home
RSS
Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
January 10th, 2012
04:18 PM ET

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.

When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.

Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.

A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.

“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”

The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.

A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (6,504 Responses)
  1. WASP

    @JD: how is it that many people have explained almost every aspect of science pertaining to every question you have asked yet you still continue on with the same stuff. lol you're just here as a troll JD or bumper as you're better known. i do remember you telling all of us we're going to die and burn in hell as you angryly said you weren't coming back. i guess this blog is your honey, you just can't get enough slapps in the face with the truth so......you're a masochist. that is the only reason someone would return again and again to be slapped down again and again with logic when you have nothing to back up your claims of a god. i have challenged you to prove god without scripture, you have avoided my challenge. so either you're scared of facing the truth or just can't do it.

    February 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
  2. C&E

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&w=640&h=390]

    February 13, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • momoya

      Fallacy soup with empty calories.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Well, it did kind of make my head hurt, but I think that was just a result of the constant eye-rolling it induced.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Momo – much better than that nine minutes worth nonsense and foul language you posted. This one was kind of cute. I guess if they threw a couple of F words in there you might be able to understand.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • momoya

      @cbinal

      I understood it just fine. It was just beyond stupid. If you'd like to actually dialogue and debate me on any of its points, let me know. I'm perfectly able to demonstrate the stupidity of any of the statements in the vid.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • Oisho

      That video must have spun these ignorant atheists, look at the lame retorts.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  3. Slumberjack

    "The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people."

    So 74% of American Protestant pastors, in their belief that Adam and Eve were real persons, take no issue whatsoever with the obvious implication stemming from that belief, that all the human beings who ever lived on the earth, with the exception of Adam and Eve who were just magically put here of course, are the products of incest between their first offspring and their successive generations? Many of these pastors hail from the deep south...am I right?

    February 13, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      Adam and Eve were literal people. In fact, the Bible lists the ancestral line that extends from Adam to Jesus.
      However, the earth is not 6000 years old, and we did not coexist with dinosaurs.
      The problem is that fundamentalists misunderstand the Bible in the same way that atheists attack
      the surface level understanding of the text and not the deeper Spiritual meaning.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Wayne

      @Jesus>>Darwin

      "Adam and Eve were literal people. In fact, the Bible lists the ancestral line that extends from Adam to Jesus."

      No they were not. Every human being to ever live had two parents. That's how human reproduction works. If they were literal, who were their parents? Suggesting that dirt turned into a man and then a rib was transformed into a woman via incantation spell is nonsense. Quit worsphing a book.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • dats right

      Adam and Eve were bis exuals.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J>>D,
      "Adam and Eve were literal people. In fact, the Bible lists the ancestral line that extends from Adam to Jesus.
      However, the earth is not 6000 years old, and we did not coexist with dinosaurs."
      Just out of curiosity, if the ancestral line is accurate then wouldn't each person have to live millions of years (or at least many thousands of years if you're starting from first H. Sapiens) in order for it to sync up with geology? Or are you saying that the Earth is less than 6000 years old?

      February 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • jimtanker

      @Jebus<<Darwin

      “Adam and Eve were literal people. In fact, the Bible lists the ancestral line that extends from Adam to Jesus.”

      One HUGE problem with this statement. The lines that are traced in the bible follow the paternal line, that of the males in the family. If Jebus came about because of virgin birth then how can you trace the paternal line to him?

      FAIL!!!

      February 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Jim – actually that's not a FAIL, Matthew records the line of Joseph and Luke records the line from Mary it just doesn't say Mary there. But, if you look to where it transitions at David, in Matthew it decends from Solomon, in Luke it decends from David's other son Nathan. So, obviously it is talking about two people, which both can be traced back to Judah and eventually to Adam.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • cbinal

      OH and by the way, the reason it's tracted paternally is that the blood line is determined by the father. Untainted blood is what is needed for a perfect permanent sacrifice which is the reason why Mary had to be a virgin, the blood had to be determined by God, and Jesus had to be sacrificed. Jesus was the only person with God's own blood pumping through his veins. Isn't that amazing, Scientifically something that they would have never known at that time, but, God knew it.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      Perhaps I'm misreading something, but it looks to me like both Mat and Luke trace to Joseph:

      Mt 1:16 "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah."

      Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi... "

      February 13, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Jesus>>Darwin – Careful about bashing us fundamentalist. The problem is not those who hold a literal interpretation to God's Word. The problem is Christians who try to make excuses for the Bible and try to prove this phony theory to get people to think they are smart and like them. The majority of the Bible is literal and not Spiritual. My suggestion to you is stop trying to spiritualize everything and take Him for what he says. Not 6000 years old? How old is it? Better yet – you tell me how old Adam was when God created him? Did he make him a baby and have to wait for him to grow? Or did he look like he was 30? What?... God can make something look old that's brand new? Think about it.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      Oh, and although a "bloodline" may be tracked by the father, the actual blood, like most genetic inheritance comes from both the mother and father.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Nom – That's what it looks like, but, as you can see there is obviously two different lines deriving two different people who would be long distance cousins (which Mary and Joseph were). Matthew's account shows a "Kingly" line which can only be from the male side – which it says Jacob "begat" Joseph. Luke's account is from the historical side (Luke was a historian who didn't actually walk with Jesus) notice it says supposed the son of Joseph, which "was" {the son} of Heli, he became Heli's son persay when he married Mary.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      I don't know about all that kingly vs historical stuff, but it sure looks to me like one or both of them just got it wrong. In a literal interpretation, I would think, they both trace to Joseph.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Nom, blood is made up type and genetically, of the mother and father, yes, and that's why they can determine who the father is. I guess I should say the dominate blood type determines what the childs blood will be, if that's better. Most people don't know that if the mother and babies blood were to mix it would kill them both. One good reason against the old saying that the fetus is a part of the woman's body. If that were true then it would be the only part that doesn't have her blood running through it.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Nonimus

      "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" is in reference to Jesus, not Joseph who was the son of Heli.

      The NIV version:
      "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

      February 13, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Non – I understand the part that says Jesus was as supposed the son of Joseph. That's not what I was refering to, and I don't like the NIV translation. Point is – this is a deeper study where you see something you think contradicts itself but, when you study the true meanings, it doesn't. It just didn't go in to detail to say his father-in-law, just like my step-daughter doesn't always say this is my step-dad, she'll say this is my dad. I've seen lots of married couples' inlaws do the same – not a big deal. Besides, I didn't want to go there but, women did usually get included in those things in those days unless there was an obvious reason – widow, remarried, etc.

      February 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • cbinal

      Woops – I meant women "didn't usually get included", in that last post

      February 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @cbinal,
      So, which version do you prefer?

      New International Version (©1984)
      Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
      New Living Translation (©2007)
      Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

      English Standard Version (©2001)
      Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

      New American Standard Bible (©1995)
      When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

      King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
      And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

      International Standard Version (©2008)
      Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was (so it was thought) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

      Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
      But Yeshua was about thirty years old, and he was considered the son of Yoseph, son of Heli,

      GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
      Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,

      King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
      And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

      American King James Version
      And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

      American Standard Version
      And Jesus himself, when he began to teach , was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the'son of Heli,

      Douay-Rheims Bible
      And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

      Darby Bible Translation
      And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,

      English Revised Version
      And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

      Webster's Bible Translation
      And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

      Weymouth New Testament
      And He–Jesus–when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed)

      World English Bible
      Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

      Young's Literal Translation
      And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

      Or, perhaps I'll just leave the "deeper meaning" of "literal interpretations" to others.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Or, perhaps I'll just leave the "deeper meaning" of "literal interpretations" to others.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Non – you didn't have to go copy all of those – LOL. I prefer the King James Version but, some times use the NAS and NIV to study also, along with a Concordance, and some other Bible studies. Anyway, I think I asked you before, but you never answered. Did you go to Bible School? College? Grow up in the Church? You seem to know more about some of the topics and respond quickly with verses. Which is it? Just curious.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
  4. Slumberjack

    I think its pretty clear from reading Jesus>>Darwin's stuff and other similar thought processes, that the Rapture, were it to occur today, would solve many of our problems as a species.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • jimtanker

