want to burden someone else with all my physical ailments–so I'll stay this way. It's difficult at times, but I'm determined to remain this way.
http://talkorigins.org jatheist

marie wrote: "This is what God has been waiting for…"

Wow. God is waiting for a lingerie model to hang up her G-string? This is what God has been waiting for?

marie cont'd: "…people going back to him, loving him and obeying the 10 commandments."

I don't see anything in this article that implies this young lady is planning on obeying the 10 commandments… nobody does. Working on the Sabbath? Pfft. Take the Lord's name in vain? God no! And of course everybody covets something…
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Keep in mind that the plans of the god of the bible rarely turn out the way he wanted them to.
  
  Even though he is supposedly all knowing, he can't seem to make a plan that does not get messed up somehow.
  
  Creates angels, some rebel. Creates humans, all of them rebel. Then later he has to destroy all but eight people because humanity is so depraved. That, of course, includes those sinning and depraved one week old infants. Yep, that all knowing stuff is hard.
  - http://www.zionica.com Alex
    
    you and jatheist just keep trampling on the Blood of Christ as an unholy thing and try to forget that HE is risen from the dead. We know that our Redeemer lives.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I am not trampling on the blood of anything. I am pointing out that the stories of your religion are absurd,
    - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com SargeE5
      
      Alex, JAtheist and Jeff are one in the same.
      - Linda F.
        
        How so? Alex is a believer. Jeff and jatheist are not.
        
        How are they, "one in the same," again?
      - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com SargeE5
        
        The reply was to Alex, he referred to Jatheist and Jeff as separates, I was only stating that hey are one in the same, as I have had dealings with Jeff."Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
- Kalev
  
  The only time I have agrred with you jathiest are those last 6-7 sentences.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Then you are not paying very close attention. Jatheist makes many intelligent comments.
Travis

I am trying to figure out how this girl thought she'd be doing something else other than modeling lingerie. She didn't have her agent look for a contract with Target or JCPenney – where they do actually model clothing, she went for Victoria's. When is the last time you saw a VS commercial with a heavy sweater and blue jeans? Are we serious here? I mean this is mirror to applying for a job at a Hooters or a strip club and then not wanting to wear super-shorts and shrink wrap shirts or take your clothes off. I'm really trying to be compassionate towards naivety here… but Victoria's Secret?!
The modeling industry in general… All they sell is false beauty, glamor, and shallow perspective.. especially with women. They sell their bodies. What did you expect?
Still trying.

Fathers, Mothers get reall with your daughters. Teach them VERY early what the world is about, what modeling is about, what vanity is about, lest your daughter be next to get baited into some flesh pedaling industry to have "her dreams smashed" because it conflicts with biblical standards. Of course it does!!!! It always has!!!

One last thing. She did work, and model lingerie for VS, pictures which they now own in full. They now own your body, forever. So… welcome to the internet. Those pictures are out there… forever and you just lost any credibility concerning behavior of Christians in the modern world. Thank God for grace, He can still use this… somehow.
- Linda F.
  
  Did you read the part where Kylie said: "But the more I was modeling lingerie — and lingerie isn’t clothing — I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it.”
  
  In case you (and other people) have forgotten, a Christian's walk with the Lord is a learning process. When we become born again, we don't know everything we need to know right away. It's clear to me (and, perhaps, to others) that Kylie didn't know then what she knows now: that God values modesty, and that He wants His children to value it as well.
  
  Instead of looking down on her, the least you could do is pray for her and thank God that she made the right choice!
- TSB
  
  For the record, Victoria's Secret does carry an extensive clothing line and yes, it does include jeans and heavy sweaters. Don't believe it? http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/spring-20… Look it up.
  I'm not saying that they don't try to make some their clothing items as seductive as possible, but a lot of their stuff is just flattering as opposed to "sexy".
  As Linda says, knowing God is a growth process. This girl made a mistake, rectified it and is forgiven. Knowing right from wrong and saying so is not judging, but condemning someone who did wrong and has repented is judging and that is the type of "judge not" that the Bible speaks of.
  - Linda F.
    
