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.
Why do you equate a belief in a higher power to being mentally unstable?
A supreme being: omniscent, omnipotent, and all benevolent.
Who creates the universe and everything in it.
Then apparently spends a fair bit of his time smiting his own creations
for not being better than he created them.
Sounds mentially unstable to me.
Or maybe just like a toddler going through the terrible twos
smashing his toy soldiers out of fits of undirected, uncontrolled rage.
In either case, not someone worthy of my attention, much less my worship.
Because for the most part that belief goes hand in hand with the denial of observable facts (such as the very topic of this article). "Mentally unstable" might be a bit harsh, but to believe something that you find in one book (creation) in contradiction to what we can see, and study, and test, and learn from (evolution), that does require a serious disconnect from logic.
If someone claimed to be in contact with an invisible guy named Joe you'd think he was delusional, but if you change his name to Jesus automatically we're supposed to think he's not? There are delusional people in the world, people who "speak" to people we generally agree aren't really there. Believers claims to be able to speak to Jesus resemble this so closely aren't we justified in seeing them as examples of the same thing?
I mean no personal offense with this. I too once suffered from this kind of delusional thinking. I use the term in its most clinical form so please keep that in mind. It's not intended to be a personal attack, though I understand the tendency to take it that way. The instability happens on a couple levels. Some are more subtle than others.
The most obvious way is how it is a denial of reality for a fantasy-based belief. (this is not limited to religious people. People do this kind of thing everyday. On a basic level some people they believe buying a lottery will make them a multi-millionaire. While you have a greater chance of being struck by lightening then winning a powerball lottery, people still believe they can win while they seriously doubt they will get struck by lightening. This is mental instability. Religion is somewhat worse because there is actually evidence of a handful of people winning, but there is zero evidence supporting the god story of the bible.)
Consider people that believe they are guided by a greater force . If a man tells you he feels aliens want him to be a lawyer to he can practice law that will make the aliens happy, most would probably call this man unstable. But if you replace "aliens" with "god" we call him highly spiritual. Yet, there is actually more mathematical evidence that aliens actually exist than this is that a god exists.
On a more subtle level, religion is an addictive practice. It is a kind of intellectual laziness. It is accepting easy answers in the face of difficult questions. This is typical "escapism" behavior that people employ to help them cope with the stresses of life. Some turn to alcohol, some drugs, and some religion. Emotionally or mentally stable people do not need a super being to give their life meaning or purpose.
Lastly, there is the grandiose-type egoism that believes an all powerful creator of the universe is interested in their life. It's a very narcissistic position that once you are outside of it is shocking in its absurdity to see.
But my belief in God is just that, a belief. Although, I cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot prove there is not. Therefore, I feel that I would be just as delusional as believing in God as someone who doesn’t. Since, neither of us can provide any evidence at all toward are beliefs I don’t think it is fair for one of us to call the other delusional.
God is not sadistic; He is trying to make us realize the blessings go with obedience to His wisdom. When we ignore God, we have no HOLY SPIRIT to guide and protect us; and by my own experience, we do very stupid things and fail to question evidence that could save us problems.
Athiesm is not reasonable. Too many atheists have been college trained by people with an agenda to destroy our faith and degrade our society. Links below. The first few pages of the Bible have been proven by simple observation and science. Almost all things are created with a seed to reproduce its own kind. After all these millennium, were is the ongoing evidence that we are evolving. Our only evolving is following after the lies in media and colleges etc. Look around, where is the knowledge that we are glorious children of a powerful and glorious God who loves us and wants to give us a garden paradise lifestyle instead of our glorified slavery that we call employment. The HOLY SPIRIT would show us money cannot buy security and abundance. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-30 are obvious in our world today.
Atheism is very reasonable.
This is a joke post, right?
I must say, you gotta love an argument that we must be wary because the SOVIET UNION has a detailed plan for a communist takeover of America. The DEFUNCT Soviet Union. Still coming after us from the grave....
II think that one of my favorite parts of @mariedevine's (very own) web site is:
"When I asked God,
Should I provide a place to donate?
The answer came back:
"Small donations are called for.
It's the right thing to do."
Thank You For Your Encouragement.
Paypal Accepts Most Cards"
Here is a link for you:
Free yourselves. All of you. :-)
Wisdom out side the limit of truth absolute is not of God, but hinduism of some hindu Sanatan, ignorant goon pretending to be god.