      I couldnt agree with you more. After the rapture we could finally move on as a species and advance without religion holding us back.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • cbinal

      I would agree. I wouldn't have to be here listening to this nonsense. LOL.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  5. Heavenly Hash In My Panties

    If Jesus lived today, he would be a filthy rich Republican.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  6. Jesus>>Darwin

    momoya:

    No, No, you are nice, but not that smart. Further, you are committing great sin. You already know this fact. One of the enemy's ultimate goals is to get you do deny Jesus. The enemy has offered you a life of pleasure and hedonism, but will ultimately abandon you like a dirty used rag. The enemy is the mater of deception. He'll promise you the world, but offer nothing since his goal is met in your denial of Christ.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • momoya

      Bumper, I reject the philosophy you accept because it is not useful or sensible.

      If you can demonstrate the any of the following things/beings exist, I will listen to your arguments about them:

      Sin
      Jesus
      Devil

      February 13, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • cbinal

      @Momo – Love thy neighbor is not useful or sensible? There is probably as much, if not more, evidence that Jesus existed than an other person in that same time period. And Sin – "any offense against a known rule or law" is one of the deifnitions, unless you mean the math symbol SIN then it's real too. Or maybe Hermain Cain's definition of Liberal SIN – Shift the subject, Ignore the real issue, and Name call. So, I guess you need to start listening to him.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • GodPot

      "Shift the subject, Ignore the real issue, and Name call." I will try and avoid all three of your SIN's then.

      Subject: Jesus>>Darwin claims momoya is sinning by not accepting Jesus as her savior.
      momoya "I reject the philosophy you accept because it is not useful or sensible." Religious Philosophy Rejected!!
      Your answer: "Love thy neighbor is not useful or sensible?" (attempted subject change that has nothing to do with accepting Jesus)

      "There is probably as much, if not more, evidence that Jesus existed than an other person in that same time period." Accepting Christ as your savior is very different than accepting a carpenter named Jesus may have lived in the first century, infact there were likely many of them and many even called them messiah as the Jew's were awaiting (and still are) their saviors arrival.

      I will not call you names, though you do deserve them, but I suggest doing more research since it's obvious you have just started to scratch the surface of the deep things contained in the bible. Also, i suggest not watching so much FOX news, it will rot your brain.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Godpot – LOL let me do the name calling for you -you are clueless. First, some say that the entire Christian "philosophy" is to love thy neighbor as thy self, as Jesus taught. That's what I was refering to, but, I'll give you that one because I wasn't focusing on the Salvation issue. Number 2 Jesus existed -point made. Number 3 Sin exists -point made. And number 4 I can't stand FOX News – why do you think I'm on CNN?

      February 13, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      @Chad: Dude. You're responses don't even make sense. They don't even appear to relate to the issues.

      ....and PUH-LEASE get off the Eldridge and Gould quote mining. It is tiresome to a degree that cripples any desire to even bother to engage you.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  7. Jesus>>Darwin

    well, I hate to break the bad news to you, but the big bang, did not really produce a bang, and, ultimately, nothing is evolving.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  8. Oisho

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videoseries&w=640&h=390]

    February 13, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • momoya

      Oisho,

      1. Hovind spends half of his time talking about how he is against lying, yet he was imprisoned for lying to the IRS.
      2. Whether or not some professor or theory about the Grand Canyon is correct has nothing to do with the billions of data points that prove the process of evolution.
      3. Hovind is a notoriously horrible debater. He prattles on about irrelevancies and commits multiple logical fallacies such as shifting the goalposts, non-sequitur, ad hominem, etc, and etc..
      4. Anybody with internet access can research any of Hovind's claims and discover their falsity within a few minutes or so.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

      February 13, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Numero Uno

      Evolution as a theory does not rest on someone's debating skills. Evolution has a theory needs to speak for itself with evidence supporting it. Now, you might find it comforting to believe that the theory of evolution is true that in no way establishes evolution as a fact for how man was created. Gullible people like you are an easy prey for theories that come and go with minds that worked on it.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • momoya

      @Numero Uno

      You are correct that the Theory of Evolution does not rest on anybody's debate skills. The theory is not complete, and there is room for refinement, but as a cohesive theory it is proved over and over again by established facts and new advances in biology and thousands and thousands of studies and experiments being done around the world each and every day. It works and "holds true" regardless of how many people disbelieve it.