    Exactly.
    
    And I don't recall her saying (in the article) how long she's been a Christian. For all we know, she's a still a fairly new believer.
Chris

But she was vain enough to get in. Total dishonesty on her part. Using her religion to get publicity. This is like the creationists who lie to universities about what they know about evolution , get a degree and then use the qualification to beat those who do believe in evolution over the head.
- Linda F.
  
  There is no reason for you, or anyone else, to doubt this young lady's sincerity.
- CalMom
  
  Chris: The key word in your post is the phrase "believe in evolution". Yes, it is a belief system/ religion. People of all belief systems look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. Scientists' religious and philosophical assumptions about reality affect everything they do: hypothesis, study methodology, choice of samples, choice of and presumptions about technology, conclusion, etc. Also, as someone closely tied to universities for 30 years, I've actually seen only believers in evolutionism: 1. have "conniption fits" when they discover someone has a different belief, 2. boycott/blacklist/prevent $ going to a scholar of another belief, 3. prevent their valid studies being published in refereed journals, and 4. use all sorts of manipulation and backroom politics to prevent the other scientist from getting retention or tenure and getting them fired ASAP. It sure looks to me that the taxpayer funded universities, especially, are being controlled by one, and only one, religion/belief system, because everyone else had better shut-up, tolerate harassment, be fired.
  
  I support the separation of "school and state", because I don't want my tax dollars solely going to teach this (to me, illogical) religion.
- Anne Gelinas
  
  Too many folks from universities haven't learned a thing about tolerance and many get degrees are more willing to do whatever to keep their jobs. Look at the media. It is exactly what they do. They do lousy reporting and biased and do so only to keep their jobs. If they had a love for God they would excuse themselves just like this youg lady did. We all do things to get ahead and to make money. Then sometime in our lives, we have to make an adult decision to not be owned by anyone. To continue in a job or field where you are captive and feel yourself falling from your original beliefs, then that is when you make these kind of decisions. Most folks are guilty of being vain. God is happy when they reach a plateau and choose Him. No one is lying about creationism or evolutionism because as you said, what does anyone know about either. There is no proof of either , it all comes from your own wisdom and ability to believe. So you believe in evolution because someone said so, and others believe in the Bible. Looks like a no brainer.
- Nancy Sternberg
  
  Keep going, Chris. You are looking more foolish as you go.
utahflyfishingtipsonline

Admire your courage and values.
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

“My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing,” Bisutti told FOX411. "I didn't really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys."

Of course, I am sure she is returning all the hundreds of thousands of dollars she made while doing this, since it is such a terrible thing. After all, she said this about this horrible industry, "“Victoria’s Secret was my absolutely biggest goal in life, and it was all I ever wanted career-wise,” she told FOX411′s Pop Tarts. “I actually loved it while I was there, it was so much fun and I had a blast."

Poor girl.
- Moriah
  
  Jeff, if you're a Christian, hasn't there ever been a time in your life when you were young in your faith and as you grew up in Christ became convicted of something in your life? Instead of judging her, applaud her for coming to a deeper understanding of what it means to give and live your life for Christ as well as her desire to be a positive role model, and honor her husband. Years ago, I received VS catalogues as I liked some of their clothing, purchased items from the store and received items as wedding gifts. Now I no longer give them any business and I discourage others from doing so as the company abuses women, in my opinion, and promotes inappropriate sexuality. I won't even walk by the store at the mall with my son these days! I want him to respect women and sexuality, not objectify either. The point is, extend grace and as for her money? You have no idea what she did or didn't do with her money.
  
  Overall, if Bisutti grew up in the church, it just shows the lack of teaching about what purity and holiness and righteousness look like.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    I have never been a believer of any religion.
    - Gordon
      
      No wonder you posed such an inappropriate comment. If were a believer, you would understand that as you "grow in the Lord", you leave the ways that are displeasing to Him. Let's see, how does that verse go???? Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Matthew 19:21
        
        So Gordon, when are you going to do the above?
  - Linda F.
    