If the universe was only a couple thousand years old, we would only see a handful of stars, since the vast majority we see took thousands and thousand, millions, or in the case of hubble-type viewing, billions of years for their light to get here... your case that the universe is only a couple thousand years old simply does not hold water. I do not keep up on what you r3tarded h!illbilles believe, but I have a feeling that you would suggest that the universe was created with starlight in mid-travel and fossils already deep in the earth's ground... Free yourselves, GOP/Religious Folk!... Liberate yourselves from your political and religious masters and think for yourselves!!! Life is a million times better over here!
Not really because God set the initial conditions to make it appear that way....
Apparently God just freely changed the speed of light? Oookay then. If that's how you view things, then any meaningful dialogue cannot happen. If you choose to flat-out ignore what science has learned, then I can't help you. That's akin to you choosing to ignore Newton's Laws of Motion by saying "God keeps the universe in balance!" as Newton did before Laplace corrected him. God of the gaps.
ArthurP et al, religious "belief" is a psychological disorder. It truly is. I was raised Catholic and (kind of) believed all the bs up until about 20 or so – when I started thinking for myself. I have never looked back. Me, my wife and everyone else that we know to be atheists are good, decent, kind and most importantly, happy people. Once you free yourself of your dogma and base your thoughts and feelings (and even your moral compass) on reality, everything is more "real" and often times much, much better. I speak from experience that REALITY, kicks ass. Not one person who is a "believer" can honestly say that they are either rational or of sound mind. It is simply not possible.
Longhorn, he's being facetious.
"Life is a million times better over here!"
Where is this "over here?" Is "over here" the bizarro world of the atheist, liberals, and democrats?
I was wondering. :)
Get a grip, people, you are outraged because Bill Nye the Science Guy is pro-science. Whatever our origin is, if you believe in Christ you have to believe that He came anyway. Maybe we came from lower creatures, anthropoid apes with fingers on their feet; it didn't stop the guy from hanging on a cross for you. Perhaps most of scripture has been tampered with and altered until it's not really all there, but enough survives for us to have achieved moral codes and a system of law that clearly shows our entire society wants to perfect itself and approach a higher state. Stop making such a big deal out of what you ought to be seeing as our continuing exploration of God's universe, using the brains He gave us; nothing that actually exists can actually contradict your promise of Salvation. Have faith and trust what you believe.
Sam, you cannot simply choose to ignore the Old Testament. Doing so completely begs us to question the validity of the New Testament as well. Can't have it both ways.
The Bible does not state the world is 6000 years old. Some folks read that in but forget that a day to God is meaningless to us. Other than that, the creation story follows science and evolution quite well or better than the pure science. First there was light. Amazingly accurate. Water came from above matches the theory of water comets bringing our oceans. I trust God more than i do Mr. Nye, and God gave me an extraordinary IQ. Also note that the animals are not named. Adam and Eve may have been the first intelligent beings rather than the first humanoids since Adam's children married. We accept with faith because all that is written appears to be and is true. Science is the search for God. Sorry Nye, you're just not very smart.
Flowering, seed-bearing plants were created BEFORE the sun... I could see that they could go for 24 hours without sun - but 1,000 years (or more, depending on your guess of the meaning of "day")?
Or did "God" have Grow-Lights back then... ?
what 'light' source did God create to make the morning and evening of the first day, if he did not create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day?
Riiiight...just like the commandment about the sabbath day isn't REALLY a day, right?
Actually, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth...NOT light. You can't even keep your own make believe story straight...
If a day to God is meaningless to us then why do people just assume that the Commandment to keep the Sabbath means taking a 24 hour day off every week? Maybe he meant taking a billion years off after working six, I suppose?
Just so we keep the sequences straight here:
The sequences are:
Genesis Chapter 1
– Beginning: Heavens and earth, darkness and waters
– 'Day' 1: Light! night and day
– 'Day' 2: Waters in the sky (atmosphere)
– 'Day' 3: Dry land, plants
– 'Day' 4: Sun, moon and stars
– 'Day' 5: Sea creatures, birds
– 'Day' 6: Land animals, Humans (male and female)
– 'Day' 7: Miller time
Genesis Chapter 2
– 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
Why do you even bother to argue about the interpretation of the bible? It's an ancient book of stories written by man and full of inconsistencies. That's all it is. Not much point in wasting time on it. It has some good stories, but so does a lot of other literature.