      When it comes to evidence, you'd be better off disbelieving gravity since science has a much more complete picture of evolution than gravity. Unless the person is a hypocrite, anyone who disbelieves evolution should much more so disbelieve gravity.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      What a joke – this guy's literally a convicted felon. His crime? Faking evidence. I'm serious.

      Apropos.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Oisho

      Those who lamely suggest that the theory of evolution is as proven as the law of gravity lack basic reasoning skills. Pity you.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " Those who lamely suggest that the theory of evolution is as proven as the law of gravity lack basic reasoning skills. Pity you."

      Again, in science we don't prove things, we explain things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. Inscience, theory is as high as it gets. Theories never get promoted to fact or law. Theories exist to explain sets of facts and laws. In science a law is usually a mathematical construct. The theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science.

      Newton's law of gravitational attraction is simply a mathematical formula f=G(m1*m2)/r^2 that lets you calculate a force of attraction between 2 bodies with mass at a distance. But this formula does absolutely nothing to explain HOW mass attracts mass. For that, you need to turn to the theory of gravity.

      February 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
  9. False Dichotomy

    @Chad: What the crap are you talking about? Have you never heard of the fields of biology and physics? A lack of perfect explanations for every single step doesn't automatically prove "god did it." any more than it proves "mickey mouse did it."

    And good luck finding scientists that discourage the asking of questions – that's just BS. It's also far more characteristic of religion where questioning is considered a sinful lack of faith or a "fall from grace".

    As for studying the possible origins of the big bang, reading more Leonard Mlodinow (the quote you lifted is probably the only thing you have ever read by him) would be a good place to start. The creationist assumption that everything we don't understand has to be put in place by a magic person is just childish.

    I've read your posts before, where you pull quotes out of context to try and support your creationism. For the sake of proper context, here's some more Mlodinow and Hawking for you: “the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit”, and “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going”.

    February 13, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Sorry, this was meant to be posted in the string below momoya's video.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • momoya

      @Chad also (thanks False Dichotomy)

      I agree that some of the vid's initial claims are a little grandiose, but the vid is expositing generally, not specifically. I would have worded much of the first minute very differently as the word "describes" would be better than "explains." What you need to realize is the overwhelming testable evidence for science's descriptions and theories versus religion's statements that cannot be tested but must be taken on blind faith.

      1. Science describes how the basic building blocks for life arose within the ongoing process of the big bang. Science also describes several ways in which life might have begun. Science admits that it doesn't know for sure, unlike religions that invoke magical incantations from a very human-like being in a different dimension.

      2. The Big Bang IS the explanation for the universe. Science doesn't know why the inflation occurred in the early universe, but it doesn't invoke an unknown and unsubstantiated wizard, either.

      3. Science doesn't explain why the laws of physics are as they are, but as we observe the universe more and more, we are finding out more and more. Again, science doesn't invoke an unseeable and unprovable sky daddy to explain what it is still in the process of researching.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Chad

      @False Dichotomy "What the crap are you talking about? Have you never heard of the fields of biology and physics? A lack of perfect explanations for every single step doesn't automatically prove "god did it." any more than it proves "mickey mouse did it."
      =>hmm.. no
      "lack of a perfect explanation" is not equal to " data that by definition requires an force external to our universe"
      If all of the universe and time itself was created at the big bang.. then... what which initiated the big bang is not part of the universe.. right?

      @False Dichotomy "And good luck finding scientists that discourage the asking of questions – that's just BS."
      =>I got lucky and found a BUNCH!
      All of the folks that blindly bought into phyletic gradualism despite a fossil record that clearly lacked evidence to support it.

