home
RSS
Bill Nye slams creationism
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET

Bill Nye slams creationism

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.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Creationism • Science

soundoff (14,640 Responses)
  1. exlonghorn

    @truth be told.

    If Joseph Smith was divinely inspired to write his book, and Moses was divinely inspired to write his, and Muhammad was divinely inspired as well, then whose book is correct? They all seem to have about the same amount of physical proof, with varying degrees of authenticity.

    August 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Jeff Roberts

      I personally believe all contain truth. How do people find/define truth or what is correct is a good question? There are many differnet ways people find/define truth as truth.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  2. Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

    I wonder if apes sit around and debate about religion or decide whether to wear boxers or briefs in the morning. i chose briefs... they do a better job at not sliding up throughout the day

    August 30, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • justmetoo

      Don’t they hurt your chances of having babies???

      August 30, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      Wait, really? crap, how am I supposed to contribute to my part in this evolution chain!! Now my hairy butt trait and my weird sense of pleasure will never get passed on!! my girlfriend just broke up with me... i wonder if my hairy butt had anything to do with it

      August 30, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • niknak

      Yeah, I have that same issue with boxers.
      But like Dob Dole said when asked what he uses, boxers or briefs, he said "depends."
      Ok, I will go back to bashing fundies now......

      August 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • justmetoo

      Relax, relax. There’s always adoption.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      Can I adopt another girlfriend?

      August 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Huebert

      That largely depends on how cool your first one is.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      On a scale of 1/10 she was a Scarlett Johansson.. In coolness and hotness

      August 30, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Huebert

      THEN GET THE FCUK OFF THE INTERNET AND GET ON TOP OF THAT WOMAN.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      Oh I wish I could but she dumped me.. So now I have to settle for pleasure from reactions to my dumb posts on e-debates of "truth"

      August 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Huebert

      my condolences, when you said "another" I thought you meant "additional". But you know what they say, nothing heals a broken heart like banging her younger sister.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      That made me laugh really hard, then I farted and continued to laugh even harder.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • ArthurP

      Go to church and join an bible study class, great way to meet chicks who would like nothing better that to save you, any way they can .....

      August 30, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
  3. .o.

    what a hot topic. i'm getting a woodward just from looking at that page number link summary down there.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

    I like evolution. It gives me excuses as to why my butt is so hairy and to why I get such a rush when poop in my hand and throw it at my friends face.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      *when I poop in my hand*

      ...its been millions of years but i'm still figuring out this whole opposable thumb stuff. So cool!!

      August 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • notnow

      I just want to know why women still bite.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      i dunno, i kinda like it

      August 30, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  5. wayne

    @633
    "So, you have concluded there is no way to test for signs of influence from outside sources or intelligence?
    What avenues did you pursue to draw that conclusion?"

    Science can't test for outside supernatural (you left that part off, on purpose) inteligence , as it is only the study of the natural world. So i'm asking you once again, the same exact question.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Sue

      Creationists like to say that God doesn't want to reveal himself, has the power to keep hidden, and that scientists are conspiring to keep evidence of him secret.

      Funny how it's the same excuse that the UFO believers give for their lack of evidence. The intelligent aliens are too shy to reveal themselves, they have the ability to keep hidden from us, and whatever evidence they do leave behind is being covered up.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:44 am |
  6. wyrick

    I still like Bill Nye even though I don't believe his current statement. I remember growing up watching him and I learned so much. However, even though I learned bits and pieces from him on his televised program, I still grew up knowing full well that you can't prove the theory creation or evolution. Each theory has it's flaws. Nonetheless, I do believe in the big bang theory. God said let there be light and BANG, there it was. That's faith. In regards to teaching my children, I rather tell my daughter that humans were created from a loving Father than a prime mate monkey. I think it's sounds much better to her.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Huebert

      What are the flaws in the theory of evolution?

      August 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      There is no creation 'theory'. Creationism, by definition, is not science because one cannot state a falsifiable hypothesis for such a 'theory'

      August 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • donna

      Yep, kids love fairy tales!

      August 30, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • niknak

      Can you give us any examples of the flaws in evolution?
      I am sure the thousands of and thousands of scientists over the past 150 years would love to see your data.
      Whereas on the other hand, I can give you thousands of flaws in the theory of creationism.
      The mind is a terrible thing to lose to religion.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • wayne

      "I rather tell my daughter that humans were created from a loving Father than a prime mate monkey. I think it's sounds much better to her."

      Are you a loving father? Because you are also a primate/monkey/ape also.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • justmetoo

      Humans didnt evolve from monkeys. They have a common ancestor.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Wyrick,

      Genetics proves evolution.

      Also it sound like you are not really interested in what is actually true, or teaching your daughter what is actually true, if you can come up with something that is more comfortable. Why not just make things up to teach her yourself because that's really what you are doing.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Point 1 – In science we don't prove thinks, we explain things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol.