Bill Nye, If we evolved from the apes, then why are there still apes?
Why would humans be the only species that jumped from one species to another?
And, just looking at the nervous system of a fish, not even counting ours, how do u explain that all of this happened by random chance?
If u wish to believe God doesn't exist, that's fine, but don't ram your beliefs down out kids throats................What happened in your life to get u so mad at God, anyways?
Do some research, use the web just remember for the best results when researching 'The Theory of Evolution' on the web do not include the following terms in your search request (Bible, Creationist, Intelligent design, religion,God).
We didn’t evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor.
Wow, you are just fractally wrong with your post.
If you REALLY want answers to those questions, you will find them. Tale a few biology classes, get an education. Put down that book of supers ti tions and myths first, because that will only cloud your logical, reasonable mind.
If you don't want the answers to those questions, do not try to pose them as justification for your arguement, they do not help your debate.
Why are there still apes? Ignorant comment, evinces no understanding of WHY natural selection occurs. You might as well say "if you came from your parents, why are they still alive." It makes as much sense. Species evolve as a result of variance in environmental pressures which favor certain adaptations. If, for example, there is geographic isolation of 2 populations of a single species, they are subject to different environments. A population well suited for it's environment may not evolve to the same extent. In any case, no one said the apes of today are unevolved from the apes of millions of years ago. Why would you think this was the case. Are you following any of this?
Why would humans be the only species that jumped from one species to another? Ignorant comment. What ever made you think that was the case? You can see evidence of one species of stickleback evolving from a different species of stickelback in CURRENT studies of LIVING creatures. Among many other examples. Do you have some notion that evolution means a fish becomes a horse?
Please, for god's sake, don't YOU ram ANY of your alleged "knowledge" down anyone's throat.
I'm beginning to see these as "hit and run" posts.
God made adam from clay. Why is there still clay?
"fractally" wrong? ;)
Is that intended to mean anything other than factually?
"If we evolved from the apes, then why are there still apes?"
We didn't, we have a common ancestor. There are still apes for the same reason there are still British after they colonized America.
"Why would humans be the only species that jumped from one species to another?"
I'm not certain what "jumped" refers to, but all life evolved from previous forms of life, not just humans.
"And, just looking at the nervous system of a fish, not even counting ours, how do u explain that all of this happened by random chance?"
It didn't all happen by random chance. Natural selection is the mechanism by which the best adapted organisms reproduce the most successfully and thus propagate their traits.
"If u wish to believe God doesn't exist, that's fine, but don't ram your beliefs down out kids throats"
Science doesn't speak to the existence of God.
@I'm not a GOPer
Fractal wrongness is a term meaning wrong on every single point.
@hawaii, I'd never heard the phrase before, but it's great.
Why don’t you start to believe in God? What do you have to lose?
Pascal's Wager? Really? Sorry but a false dichotomy of christianity or nothing doesn't appeal to me.
I just found that phrase recently as well. Been waiting to use it.
"Why don’t you start to believe in God? What do you have to lose?"
His grip on sanity for one.
Don’t you feel that there is something more out there than what is on earth? Don’t you feel we could be on earth for a reason?
Nope. No reason to think that. Even if I did, so what? Just because someone "feels" something doesn't mean there is any reason to take that feeling seriously. I'm open to evidence to prove me wrong, but I value intellectual honesty above what might make me feel good.
After saying all that, Christianity is the last thing I would ever want to join.
If protestants came from Catholics why are there still Catholics?
Technically, we still are apes, just a different species than the primates we usually call apes.
Couldn’t there be a starting point before the big bang? If so, what caused that? And if we find that out, then what was the cause of that? I might sound crazy to you but the only starting point before these events is a higher power.
Why don't you start to believe in Vishnu? What do you have to lose? You might just get to come back as a princess instead of a co.ckroach!
So now you move onto Kalam. Ok then.
1) There could be something before, but to assume as much for the sake of your argument is a false premise.
2) You could get to a higher power from Kalam, if you ignore the special pleading for the thing you are labeling as a god, you cannot get to any specific god from there.
3) If you then admit that there is something that didn't need a cause, why is it limited to only something that you would consider a god? Why couldn't matter have al\ways existed in one form or another.
OK – it's going to take a while for that "fractally wrong" construct to catch on. It's meaning is not self-evident.