    Jeff isn't a Christian. He's a Christian-hating atheist whose goal in life is to annoy and harass us.
- Anne Gelinas
  
  She is being honest. I honestly wish I could have been born that good looking, with a fabulous skinny body and could be a model too. Would I have made the same decision. ? The way I was brought up I had to follow my conscience as my family imparted in me a very strong religious background. Although I wanted to, could have, maybe should have, my conscience always got in my way. I am happy with my life although I do not make that kind of serious money. To each their own.
- myth buster
  
  What's it to you? And in any case, if she decides that her wages were blood money, she would give them to charity, not return them to the source of the occasion of sin.
http://zionica mick

so good to see a young person take a stand for their faith.

Am a christian naturist, think that underwear and bikini sales are a form of "selling sex".

up until 5th century AD, baptisms were done in the nude.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Then those baptisms were obviously selling sex as well.
GUEST

Jewish Hollwood And The Porn Industry Will Not Like Her Christian Beliefs.
David Etzel

What a beautiful wonderful Christian girl, stick to your convictions and trust God to open doors to bigger and better opportunities. God Bless you.
aceituna

How does God welcome the repentant sinner? Consider the parable of the Prodical Son.
Winston

We pray that a good Christian man with strong values as Tim Tebow is able to find a mentally and emotionally healthy, and physically beautiful young woman as his wife like this quality young woman.
Scott

Sadly, Guest is right but I am really proud of you, Kylie. It takes real faith to stick to Christian convictions these days. Many just justify an immoral lifestyle but also there are many that will say that there is nothing wrong with what you were doing and it is those very people that seeds get planted and God and friends can water. God Bless you. Stand strong in the knowledge that you did the right thing and you are always as white as wool.
Kevin Miller

My Biggest question is,why,being a Christian,would she choose to be a Victoria's Secret model? Didn't she realize,even before entering the Beauty Contest to be a VS model,that ligerie is a HUGE part of what the company is about(and it IS
clothing,only for bedtime and honeymoons)? I'm proud of her that she's a Christian and tries to be True to her Faith,but she should've decided that when she was 19.Christian Girls should never model for companies that specialize in
lingerie like VS does. I'm Happy,she finally did the right thing.But as I already said,she needed to realize this when she was 19.
- Linda F.
  
  What I want to know is:
  
  Was she a Christian before she became an employee of Victoria's Secret?
  
  If she was a Christian back then, had she recently converted?
brad

AMEN!!
Bob Williams

Good riddance! You are not all that good-looking, anyway.
CFM

People are at different levels of their Christian faith and convictions. We grow at different paces. Let's not judge her for her initial decision to be a part of Victoria's Secret, but praise God that she grew in her convictions to honor Him and made the appropriate changes in her lifestyle!
- evermyrtle
  
  JESUS said to someone in almost the same situation in the Bible, "He that hath no sin cast the first stone!" While JESUS wrote a message in the sand, the crowd left, everyone without throwing one stone. I wish that we could be like that today when osme body decides to serve JEUSUS we would accept that decision.
DanMK

Grace is deceptive, Beauty is illusory, It for her fear of the Lord that a woman is to be praised. Extrol her for the fruit of her hand, and let her works praise her in the gates. Proverbs 31:30-31
http://twitter.com/oldfox @oldfox

Luke 6:22-23
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. 23 Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to [a]treat the prophets.
http://twitter.com/Deepizzaguy @Deepizzaguy

Thank you Kylie for doing the right thing and not violating God's law on dressing in a way that offends Him. He will bless you in the future for your courage to stand up for His way of Life.
Anne Gelinas

