By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times.
Nye – a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" – said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back."
"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video.
Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days.
For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said.
Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.
Micro-Evolution is a verifiable process. Macro-Evolution is a hoax.
Check out the laws boys and girls. The Laws of: Biogenesis, Heredity, Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy!!! ALL refute Macro-Evolution.
A better scientist than goofy Nye wrote: “Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.
Get your heads out of wherever they are and use the common sense God gave you, if you have any left. Explain how the eye was anything other than a piece of junk until it was perfected. Check out the Trilobyte's eye. Way too complex for a 'simple, pre-historic' organism. THINK about how everything works together in your body. You can't even understand the process of DNA, the most complex molecule ever created. THINK!!! use your brain. Don't give in to idiots like Nye who want to lead you by the nose and tell you what you should think.
Creation science is an oxymoron. Provide just one peer reviewed piece of work that supports creationism – you can't.
Human eyes are not perfect.
yeeees ... much more plausible that an invisible sky fairy just created it all. Good grief!
there is endless evidence via fossils and other remains of how certain cells evolved light sensitivity and spent billions of years evolving through simple compound eyes to what we see today; the myriad different eyes used by species that presently inhabit the earth.
Read something not from the christian bookstore. It's all there for you. Proven and factual.
your points have been resoundingly debunked. try again.
interesting dilemma- the computer, the car, new forms of life man 'creates' are samples that creationism does take place and science oddly enough is the proof of that. However, computers, cars and modes of tranportation, new life forms we create in a lab, evolve as well. so...those are direct impirically observable examples that creationsim does take place that science cannot refute as science is pretty much the basis by which this creationsim takes place. That is within the realm of what we are capable of understanding and so we will accept that. But, for that beyond our understanding, it could not possibly be the case...but I ask why not? What do we know beyond a shadow of doubt answers the possibility to any degree we rally know the answer? It is the argument that we love...not the idea that we could possibly know.
you are so ignorant I don't even know where to begin. your insane ideas are the root cause of war, famine, and greed.
"Micro-Evolution is a verifiable process. Macro-Evolution is a hoax."
What exactly prevents the accu.mulation of many small changes to produce a large change in a species over multiple generations?
You seem to be reiterating what they are telling you in your church. That macro evolution is a hoax, is pure nonsense and has no scientific basis. Read a little bit about science, or go back to school, before you make unqualified comments like this. I recommend reading of Richard Dawkins' "The greates show on earth", which is very easily understandable for people with incomplete science education.
I'm not sure what definition of "Creationism" you are using, but the article is mainly talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.
Just because you don't understand how evolution works doesn't make it invalid. Even if evolution were somehow proved to be incorrect, your "theory" would still be completely absurd.
"We don't understand how life started so... it must be MAGIC!"
I wholeheartedly agree. The eye has always seen things 20/20. There is no macro evolution involved. It's amazing how atheist and non believer can only hurl insults at believers. If evidence is what you speak of then pick up the bible and read it. The comments by atheist make me sick to my stomach. There is good and evil what side are you on?
Macro-Evolution is micro-evolution on longer time scale. So by admitting to one, you admit to the other. Macro evolution is also verifiable. Libraries are filled with the evidence. You just choose to stick your head in the sand.
None of those refute evolution. You should read a science book.
Newton lived over 100 years before there was a theory of evolution. Darwin himself explained the evolution of the eye. You're 150 years out of date.
There are many youtube videos you can look up that explain the evolution of the eye very well. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc Not only that, but there are living examples of every stage of that development. There is evidence that not only did the eye evolve, but it evolved independently over 40 times!
Because you can't comprehend the complexity of the trilobite's eye, therefore it must be created by magic? Great logic there.
We do understand DNA. And telling us that not understanding something is somehow proof of creation or somehow disproves evolution is irrational and illogical. What do you 'understand' about god speaking the world into existence? How does that work?
Linking to a web site run by preachers about a scientific issue is not very convincing.
Theories. The theories of biogenesis, thermodynamics, etc.
Science can't make laws. Only theories.