"The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."
I don't really expect it to really catch or anything.
You are among a whole lot of closed minded people who don't care to learn the true facts of science. We have evolved from a noble ape called Australopithecus afarensis. The famous ape called "Lucy" was one. There are still a number of species of other apes living today. You should read "The Top Ten Myths about Evolution" by Smith and Sullivan 2007. Also a very excellant book to make you THINK is "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison.
Contrary to what a few people are saying her, we DID evolve from apes. Every evolutionary biologist will tell you that. An ape is a large tailless primate. Our most recent ancestors were all large, tailless primates. Our last common ancestor with chimps and bonobos were large, tailless primates. WE are large, tailless primates. Our ancestral line has been all ape for millions of years.
What I think people are getting at when they say this is that, we didn't evolve from MODERN ape species. That is correct. But you would have to reject the entire hominid fossil record to say that we did not evolve from apes.
I think Australopithecus afarensis is merely an ape-like creature.
Hawaiiguest, "Ape" is not a formal taxonomic term, it's actually kind of like slang. It means a large tailless primate, and A. afarensis is comparable to chimps in size, and was a tailless primate.
Also, the creatures that share the most DNA with us are also the large, tailless primates. They even show signs of having a similar range of emotion, society, intelligence and capacity to learn that we do. We have bigger brains than other apes, big enough apparently to let us imagine that the gap between is is greater than it actually is.
1) The big bang theory believe in a universe was around before the one we know and love was created. Am I crazy for believing that a higher power created this?
2) I do believe in the traditional Christian God but I always meant in my question to you why you didnt believe in a higher power.
3) Could very well be but I always believed otherwise.
1) I never said you were crazy, I said it was a false premise to assume a higher power when no evidence is presented.
2) Again, no evidence, no reason.
3) At least you admit to the option.
So can we put the Kalam away now? I'm still willing to answer questions if you got more.
Cq, I replied to your comment here, but I did it in the wrong place and made it a new thread. : )
Time began with the Big Bang, so asking about what came "before" it makes about as much sense as asking what's north of the North Pole.
Your regression to some "higher power" then begs the question of what made that power, and what made that which made the higher power, and on and on, with things getting ever more complex, unlike the Big Bang theory.
Please become religious. I’m begging you.
According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. So there was a universe before the big bang, right? I’m actually asking this question and not making a point.
There was "something", just not the universe as we recognize it today. How could we? It was before our 4 dimensional reality began (three dimensions plus time). As the theory stands now, it existed in an 11 dimensional state before "space" unfolded. Maybe all it took for the expansion to take place was some random interaction of these dimensions. If you can wrap your brain around that, good on ya! :-)
Yep, That's my point exactly.
Can you just do it for one lifetime? Afterwards, you can always change back.
Still waiting for a Creationist to explain, in detail with accompanying citations, why no bunny rabbit fossils are found in the fossil record at the same time as the dinosaurs.
Obviously, they got lucky and survived the great flood, after all they have four built-in lucky charms, don't they.
Rabbits don't have bones, they are entirely made of soft tissue. There is nothing to fossilize. Every god fearing person knows this.
The Easter Bunny kept them all safe in his warm timeless burrow deep under the south polar ice.
Have they found any bunny fossils?
Not GOP – As stated elsewhere there are no completely reliable figures but R J Rummel provides some which are based on long term research. The figures do run into millions but are a long way short of a billion. Blessed – I refer you to the comments by Lenin and Trotsky on the subject of revolutionary morality. Of course, you can prefer to ignore them as they undermine your argument although, figuratively, you can continue to call them a 'red' herring (pardon the pun).
thanks for your reply.
As you say – nothing is completely 'reliable'. I found the following data for the 20th century, which in context feels like a reasoned approximation to me, though it might undercount by as much as 15%:
Total 20th century excess deaths* : ................................. 203 million
Deaths by communism (mostly democide and famine)...... 87 million
Reside (deaths by non-communism): ............................... 116 million
* By war (military and collateral civilia) democide and famine
I also found this site to be interesting:
Ooops – should be "Residue" not "Reside"
Considering the topic, do not skip this comment:
CALLING ALL NEADERTHALS!!! (this is not a joke)
You might be part Neaderthal and for $99 actually find out:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $99 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
When Jesus died, He died for a reason. His death was not an accident. He came to this earth in order to forgive our sins. He had to die in order to do this. He came because Adam and Eve had disobeyed God. Sin is disobeying God. God had warned our parents – Adam and Eve – that disobeying Him would bring death. They would die both physically and spiritually. Spiritual death is eternal separation from God – not destruction of the spirit. We understand physical death. When Adam and Eve sinned they caused their children to become sinners. They died both physically and spiritually.