Before we were ever born just about anything went on between men and women and children. Remember kings and queens, dictators and worse who allowed anything to keep the people down and dirty to control them/? Times have changed in that there have been many centuries where folks got into religion then out, back in and then out. We are in that dilemma now. Should you go back to your childhood and ask yourself why did you believe in God? Ask yourself why you don't now? Surely your answer will be because I have the right and freedom to say and do what I want with my own person. That takes God out of the equation, Be careful, because God only commands you to love HIm, other religions command you to honor and obey the leader of the religion and if you don't then death is your ending. Be careful, or you will be asking God "where are you when I need you, God?
Shirlylou

Good for this young, but mature & strong soldier! May her marriage be long and whole, and may her family walk in God's abundant blessings.
Shalom (His peace)
Maggie

IMHO this young woman has taken a wondeful and courageous stance that many will admire and others mock – as they do all things related to religion and the advancement of it. Yes, she did model the lingerie and made a geat deal of money dong it… but to those who popint to her having modeled lingerie (which incidentally covers as much or more than many of the NFL cheerleaders' outfits)….It takes an extra strength of values to have reached the pinnacle of success of your dreams and then relize the true error of what you have become and its conflicet with your spiritual be;iefs and then to have the stregth of character to say " no nore " and walk away from it….It is a triumph of faith over material assets and dreams. My hats off to her…. Maggie
Edward Earp, Jr.

LITTLE LADY YOU ARE MY KIND OF GAL !!!! GOD BLESS YOU FOR TAKING A STAND ON WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT !!
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

You could say it, but we both know it is not true.
Joe Anzilotti

And Jeff is a LDS.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  What a surprise. Joe says something asinine. Deep Thinker has stated several times he is a Christian.
  - Joe Anzilotti
    
    That means nothing in your delusional google world Jeff. The One who will decide who is a Christian will be God Himself.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Yet, it is actually you and Linda making that accusation. As usual, your god is completely silent.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        What do you expect–that God should work on your schedule? Again Jeff, proof of your delusional thoughts.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You are the one who said only god decides who is actually a Christian. He can take all the time he wants, until we hear from him, your comments are moot.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Same thing applies for you Jackson.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Not at all. You are the one who believes in this imaginary deity. Therefore, it is your issue. I already know he will never make a response or comment. It is impossible for myths to do that.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You also claim to be a Christian. However, until we hear from god on the issue, it is evident there is nothing to support that view. When god makes a pronouncement that you are a Christian, you can call yourself one. Until then, it is meaningless.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        You are the one making an issue of this–the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the Christian belief and I have satisfied myself with the available evidence.
Malvin O'Donovan

a God honoring decision !!! may our Lord bless you for your stand . it speaks to me of repenting from previous behavior. "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit".

1 Corinthians 6 vs 19 and 20. Kylie "you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's". AMEN.
e.rebus

Seems to me she would have never began her skimppy career if she really held those beliefs. This looks like another example of a person just wanting attention and their self-esteem recharged. No real story hear but it would have been nice if she had given some of her husband's quotes concerning her continuing to strut her stuff.
keyboardshark

jatheist : Apparently you either don't have a problem with circular reasoning or you do not know what it is. If it is the latter, I suggest you take a good college-level logic class.

As for your constant nitpicking of the word 'dragon' it very clearly uses the word 'dinosaur' in the list of the timers as well as in the same text where 'dragon' is used. Obviously, at least to everyone but you, the author was merely substituting the two words to avoid the overuse of the word 'dinosaur'. In Scripture the term dragon refers to any great monster, whether of the land or sea, usually to some kind of serpent or reptile, sometimes to land serpents of a powerful and deadly kind. In other words, they are synonyms to anyone who is familiar with the Bible. http://www.answers.com/
topic/dragon#ixzz1mZhmYRAm
evermyrtle

GOD gives us a choice, to believe HIM or not to believe HIM. HE wants us to believe, therefore HE gave us HIS WORD the ten commandments as guides to live by. HE said ,"If you love me keep my commandments." In the ten commandments, there is nothing that can do anybody any harm, only good. JESUS told HIS disciples to go into the towns, villages or wherever they went and teach HIS WORD. If they refuse it, leave it and leave them alone. HE did not say, like manyt religions do today, "Demand that they accept, and if they don't punish them. Persecution is comm in non-Christian against Christians. Why is it that they think it is their place to force their religion on us?? I hear so much ridicule about our faith, why do they not leave us alone as we do them! Oh yes we would like them accept GOD because we know salvation comes through HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST and we want to share that and we speak of it often but without using any force!!
http://talkorigins.org jatheist

evermyrtle wrote: "HE wants us to believe…"

And yet He appears to be AWOL, and has left no verifiable evidence that He ever existed. It's almost like He never existed in the first place…

evermyrtle cont'd: "there is nothing that can do anybody any harm, only good."