When you use the phrase "common sense" to argue a point, you show your hand in full.
I support the hypothesis that creationists are really just trolling everyone else.
Jesus is going to get on his dinosaur and get you all! He's ticked off and he's gonna getcha! He's gonna getcha!
Religion and astrology: both havens for the ignorant.
I'm not even sure how you have an argument between a fact-based position and a non-fact-based position. If this were a courtroom, the case would be thrown out as being frivolous. This is one crazy world we live in.
The world is pretty sane. It is this country that has lost its marbles.
Creationism ends up in court on a regular basis, unfortunately, wasting taxpayer money, and loses every time.
Not denying evolution ... but the argument says that Creationism somehow impedes innovation. Somehow, the US has managed to get this far with a population that believes in Creationism. What has changed that _future_ innovation (and not past innovation) is deterred by such religious beliefs?
It's when a person chooses to believe a fairy tale over facts that progress slows. Science can only progress as far as faith will allow it. Only truly open minds, without religion mucking up the machinery, will make the important discoveries and move the world forward.
certain scientific fields run into a brick wall with a creationist worldview and some fields do not.
@em: just look at the innovations coming out of less religious countries with a higher graduating statistic and compare that to today's america standard.
it's kindof scary to think once bagdad was known as the city of light during it's glory days, but that whole region is now known for religious intolerance and war, perhaps a glimpse of future america if we don't stop indoctrinating our children.
always love reading your work WASP.
We got where we are today in spite of it. We'd be even better off and would've accomplished so much more without it.
Bill Nye = Not Appropriate For Children
far more than religion. Then again, christian/muslim, all the same bunch of terrorist that destroy children minds with voodoo.
JessSayin: not appropriate for juman beings.
nope is a dope.
The theory most scientists currently favor for the origins of life is called “abiogenesis,” the gradual emergence of life on Earth from non-living matter. To understand why it is thought that life arose on Earth from non-living matter, one has to understand some basic biochemistry. This is where you “talking snake crowd” have such a problem. You have to actually understand some very basic science, you can’t just rely on what you were taught at Sunday school as an eight year-old.
All life is comprised of complex arrangements of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, all orchestrated by DNA and/or RNA. DNA/RNA and proteins are by far the most important components of a living organism, carrying out virtually every function in a cell. Fats and carbohydrates are generally simpler molecules and play critical, but subordinate roles in cells.
DNA and RNA are made of five nucleotides – adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil. They act as the cell’s “mission control,” orchestrating the cell’s activities. Proteins are made of 20 amino acids. They are the workhorse of the cell – the nails, wood, steel beams and machinery that make the cell run. It is the order of amino acids in a protein that determine its shape and, therefore what it does. This order and shape of proteins is itself dictated by the DNA through RNA.
So, in short, life is made up of complex arrangements of:
The five nucleotides – adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil – arranged into DNA and/or RNA
The twenty amino acids – that form all proteins, including enzymes and the other 100,000 or so proteins in a complex organism’s body.
Carbohydrates – literally “water-carbon,” which include sugars and starches. These are much simpler elements than proteins or DNA/RNA and act as an energy source.
Fats – also called lipids, these are important in constructing cell membranes.
The simplest cells are prokaryotic cells. They exist today principally as bacteria. Stromatolites and other fossils from all over the planet suggest that, for the first billion years of life on earth, all life was simple, prokaryotic life. These cells consisted of a fatty cell membrane, like a balloon skin, with DNA/RNA, proteins, fats and carbohydrates on the inside. They had no nucleus. Cells with nuclei, called eukaryotic cells (which make up virtually all multi-cellular organisms) are much larger and more complex that prokaryotic cells and likely resulted from the early combining of prokaryotic cells.
So, can a simple prokaryotic cell come into existence without the intervention of God, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, Yahweh or any other divine/magic being?