      “The picture of phyletic gradualism is poorly documented indeed, and most analysis purporting to illustrate it directly from the fossil record are interpretations based on a preconceived idea. “ – Gould/Eldridge

      “the expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world.” – Gould/Eldridge

      “Paleontology’s view of speciation has been dominated by the picture of “phyletic gradualism.” It holds that new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record. “ Gould/Eldridge

      “This is, in fact, the situation in most cases of postulated gradualism: the “gradualism” is represented by dashed lines connecting known samples. This procedure provides an excellent example of the role of preconceived pictures in “objectively documented" cases. One of the early “classics" of phyletic gradualism” – Gould/Eldridge

      “At this point, there is some justification for concluding that the picture of phyletic gradualism is poorly documented indeed, and that most analyses purporting to illustrate it directly from the fossil record are interpretations based on a preconceived idea” Gould/Eldridge

      @False Dichotomy "For the sake of proper context, here's some more Mlodinow and Hawking for you: “the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit”, and “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going”.

      =>I am more than happy to get atheists to the point where they acknowledge a belief in that type of argument.
      |>-–spontaneous creation --> universe-–> physical laws-->|
      |<------–<----------<--------<--|

      it's a completely circular argument. what came first? each requires the former, all around.
      Which is PRECISELY the problem with a multi-verse.. namely an infinite regression.

      D'oh!

      February 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya "What you need to realize is the overwhelming testable evidence for science's descriptions and theories"

      1.Science admits that it doesn't know for sure
      2. Science doesn't know why the inflation occurred in the early universe
      3. Science doesn't explain why the laws of physics are as they are

      @Chad 'A' for honesty, 'F' for internal consistency.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Chad: Your argument is baseless. You must provide verifiable evidence that your god exists before you can make claims as to it's abilities, actions or desires.

      To do so without satisfaction of the burden of proof inherent with your claim of your god's existence is intellectually dishonest.

      Please provide your evidence for verification.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      @Chad:
      Dude. You're responses don't even make sense. They don't even appear to relate to the issues.

      ....and PUH-LEASE get off the Eldridge and Gould quote mining. It is tiresome to a degree that cripples any desire to even bother to engage you.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • ...

      Identification of a fallacy does not prove an Absence of Truth and lack of identification of a fallacy does not prove the Presence of Truth. Truth can be found on a solitary level and on a universal level.

      February 14, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • Chad

      @VideoGuy "nature created life and the universe and everything is backed up by the laws of physics"

      @Chad "no, science has no explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the fact that the universe obeys laws"

      @False Dichotomy "What the crap are you talking about? Have you never heard of the fields of biology and physics? A lack of perfect explanations for every single step doesn't automatically prove "god did it." any more than it proves "mickey mouse did it."

      @Chad: "well, if you look up, you'll see that I merely pointed out the error in the claims the video guy was making. I'll also add, thank you for agreeing with me that "science" has no answer for those items.

      thanks!

      February 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
  10. Jesus>>Darwin

    The best atheists positions are that either the universe is infinite, or was willed into existence from nothing. Both of these positions have been proven wrong by science. Therefore, atheism is not a tenable position and no human being has any incentive whatsoever to be atheists. Further, the person in momoya's stupid and vulgar video should read the book of Ecclesiastes. This book actually parallels the scope of all of the questions that this bozo asks in his video, but provides the answer too!!

    February 13, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • Stevie7

      You've proven that you clearly cannot think outside the box. That you think an intelligent creator is necessary for a finite space shows the short-shortsightedness of your thinking.

      'I don't know, so god must have done it' is an intellectually lazy argument. It didn't work when our ancestors tried to explain the forces of nature, and it doesn't work now.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • GodPot

      "no human being has any incentive whatsoever to be atheists." I'm so glad you were finally willing to admit the fact that Christians need incentives to be Christian. They need to be told they will have rich rewards in the afterlife if they don't fight against their natural urges to be murdering, thieving barbarians with no sense of right and wrong... I mean, who would be a good person with no afterlife incentive? It's, it's, it's, Inconceivable!!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:22 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      "The best atheists positions are that either the universe is infinite, or was willed into existence from nothing"
      You are confusing the theistic view for the atheistic one. Nothing can be "willed" without someone (some god in this case) willing it. Willing the universe into existence is precisely the creationist explanation, but I'll grant that you are correct in that it isn't supported by science.