So everyone is forgiven. Right. So why is everyone still born tainted with original sin.
Because of what Adam and Eve did.
Yes, but When Jesus died, He died for a reason. His death was not an accident. He came to this earth in order to forgive our sins.
...( continues ) ...
Stop tjhinking about it – look around and feel the world around you. Or do whatever it is that you do.
Some poeple just want to keep going around in circles. No way we can help them – mmmh, maybe only god can help them! :)
ArthurP...I see now that I gave you more credit than due. You have opened your mouth and made it known that you are indeed a fool based on your reply. My apologies for thinking otherwise. I'm done interacting with you until you at least acknowledge the historic Jesus. In the meantime, here is a passage for you to ponder on your happy little way to he||, where you will unfortunately have all eternity to live with the confession of your own tongue burning with guilt & shame (not literal "fire"...Luke 16)....
1 John 2:22-23
22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 John 4:1-3
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
Btw...It can be said that the salvation Jesus purchased MUST BE RECEIVED. Our judicial position imputed to us from Adam remains on all until (and IF) on PERSONALLY RECEIVES The Person & Finished work of Jesus by faith plus nothing (though "faith" will evidence a changed life that obeys Jesus as Lord). Adam simply represented "mankind". Jesus represents all who will believe, as He is personally received on His terms. You are hitting on the key gospel issue: Justification by faith alone!
The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray: "Take only ONE. God is watching."
Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. A child had written a note, "Take all you want. God is watching the apples."
You do realize that you are quoting from a book written by the Devil. And to try to prove it was not by using passages from said book just goes show the deviousness of the Devil in creating such a book.
Here's my problems with your assertions JesusNotReligion
1. According to your biblical quote, any man who doesn't accept Christ is the "Anti-Christ." So that means that some six billion people on this planet are the essence of evil. How friggin' arrogant can you get?
2. Allowing another being to die for your moral digressions is the ultimate lack of morality. No one asked for Jesus to sacrifice himself. The whole concept of human sacrifice is barbaric, evidenced by what Jesus went through prior to his crucifixion, that is if you believe the 2,000 year old stories in the bible.
3. The very fact that there are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al who do not ascribe to the teachings of the New Testament and that they live and thrive is proof that religious teachings are just man's attempt at dominating other men. Even among Christiantiy, Protestants this Catholics are wrong, and both of those sects believe the Book of Mormon is wrong.
Upon closer examination, one could easily come to the conclusion that they are all wrong and that the God of Abraham doesn't actually exist.
It's not actually any great sacrifice to die if you know that you are going to spend an eternity in heaven. In your Jesus myth, all he did was suffer for a few days before going home where he lived in paradise. Lots of people suffer far worse everyday.
Let's take creationism out of the equation and simply focus on the absurdity of Bill's science. What scientific proof do we have that humans evolved from anything other than humans? The PROVEN answer is....There isn't one. The THEORY of evolution It just that, a theory. It is all simple conjecture and the best our SCIENTISTS can do is develop a theory that tries to connect dots that are millions of years apart from each other. I would suggest that Bill and all of his cronies can't prove the "science" then shut up when they have the urge to bash the alternatives.
So, basically, you don't know the definition of "theory" in a scientific sense, and use the the layman's version, which is essentially a hypothesis. Then you claims it is nothing but conjecture, as if it is nothing more than a "thought piece." So in a nutshell, you either don't know about, or refuse to acknowledge, libraries stuffed to the gills with evidentiary support.
The best part is you tell Bill to "shut up", but you have no problem frothing at the mouth over something you show NO knowledge of whatsoever. Ignorance defined.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." By contrast there is no scientific theory of creationism. There is loads of evidence for evolution and little to none for creationism.
Please respond to my message Omega Man. I want to know what you think.
" What scientific proof do we have that humans evolved from anything other than humans?"
Although, science doesn't deal in "proof", the evidence is abundant:
Endogeneous RetroViruses (ERVs), Human Chromsome-2, fossils like Ho.mo Erectus, the protein Cytochorme-c, etc.