Beginning in the 1950s, scientists started trying to mimic the conditions on the early Earth to see whether some kind of “life-fairy” was necessary to get things started. In the most famous experiment of this era, the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952, Stanley Miller demonstrated that heating and running an electric spark through an atmosphere of water vapor, ammonia, methane and hydrogen for a few weeks resulted in these very simple molecules self-assembling into all 20 of the amino acids upon which life on Earth is based. This is a startling result. All 20 building blocks of proteins, which comprise over 99% of the cell’s functional structures, self-assembling without a magic wand from God, Shiva, Vishnu, Allah etc!
The experiment was groundbreaking because it suggested that, under the perfectly natural conditions of early Earth, the building blocks of life can and will self-assemble. Indeed, it now seems that major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago would have created an even more diverse atmosphere than Miller used, including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). When these were added to the mix in subsequent experiments, they have resulted in the creation of all 5 nucleotides, all 20 amino acids and basic fatty membranes and various carbohydrates. That is to say, with no magic/divine intervention, all life’s building blocks WILL self-assemble.
But nails, wood, wiring and bricks a house do not make. Even the simplest life requires these building blocks to be arranged in very, very complex ways. In various experiments with various conditions, scientists have been able to create a wide range of cell-like structures of increasing complexity on the road toward a simple self-replicating organism. These creations are called protobionts or coacervates and if you “you tube” or google these terms, you will see many examples.
This is still a far cry from a cell, but the important thing is that the experiments uniformly demonstrate that organic molecules have a natural tendency to clump together in increasingly complex ways under early Earth-like conditions. They are not being pushed into doing something “against their will”.
Where it gets really suggestive is that scientists have been able to isolate what they believe to be some of the most primitive genes of Earth, by comparing the DNA of two organisms whose last common ancestor lived soon after the formation of the Earth. For such genes to be common to both such organisms, they must be very, very old. When these ancient genes produce amino acids, they are rich in the amino acids most common in the Miller-Urey and similar experiments! This suggests that these experiments do indeed reflect early Earth conditions and that life itself did arise under such conditions.
The other important factor is that these impressive results have been achieved in laboratories over small periods of time. Imagine the whole Earth as the “Petri dish” and hundreds of millions of years as the timescale. Simple life gradually emerging from such a “soup” does not seem at all incredible, certainly not incredible enough that we in the USA have to give up and call the remaining gap in knowledge “God,” while our Indian colleagues do the same and attribute it all to the Lord Shiva.
Scientist are also approaching it from the other side too, gradually stripping away at prokaryotic cells to see how stripped down they have to become for life to “stop,” while others continue to build up from coacervates and protobionts. The gap is narrowing as our knowledge continues its inexorable march.
The Christian sky-fairy is being pinched out! There’s not a lot of room left for him now. The pincers of science are closing in from both sides, squeezing out the phantom of religion and ignorance. Soon, the two sides of the pincer will meet and this unnecessary holdover will have to flutter off and find another dark corner to settle in, where the penetrating light of science and knowledge has not yet shone. Fortunately, the weak, forgiving mind of the believer will always be there for him, acting as an eternal refuge from enlightenment and advancement.
Nobody else read it either!
It's an excellent post. Read and educate yourself.
hence the ignorance Matt.
Nicely written, just too long to hold someone's attention.
The major issue to the "abiogenesis theory" is the incredibly long time and almost infinite improbability that non-organic elements could "self-organize" in complex structures at all. Even more damning to the theory, is that even if those elements would become "complex" within themselves, that they would find other "complex structures" that were chemically attractive and form even the most rudimentary organic building blocks of the far, far more complex amino acids needed to create a very, very simple RNA molecule.
I recall reading an article on this theory of organic creation that estimated it would take 10 to 15 times longer, in a best case scenario, than the age of the Universe which is currently estimated at 14.6 billion years.
The other flaw in the theory is this: why haven't we been able to synthesize life-like molecules from elements in the lab?
Science is way too young to make conclusions of what exactly happened billions of years ago with pinpoint accuracy. One article suggesting that evolution would take 10-15x longer than the existence of the universe does not really *prove* anything. After all, it's just ONE source.