      "no human being has any incentive whatsoever to be atheists"
      Regardless of the poor grammar, you're right. People are not drawn to disbelief through either positive incentives (dreams of heaven) or negative ones (fear of hell). They tend to arrive in that place through clear thinking, despite the high-pressure incentives that are imposed on them socially. In most cases atheism is arrived at through a much more honest process than is religious belief.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:49 am |
    • Wayne

      You are an idiot, and i'm going to show you why.

      "The best atheists positions are that either the universe is infinite, or was willed into existence from nothing."

      Being an atheist does not rely on science or knowing how the universe began. Even if we didn't know anything about cosomology at all, we still would not believe your story. Do you understand that? Part of being an atheist is being honest enough to admit you don't know everything and at the same time not being stupid enough to full in those gaps in with magic. At no time in human history has a previously unknown been aswered with magic. Not once, so there is no reason to assume that pattern will change in the future. So accepting magic as an answer when we know it's failed to explain anything ever, is just plain dumb!

      "Therefore, atheism is not a tenable position and no human being has any incentive whatsoever to be atheists."

      Being intellectually honest with myself is enough for me.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:20 am |
  11. Jesus>>Darwin

    The universe is finite in size and age. This true scientific statement alone should make all atheists shake and quiver in their boots!!

    February 13, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • Stevie7

      Then enlighten us – what should the fact that the known universe is finite have to do with fearing a supposedly loving creator?

      February 13, 2012 at 12:39 am |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      It means that you don't have a tenable position that is supported by science.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Does anyone have a "tenable" position on the origin of the universe?

      February 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • WASP

      @JD: ok now i know you have no understanding of physics, so let me explain. the universe isn't finite. it has no end due to the fact it is expanding at an increasing rate. i will give you the link as follows for this information.
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111004-nobel-prize-physics-universe-expansion-what-is-dark-energy-science/
      i believe most people are prone to listenning to what a nobel prize winner has to say, then some blog-vangalist.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  12. Jesus>>Darwin

    The big bang was really a quiet, hot, luminous expansion out from the singularity. It is still going on today.

    February 13, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • momoya

      @Dumper,

      When I explained that to you several pages ago, you disagreed.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      momoya:

      No, you are nice, but not that smart. Further, you are committing great sin. You already know this fact. One of the enemy's ultimate goals is to get you do deny Jesus. The enemy has offered you a life of pleasure and hedonism, but will ultimately abandon you like a dirty used rag. The enemy is the mater of deception. He'll promise you the world, but offer nothing since his goal is met in your denial of Christ.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  13. Jesus>>Darwin

    Darwin's "evolution" is a false scientific theory, but the big bang is partially correct.

    February 13, 2012 at 12:29 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Thanks for sharing your expertise. But which is it, are you a biologist or a physicist?

      February 13, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • AGuest9

      I hope you didn't reproduce.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:41 am |
  14. Jesus>>Darwin

    Dear CNN comment editors,

    Please remove the video posted by momoya. It is extremely vulgar and offensive toward young girls and women.

    Thank you.

    February 13, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • jimtanker

      And worst of all it hurts your idiotic cases.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  15. AGuest9

    If humans were designed, the engineer needs to be fired.

    February 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  16. Prayer is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
    Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
    Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
    Prayer fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
    Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
    Prayer reveals how stupid you are to the world.
    Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
    Prayer makes you think doilies are exciting.
    Prayer makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
    Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
    Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just google him to find out.
    Prayer makes you post really stupid shit.
    Prayer makes you hoard cats.
    Prayer makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
    Prayer wastes time.

    February 12, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • cbinal

      Whoever the person is that keeps posting this over and over – it's not funny, cute, or even appropriate. I don't know how they allow you to not post a name or continuely use foul language. I've hit report abuse on all of them, hopefully CNN is paying attention.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  17. momoya

    For Dumper/Cheeses>>Darwin

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBgfGB9hVDU&w=640&h=390]

    February 12, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts or goblins

      I'm anxiously awaiting a reasoned, well thought out response to each of the points made in this video.

      February 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      0G, even with 2000+ years of experience developing lame explanations for their silly beliefs, I don't think you will see any response, never mind reasoned and well thought out.