We actually can see examples of evolution in progress, so nobody in the scientific community doubts that it's real. The only thing being "theorized" about it is how it proceeds.
Someone clearly failed 6th grade science. Social graduation really holds society back...
I'm curious; does it sting when your post gets kicked in the teeth that quickly and thoroughly?
and teaching children that life on earth was seeded by aliens, as Dawkins does ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyT_AOtwHa4 ) (since a purely natural explanation within the realm of mathematical possibilities doesn't exist) IS "appropriate"?
Names aren't important. Ideas are. If Dawkins disingenuously promotes ideas without evidence he should be regarded in the same light as preachers and popes.
Uh oh. Someone was not prepared with reading comprehension or critical thinking skills. Move along, nothing to see here.
Dawkins is answering a question about how "Intelligent Design" might work, but would eventually lead to the need for some evolution-like process anyway because one inevitably comes to the question, "Where did the Designer come from?"
For more info on the ID propaganda movie Expelled, try http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Dawkins does not teach it, does not advocate it. Says it is theoretically possible, but not ultimately a creation issue because you are just displacing the origin to another planet. Creationism posits a magical being as the ultimate source of creation. Alien seeding does not – if it did happen, you still have the evolution of the aliens and their ultimate origin.
Actually things the building blocks of life are found all over the Universe.
I think the point is that the complexity argument isn't answered by pushing the problem of origins back to some other potential universe.
The probabilities for just the initial conditions of a life preserving universe to develop through random chance (not to mention life itself) are so astronomical that even someone as smart as Dawkins knows there must be better explanation for the emergence of life on our planet.
"The probabilities for just the initial conditions of a life preserving universe to develop through random chance (not to mention life itself) are so astronomical..."
What probabilities are you referring to? please specify or cite research that determined the probabilities.
"... that even someone as smart as Dawkins knows there must be better explanation for the emergence of life on our planet."
You misunderstand Dawkins' position. He is not advocating this alien ID concept, he was using that idea to show that ID has no foundation, because even if aliens did seed Earth with life one would still have to ask where the aliens came from.
If you want to know Dawkins' viewpoint, he has many books available. "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably the least bombastic, if that's not your thing.
Dawkins was asked how intelligent design could possibly have created life (not how it did) and all he said was that aliens, who themselves would have had to be the products of evolution, would have had to come here and seeded this planet with life. That's no more impossible to believe than us going to Mars and putting life there, where we'd be "aliens" to that world.
the probability of a low entropy state (an initial condition) existing by random chance alone is 10^(10(123)) – as calculated by Roger Penrose Oxford ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8 )
as perspective, the number of sub atomic particles in the known universe are around 10^80
so the probability of random chance producing ONE initial condition for a life preserving universe is beyond comprehension – yet "faith" – believing in the uncaused cause – is foolish and dangerous to children?
Evolution is not a theory, it's an observable phenomenon, supported by an incredible amount of physical evidence. The only thing "theoretical" about evolution is "how it proceeds", not that it happens.
technically it still is a theory.
as are: Cells, Germs, Gravity.
Science has very strict requirements to earn 'Law' status and still strict requirements to earn 'Theory' status.
Specifically, science allows theories to be formed from tested hypothesis.
Science does not accept laws, on principal. Laws contradict the very nature of the scientific method and the need to revise our understanding as we learn more. To believe science can create laws is to say we are, as humans, infallible.
God is not real
"Technically", but not in practice. Scientists proceed as though evolution were absolute fact, and they get results that confirm that assumption. It's kind of like a mathematical theorem that keeps on working until the day when an example proves that it doesn't. The longer that it's in use the less likely it appears to be that such a counter example will ever surface, but the possibility still exists, no matter how slim.
The scripture in Psalm 14:1 says
A fool says in his heart there is no GOD. Don't get upset with me, the Holy Spirit said it. You want proof!!! All Scripture is given by inspiration of God-God breathed (Spirit) 2 Timothy 3:16
You can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true.
So what? Nothing in the Bible is provable and much of it is nonsense. It also says snakes talk. You might as well just quote from GURPS.
When they wrote that, way before modern science, you really would have sounded like a fool for saying that some god wasn't responsible for creating the universe. Now, however ...
The Quran says the same thing about itself - bogus all around.