To address your other question, the one regarding the lack of life-like molecules in the lab... I have to basically restate the same thing. Science is young, and we just aren't that good at it yet. when 25% of the work in the lab is done by undergrads who's main priority is partying/getting laid on the weekends, 25% of it done by graduate students who hate their life, and 50% done by postdocs who are barely scraping by, we can't really expect much :(. Science is also terribly underfunded.
So, let me get this straight. A long, long time ago, there was nothing. Insert X years and you get something. Where did something come from? Explain that to me. Where did the asteroids come from that supposedly banged into each other.
Assume you're correct on the asteroids. So, asteroids bang into each other and, insert X years, there is somehow mud. Lightning strikes mud and a single living cell is formed? Or lifeless crystals form and BANG there is life? You do realize that even basic DNA is so irreducably complex to the point that one piece out of place and the whole thing is screwed? The universe is in such order that from the basic DNA structure all the way to the distance from earth to the sun, to the amount of gravitational pull in the planets, works. That, my friends, is not mere chance.
But, somehow, you shrug that off and I guess the cell turns into an amoeba (after X years of course as if that makes a difference), an amoeba turns into a fish, a fish turns into a monkey and then there is you. And the only reason given is because there X years and somehow, that just explains everything. And I'm the one living in fantasy land because I believe in God? I'm sorry but nothing + nothing = nothing. And we have a lot of something that came from somewhere.
Even your beloved Darwin disavowed his own theories. His finches have been proven to be different species who are more abundant or not year to year based on changes in the types of food available. You just used Darwin as an excuse to remove God from society. That's all.
The bottom line is that it is just more convenient to live in today's society without believing in God or Jesus. You don't have to be held accountable for your behavior. No moral standards to live up to. It's just plain easier that way. So, keep searching for your God particle, or your relationship to monkeys (after reading some of the posts, that part might not be too far off) and we'll see who is right when the time comes. 1. The Bible is the most widely read and most translated book in history (you just can't fool that many people for that long). 2. The Devil's greatest trick was to convince the world that he doesn't exist (he knows, as did P.T. Barnum, that a sucker is born every minute). 3. Get your sun screen out, it's pretty hot where you're going...
Dude you are way all over the place and don't seem to have a grasp on the formation of the universe in its current state or the theory of evolution. You did write a lot and for that I give you half credit.
your knowledge of science is laughable. big bang is not two asteroids banging together, and DNA is not irreducibly complex, also it has quite a high tolerance for error
"Bible is the most widely read book" – So is the Quran!
And now let's look at what you most widely read book says (incidentally the list of most widely read books on wikipedia also includes The Lord of the Rings and A tale of two cities):
There was nothing and then god created everything from nothing. Then he created man, but man was bored, so he took his rib and carved out woman. And no, woman has no rights coz she was made to entertain man. And it is okay to hunt and kill witches, but it not okay for a woman to decide if she doesnot want to continue her pregnancy.
I am actually waiting for hell!
"So, let me get this straight. A long, long time ago, there was nothing. Insert X years and you get something. Where did something come from? Explain that to me. Where did the asteroids come from that supposedly banged into each other."
5th dimentional theory, quantum mechanics, black holes...there's a bunch of theories out there. Still better than Santa Clause snapping his fingers.
"1. The Bible is the most widely read and most translated book in history "
Actually, Stephen King has sold more copies of all his novels than the bible...and they're just as plausable.
He didn't say "sold" , he said "most widely read" – there's a big difference.
You'd have to be pretty naive to even ask someone to explain the last hundred billion years, what is that? Escapism? lol A common tactic of the religious nut..sorry that was rude.
No no, you just explain how there is and never will be any evidence of god.. I think we can all read that in a few minutes. Because explaining to YOU, the process of the creation of our solar system is unrealistic, you would need months, you would require a large database for text, you would really need a lot of infrastructure.. obviously.
The real bottom line is that it is ULTIMATELY convenient to just throw your hands up every sunday and just say fuk it, god created it all, he will give me a nice place when I die, boo hoo hoo.. what a crock of bollocks.