      February 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Jesus>>Darwin

      momoya, again don't resort to name calling. I'm not a Dumper.

      I'm sorry, but I had to report this video for abuse.

      It is totally inappropriate and this moron just confirms that folks like you view Darwn's evolution
      as a "faith", the atheist manifesto and a ticket to mindless hedonistic behavior.

      February 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • momoya

      Confirmation achieved! "hedonism"

      I wonder why Jesus can't get smarter and more effective representatives.. C'mon Jesus!! Let us atheists have it! Show us what you can do. Can't you at least get Dumper to make just one logical statement that doesn't resort to stupid strawmaning?

      February 12, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
    • Chad

      from the video: ""a belief that nature created life and the universe and everything is backed up by the laws of physics"

      no.
      right out of the gate he hit on three things that science has no explanation for:
      1. Life: no explanation
      2. The universe: no explanation. What was the source of the big bang? Many scientists will tell you that it isnt even a good question to ask.
      3. The laws of physics: that claim was a bit of a hoot, as science starts from the laws of physics. Science by definition makes not attempt to explain why they exist, they just posit that they do.

      "Science starts from the existence of the laws of the universe, it can not explain why they exist, nor can it ever disprove God". – Leonard Mlodinow Co-author along with Stephen Hawkings of A Briefer History of Time

      February 12, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Why is the video inappropriate? Assumming you are an American, don't you believe in the 1st Amendment?

      February 13, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • cbinal

      What a waste of nine minutes of my life, to hear some insane man say the F word over and over again. By the way Hotair that's why it's inappropriate, because he uses words that would have been inappropriate if typed out. Other than that it a bunch foolish nonsense.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I find the word God to be inappropriate. By your logic, I get to declare The Babble as complete nonsense and I win simply because I say so.

      How about you ignore the swearing and focus on the other content? Where is the video incorrect?

      February 14, 2012 at 1:05 am |
  18. Dr.K.

    Theology is the intensive study of the fabric, weave, sti'tching patterns, and tailoring of the emperor's new clothes.

    February 12, 2012 at 9:22 am |
  19. momoya

    "People have suffered and become insane for centuries by the thought of eternal punishment after death. Wouldn't it be better to depend on blind matter (...) than by a god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them to sin and commit crimes he could prevent. Only to finally get the barbarian pleasure to punish them in an excessive way, of no use for himself, without them changing their ways and without their example preventing others from committing crimes."

    Baron d`Holbach

    February 12, 2012 at 8:59 am |
  20. Jesus>>Darwin

    Please don't pay any attention to the arrogant and religious quotes by Isaac Asimov and Albert Einstein. They (like momoya) are very childish and underdeveloped in their understanding of theology. Since Einstein was Jewish, he wouldn't have really had anything good to say (axe to grind) about Jesus or God anyway. Also, his quote, "God does not play dice with the universe" is completely full of hubris and NOT CORRECT. This has already been proven within science. Further, quit telling God what to do!!!

    February 11, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. – Albert Einstein

      February 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has. -Isaac Asimov

      February 11, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. – Albert Einstein

      February 11, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

      February 11, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Please don't pay any attention to these quotes.

      February 11, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • AGuest9

      "Since Einstein was Jewish, he wouldn't have really had anything good to say (axe to grind) about Jesus"

      You are refuting the Jewishness of Jesus. That's interesting. How many times in your gospels did his followers refer to him as "Rabbi"?

      February 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • cbinal

      Einstein on Jesus: "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
      "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
      "Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
      "Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
      "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
      "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

      February 14, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • cbinal

      Einstein on God: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

      February 14, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • jimtanker

      I think that your punctuation was off on this one.

      "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

      "Unquestionably no! One can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

      February 14, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • cbinal

      @Jim – of course you would think that – I copied the quote word for word, but as usually, you interpret it in a way that suits your thinking.

      February 14, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • cbinal

      Einstein on Atheism: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

      February 14, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • jimtanker

      It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

      February 14, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • jimtanker

      Einstein's obituary, please read the last line:

      I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbour such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

      February 14, 2012 at 11:33 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.