      Point 2 – There is no theory of creationism.

      Point 3 – Please post these flaws in the theory of evolution.

      Point 4 – The Big Bang was neither big, nor a bang. There most certainly was no explosion.

      Point 5 – There was no "let there be light". The early universe was way too hot and way too dense for there to be light. You had to wait for the universe to expand and cool before there was light. This took about 300,000 years.

      Why do people who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all too see?

      August 30, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Why do people who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all too see?

      Because they can?

      August 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      "...from a prime mate monkey"

      Classic.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Jdog

      I think that your idea of what evolution is is skewed... We were not "created" by a "hairy primate" but descended from them over millions of years, changing ever so slightly in each generation.

      The concept of evolution over millions of years can be quite confusin and not easy for a child to understand but there is no excuse for lying to them by filling there heads with nonsense stories... I'm afraid that while you may think that you are a good father, you are in fact lazy for just giving your daughter the "easier" story.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Rufus,

      Alas, poor wyrick, I knew him Rufus: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

      He couldn't tell which he fancied more:
      Chimp / Bonobo? or
      Bonobo / Chimp?
      To be or not to be his prime mate.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Athy

      What the fuck is a "prime mate" monkey? Some male monkey's favorite wife?

      August 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
  7. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog: (THIS IS NOT SPAM. IT IS TOPIC-RELATED INFORMATION THAT EVERYONE SHOUJLD BE AWARE WITH RESPECT TO YOUR OWN EVOLUTION)

    Are you part Neanderthal? Read below. (this is no joke)

    Besides the dinosaurs and other fossils in our evolutionary process:

    You might be part Neaderthal and for $99 actually find out:

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
    https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

    " 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."
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    August 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • justmetoo

      I'm NOT in!

      August 30, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
  8. EvolutionIsALie

    Evolution doesn't exist...there is just a list of animals Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Atheism, self center ism has no place among human but animals.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Gravity doesn't exist either – it just Chuck Norris smashing things together with his mind.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • EvolutionIsALie

      Haha facepalm, that's a good one.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • sbp

      Hindu doesn't hindu, it's hindu Chuck Norris hinduing hinduingly.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • derp

      "Gravity doesn't exist either"

      There is no such thing as gravity, it is intelligent falling.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
  9. Truth be Sold

    Page just timed out, completely lost my Jesus Chicken... Sign CNN ... i know there's a lot of comments here but you asked for it. Get your IT guys to upgrade your database engines cuz this blog lag is so fail.

    August 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • .o.

      wow. you're not kidding. and i'm getting a little tingly now seeing the girth on that page no. link thing "down there".

      September 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
  10. justmetoo

    ArthurP,
    Can you advise what you do for a living? I just want to know how it is relevant that you have know if your fellow employees are creationists.

    August 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  11. Chad

    Actually, quite funny that when faced with the infinitesimally small probabilities as sociated with life originating from non living matter, and genetic mutation/natural selection being able to produce a fossil record reflecting stasis and rapid change, atheists always resort to hiding behind one of three nonsense claims:

    1. It might be fantastically remote, but the odds dont matter now anyway because after all it happened. (the classic "begging the question" fallacy, as sumes that a purely naturalistic process is the ONLY way that "it happened"; completely ignoring the other possible reasons that "it happened")

    2. There is no point talking about "infinitesimally small probabilities" since we cant possibly know all of the possible outcomes and therefor cant calculate it, so lets just call it possible as the default (self evidently nonsense).

    3. The infinitesimally small probabilities doesnt matter, if we have infinite time, every possible thing that could happen will happen, so there you go, it's possible. (this is a new form of nonsense from my good friend Really-O.. and of course is nonsense since we dont have infinite time, and the "every possible thing that could happen will happen" only works with infinite time, any amount of time smaller than infinite, no matter how large, will not work – ie produce every possible outcome.)

    August 30, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      No scientist claim to know how life began. We may figure it out one day but as of right now it remains a mystery.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Ohh Chad are you going to turn into a repost troll like "atheism isn't healthy"?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      The fossil record demostrates clearly that evolution has operated on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. That is why I accept evolution.

      Maybe there was a deity who put it all in motion. As soon as there is evidence for that, then I'll accept that as well. I don't really know what your list about probabilities has to do with these very simple concepts.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • sbp

      Thanks for the strawman arguments. In any event, how does a Bible thumper criticize a "begging the question" fallacy, when your faith is nothing but. Everything written in the Bible is 100% the word of God because it says so in the Bible.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "when faced with the infinitesimally small probabilities" Chad prefers to throw away any critical thinking in liu of "Magic!!"