I'm not bitter, religion is slowly being eroded away, first they started taking the priests out of the schools (GOOD CHOICE ISNT IT?) Now the big television companies say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas, removing god from his own made up holiday, but keeping it, cause the retailers make a butt load of money. For those of us who do not believe in god or any religion at all, we view this as steady progress, with no decline in sight.
Then I read a page like this, from CNN and find thousands of creationists and fanatics, its jaw dropping. It is quite literally like waking up in the loony bin, try to picture that, because honestly, I personally believe anyone fanatical about religion, is slightly, if not fully crazy, sorry that was rude, I mean to say, insane.
Pliny......one day in your short future of your life...your going to meet this God you claim does not exist and then it will be to late for you to change your mind
Uttering threats and telling people they are going to die! Good old classic Catholic tactics, boy howdy, you guys really know how to start a war ;)
Uhh, all you scientists are really really dumb! I can't believe anyone would believe anything except that this world was created by the one true god. If all the scientists would just die already maybe god would stop putting such hardships on the world.
True scientists aren't dumb, it's the naturalistic fanatical pseudo scientists who believe in something out of nothing who are dumb.
Two different animals.
It's all the weekend warrior lemmings who wish they were scientists who fall for the evolutionary theory. It's no different than the religious person believing everything their priest or pastor tells them, just because they say they're a priest or pastor. The problem for the Bill Nye types is that not all scientists are continuing to support whats needed for naturalistic evolution to work. Sorry about that.
I actually feel that Bill nyes comments are misleading. he says that only the united states has the problem of creationism believers... this isnt true at all.. Im from canada and I know very well that many people here hold to young earth creationism as well.. same with england, australia, etc. He trying to make a case by appealing to the majority, which is in fact a logical fallicy. Something we forget every day in our democratic, postmodern, and un educated society. Our ability to critical think, especially in science has gone right out the window.
A belief in creationism is more prevelent in the US government and leadership than it is any other modern country. That is a fact and that is the point Nye is trying to make. Of course there will be uneducated and misinformed people everywhere in the world, however those people generally don't get elevated to positions of leadership.
Consider yourself one of the "uninformed" and "uneducated" – by choice it appears.
Bill is not stating anything unique...any educated person knows there is no such thing as god and that evolution has not only driven our species up the pole of 'progress', but countless others, you would be naive to think otherwise.
And for anyone blaming evolution for the lack of good parenting and the overall lack of common sense and common decency in this world today, quit it.. this is no time for a childish blame game. Wake up and take responsibility, open your god damn eyes for once in your, creepy and weird lives.
Finally, I beg, on my hands and knees for one single person on this planet, to present one shred of evidence to contradict what I am saying, one rule: you cant just use words.
the FRAUD of evolution exposed: MANHOOD101. COM
Ok, I need to through in my 2 cents. Nye is just a Celebrity wannabe twit like those reality ‘stars’.
Creationism is not solely in the USA nor is it solely Christian. Most of the world religions teach a creation story. Several countries, like Muslim countries, focus on Religious Teaching Schools. So the statement of ‘Denial of evolution is unique to the United States’ is total utter BS. Before Nye speaks on societal issues he might want to take an Elementary School level Social Studies class. Obviously he’s education is lacking greatly. Nor is it solely on Religion, look at the UFO buffs that claim Aliens created us.
Next Evolution is a Theory and should be taught as such. Even Scientists who buy into it can’t agree on how it all started, let alone where it started. I was just watch several shows on this over the weekend on the various science channels on cable (not religious channels); example was it a lightening and amino acids here on Earth or did an asteroid bring bacteria here which started it off on Earth. Plus one of those show discussed how astronomically unlikely any type of life ever developed; which is one of the biggest points of creationist, whether they be religious or UFO buffs.
i.e. Nye has no place in saying what should not be taught to kids. So why is this even news?
Evolution is really just a failed theory. It fails scientifically. Evolutionists can harp all they want about creationism, but until they can actually do more than point to bird beaks and peppered moths and such as evidence all the skeptics are not going to go away.
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, a few highlights include:
Fossils such as Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Archeoptyrx, etc.