Some of it neutral… working on the Sabbath? How is that "good"?

Of course nobody ~actually~ follows all the commandments (been out on a Sunday lately?) so these commandments are just another failure…

evermyrtle cont'd: "If they refuse it, leave it and leave them alone…"

Or stone them to death… God (AKA Jesus) says to kill unbelievers in many different places in the bible. Do you just ignore those passages?
Pastor Dwayne

The fool hath said………………….
http://talkorigins.org jatheist

Oooh – Dwayne can quote an ancient goat herder! How bright of him!
evermyrtle

Thank you Pastor Dwaye for one of GOD'S very important and true sayings. I wish we could all remember more of them and stand behind them!! We do not to be afraid of the evil produced by Satan's fools. We are in HIS care, always.
Deep_Thinker

At least they are reading the Bible…
Deep_Thinker

Yes, it's quite ironic that Christians are the blood thirsty ones…
Linda F.

This, coming from an INTOLERANT atheist?
Pastor Dwayne

just getting a point across to , quote, unquote , intelligent men
Linda F.

No, Jeff. I think that "honor" belongs to you.

Do you have any other non-intelligent insults to throw my way, Jeff? Or do you need a break?
Pastor Dwayne

God brought Salvation to the world through His Son, Jesus Christ. Many millions have received Jesus into their life and have been transformed . So He has done ""squat"" However , many, many millions more have made the awful choice of not receiving Jesus into their life , because they refuse to believe the truth!!! Thus, when they are at their final destination,,,, HELL,,,they will realize they made a horrible choice in refusing the Savior that died on the cross for them!!!
Linda F.

Here are two more similarities that you and jatheist share: your arrogance, and the fact that you tend to exaggerate your levels of intelligence and humor.
Linda F.

Oh, yes. Because you, Jeff, and Chris P. are 100% tolerant of other people – even Christians.

Do you really expect us to take you seriously, jatheist?
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

I never believed, even as a child. The stories are simply too absurd to be taken seriously.
myth buster

There's plenty of evidence, it's just that you refuse to see it. You are blind because you want to be blind, and as long as you want to remain blind, it will be impossible for you to see.
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Your posts provide all the evidence of your non-intelligence that is needed.
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Ok, here is more of the important sayings in the bible.

2 Kings 18:27
King James Version (KJV)
27But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
petroskhan1262

One might argue the same thing in regards to smacking someone, and murder. It's only a matter of degree, isn't it? So if someone says to someone "I hate you!", he should be prosecuted for murder, since it's a matter of degree. (Most crimes of passion, like murder, require…well…passion. Hate is quite a passion, which could lead to murder, so he's guilty!)

Atheists are actually hardcore Christians; it's just a matter of degree. (We all believe the earth is here…there is just a difference of opinion as to HOW it got here)

Hey, this is fun!

Murder is just a delayed abortion! Matter of degree, I suppose? (Killed before birth, after birth, what's the difference?)

Wait…I've got more! It's not stealing…it's just paying less than the seller wanted. (He wanted $1,000 for the watch, I left him 25 cents)

I love that! "The only difference…Is a matter of degree…"

LOL Thanks for that one. I will be getting miles out of it.

Have a great day, and God Bless!
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

One might, but of course, that argument would be absurd.
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Ok, that is almost a joke. Keep trying Linda.
petroskhan1262

Absurd? Or logical?

It's all a matter of degree!
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Absurd