"Qur’an says it is from Allah:
–“The revelation of the book (Qur’an) is from the Lord of the Alamin” (Qur’an 21:2) m)
- Complete guidance: “This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favours upon you and chosen Islam as your Deen” (Qur’an 5:3)
- I am sure that you are convinced now after reading this that Islam is the religion of Truth, there is no God but God and Muhammad (PBUH) is His Messenger."
Read more: http://relijournal.com/islam/truth-doesnt-come-into-your-hands-unless-you-look-for-it/#ixzz24xoZIIPe
But what you fail to mention is that the Bible is the work of the Devil.
Mac – your bible also demands that young, unengeaged, virgins who are raper, have to marry their attackers. It also commands that you go and kill gay folks.
Why aren't you nutters doing this?
Oh yes it can... if you believe in the one and only true and living
God by faith. You know faith the substance of things hope for the evidence of things not seen. And also, with out faith it is impossible to please God. Because he who come to hime must first believe that he is!! Amen....?Amen ( so be it) just in case you did not know. :-)
"And also, with out faith it is impossible to please God."
So your god is only please if far lesser beings pay him the proper homage? You know, if my dog completely ignores me, I still love my dog. Why is your god such an insecure narcissist that he needs adoration to be happy?
Marx's theories of class struggle and dialectical materialism were based on explicit atheism. Hence, according to Trotsky, revolutionary morality, " deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws." (Their Morals and Ours 1938). Lenin asked, “Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course there is......In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality? In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we .... say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters." Thus in the specific case of Soviet Union the link between atheism and policy is proved beyond doubt. It is foolish to suggest otherwise (sorry es-longhorn that's just the way it is). Taking Lenin's argument as stated his claim is that 'bourgeoisie morality' is that religious morality is motivated by self-interest. R J Rummel provides reasonably accurate figures for deaths by government. They are nowhere year one billion.
Now this is an actual study published in 2011:
And some more recent news:
Honestly Philip, the more I read about Christianity, the more I wonder how stupid can it be? Everytime I think this is where the line gets drawn, every time they cross it. This 2011 article I had not read before.
Did you read what you posted? The communist ideology was using atheism as a tool to wrest power away from the land owners and clergy in order to gain complete control. It's for this reason you can't necessarily blame the exact same thing that happened in Germany with Nazisim. They used christianity in order to inci.te troops to fight, they weren't killing in the name of christianity, but it was used as a tool to control the populace.
Plhilip disappears after showing regret that I was historically inaccurate, coz I type 1823 as 1832!!!
And now he doesnot want to answer to the evidence for my claim that I have presented.
Don't pray in my school....and I won't think in your church. Deal ?
If creationists want to "teach the controversy" why aren't they inviting actual evolution scientists into their churches to lecture?
With regards to atheism in the Soviet Union I would recommend James Thrower, " Marxist Leninist 'Scientific Atheism' and The Study Of Religion And Atheism In The USSR" as a clear analysis of Bolshevik anti-religious policy and its origins. Marx's theories of class struggle and dialectical materialism were based on the explicit atheism adopted by the Young Hegelians in the 1840s. Hence revolutionary morality, " deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws." (Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours 1938). Lenin asked, “Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course there is......In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality? In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we .... say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters." Thus in the specific case of Soviet Union the link between atheism and policy is proved beyond doubt. It is foolish to suggest otherwise (sorry es-longhorn that's just the way it is). Taking Lenin's argument as stated his claim is that 'bourgeoisie morality' is that religious morality is motivated by self-interest. As for numbers there are no available figures which can be regarded as absolutely accurate, although R J Rummel appears to be as accurate as any. However, none of them suggest a figure as high as a billion or anywhere near it.
Except that the problems with mass killings only popped up after Stalin assumed absolute control onto himself, against the original philosophy of Marx. He was a killer for the same reasons that Hitler, a Christian, was; he had the power to kill and there was nobody in his way.
"perhaps I looked at those same references and remained positively unconvinced by it."
So what would convince you?
Please advise how the following is incorrect:
I'm not saying theyre correct but I want to know why it is wrong.
Go ask the question on talkorgins.org. It is a science oriented web site that addresses creationist claims and their "science" information.
Will do that. Thank you.
Your website is "wrong" because it is more unsubstantiated fundamentalist bull. Go to the talkorigins page "An Index to Creationist Claims". Search for radiometric. You'll get actual science that refutes all the crap these nutter sites put out.
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.