Biogeography like marsupials, penguins, etc.
Genetics like Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), Human Chromosome-2, etc.
"Skeptics" of evolution have no data of which to be skeptical. They base their skepticism on their gut, their religion, their upbringing, and their elementary understand of biology, geology, and countless other scientific disciplines.
Everyone should be skeptical of everything. Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.
I make no argument with people who synthesize a belief in God with evolution. This is a pragmatic approach.
Many of the people who do this go further and state that the Genesis account accurately reflects the same sequence as scientific cosmology.
Irrespective of interpreting a "day" as an arbitrary period of time, it very plainly does not. Not only is Chapter 1 inconsistent with science but Chapter 2 is quite inconsistent with Chapter 1. Even the bible can't get the story straight. It is quite evident that Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are two completely different cosmology stories.
The sequences are:
– Heavens and earth, darkness and waters
– Light! – Night and day
– Waters in the sky (atmosphere)
– Dry land, plants
– Sun, moon and stars
– Sea creatures, birds
– Land animals, Humans (male and female)
– Miller time
– Animals and birds
– Big bang (13.8BYA)
– Star ignition (sun 4.57BYA)
– Planetary accretion
– Earth (4.54BYA)
– Moon (4.53BYA)
– Surface Water, toxic atmosphere
– Simple vegetation
– Oxygenated atmosphere
– Aquatic life
– Land animals
A false assumption is being made by a lot of people in believing God is matter or of flesh and bone like humans. God is Spirit as explained in the bible in several places. John 4:24, 1Timothy 1:17, Colossians 1:15, and Genesis 1. Since God is Spirit and The Creator then He is not created.
special pleading logical fallacy. next!
if there were a creator, it sure wouldn't be any one close to perfect and would likely be an alien. Or maybe some 9th dimensional 5th grade kids who are catching hell for creating us.
...all I can say to respond to Mr. Nye is...belief in creation has not prevented the US from growing to be one of the top developed nation in the world...... That is if we look at history.....from 1776 to the present.....US was at its top form exactly when "creation" was believed to be all we are and can achieve
And yet your neighbour Canada beats you at economy and peace!
Science is not the source, but a medium to reach truth absolute of a matter, not as hindu's, ignorant s hind, absurd in their hindusim, absurdity, The source.
@hinduism. You are an illiterate fukktard, and a hater of all things good. But to celibrate your hate for others, I'll burn a quran in your name;after all it better to burn the quran for light, than to curse the book for its darkness and fallacy
Still waiting smart scientists. Calling all smart scientists....
The question: If radiometric dating is not a constant, how can it be trusted to bolster the old earth assertion?
First off, that is not what this article is stating.
Second, there are a variety of scientific disciplines that all reach similar conclusions on the age of the earth and universe in general that have nothing to do with geology.
And, apparently, you're not paying attention to any of the responses to the other comments you've left.
That, or you're trolling, which Occam's Razor supports.
Ah – here it comes. the ad hominem attacks. Not unexpected.
That's EXACTLY what the article says. It says the assumption of radiometric decay has come into question. The very cornerstone of naturalistic evolutionary theory is crumbling. Stop using that tired tactic of telling us "that's not what it says" and then hoping no one will really read it, or better yet, your arrogant assumption that we're too stupid to understand what it says might work.
As for trolling – quit crying and address the issue. Your stupid tactics of misdirection only serve to show that you really can't answer the problem, can you?
Didn't think so.
As for the Razor – how tired can it get. This tactic is often raised by those who don't really understand the principal. Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on here. I suspect you misunderstand its premise, as many do.
Obviously you've mistaken an ad hominem attack with a statement of fact. If you'd bother to check back on your earlier comments, you'd see numerous responses to your "challenge", including the notion that a very small seasonal variance does not equate to the utter trashing of radiometric dating. What you espouse would be the equivalent of stating that we can't rely on the Earth rotating because of the existence of precession.
Since you insist on that exact implication, the charge of trolling is reasonable and supportable.
As for Occam's Razor - so which is it? Are you ignoring the responses, or are you trolling?
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.