      Chad will refute this and claim his God is not "Magic" but just reallity that happens to break all the known laws of the universe just like magic can, but it's not magic, because the word magic makes him sound so silly. But he knows in his heart of hearts, that nothing else can explain everything away like his Great Magician in the Sky can. Does not this box look solid on all sides? And yet my beautiful assistant shall disapear from within "Poof!!" Does not this ring appear to be soild? And yet, Poof! I have entwined another seemingly solid ring to it, Ta Da!!...Does not the earth contain evidence of billions of years and yet the bible timeline claims only a few thousand? Poof! No!! Magic did it! Does not our own DNA and the fosil record show not only a much longer lineage but also shared structures with many other living creatures showing a common ancestor? Poof! No! Magic did it!

      I understand if you "feel" so strongly bout this Chad, that you want to believe in God anyway, but that doesn't mean you should confuse your feeling for thinking, as they are two separate things. Truth and facts have zero to do with your religion, so why do you keep trying to reconcile the two?

      August 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      What "infinitesimally small probabilities"?
      Please cite your source, preferably peer-reviewed.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @hawaiiguest,

      no I don't think Chad wants to borrow @Evangelical Christian's TrollCo.® TRACT-O-MATIC™ pastoral post paster. He dodges and weaves but he's not a troll.

      Chad is always keen to refute the 'small but finte' probablity requirement for abiogenesis. It's his thing. I'm the same way about the non-existence of God in the Const'tution of the United States, so I kind of get it.

      If you don't want to debate abiogenesis with Chad, then follow the advice of the ChadWatch.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Chad

      actually, I forgot there is also a fourth one..

      amended as follows:
      ======
      1. It might be fantastically remote, but the odds dont matter now anyway because after all it happened. (the classic "begging the question" fallacy, as sumes that a purely naturalistic process is the ONLY way that "it happened"; completely ignoring the other possible reasons that "it happened")

      2. There is no point talking about "infinitesimally small probabilities" since we cant possibly know all of the possible outcomes and therefor cant calculate it, so lets just call it possible as the default (self evidently nonsense).

      3. The infinitesimally small probabilities doesnt matter, if we have infinite time, every possible thing that could happen will happen, so there you go, it's possible. (this is a new form of nonsense from my good friend Really-O.. and of course is nonsense since we dont have infinite time, and the "every possible thing that could happen will happen" only works with infinite time, any amount of time smaller than infinite, no matter how large, will not work – ie produce every possible outcome.)

      4. infinitesimally small probabilities dont matter because improbable things, even fantastically improbable things, happen all the time, and that at no level of improbability (even 0) is an event impossible (this is an utterly fallacious argument as illustrated by the following simple example: suppose I deal 2 cards from a standard deck, the resulting hand has a probability of 1/52 x 1/51 = 0.000377074. Very small probability!! that proves it, just imagine if I deal 10 cards, how wildly improbable would that be.
      well, the distinction is between any hand, and a specific hand.
      the probability of any hand is 1
      the probability of a specific hand is remote.

      that's the problem with this fourth type of fallacious reasoning, one cant merely say "well, the remote probability is irrelevant because wildly improbable things happen every day, it is a gross missapplication.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @I'm not a GOPer

      I just wanted to poke at Chad with his current argument of the month. I'm wondering what's going to be next.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • niknak

      I know what is going to be next Hawaii, that god exists because he says so.
      That is how he came to believe in god in the first place.
      His old man told him god exists, just before beating the shi_t out of him for questioning that.
      That is how is works in fundie households.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      Ok, so how does adding, "Big magic sky daddy and spellzzzzz" change the probabilities you take such issue with?

      August 30, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, I'm willing to put "God did it" on my ordered list, ranked from highest to lowest in probability, of ways that life and ultimately human life might have come into being. I've put "life originated from non-living matter without intervention by an intelligent agent" on the list already with a note that the probability is infinitesimally small but non-zero. Where should I put "God did it"?

      August 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Chad

      It is not impossible – it would violate no law of physics – for all of the molecules in the room you are sitting in right not to, as a result of random collisions, move over to the side of the room in which you are not sitting. But dont worry; it is more likely that an honest shuffling of a mixed deck of cards will result in the cards being arranged numerically by suit as when newly purchased. The odds of the air molecules moving to one side of the room are so low that you would have to wait longer than the age of the universe before you are likely to see this occur"

      good example of that kind of nonsense thought in the real world.. Hiding behind "it's not impossible" is hardly a rational response.

      August 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "I'm willing to put "God did it" on my ordered list, ranked from highest to lowest in probability, of ways that life and ultimately human life might have come into being. I've put "life originated from non-living matter without intervention by an intelligent agent" on the list already with a note that the probability is infinitesimally small but non-zero. Where should I put "God did it"?"

      =>if there are two options, God did it and God didnt do it, the probability that God did it is 1 – (the probability that God didnt do it).
      since we know "that the probability that God didnt do it" is infinitesimally small, the probability that God did it approaches 1.

      August 30, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Not quite right Chad. I hope your reasoning is not along the lines of:

      An intelligent agent was not involved: probability -> 0;
      An intelligent agent was involved: probability -> 1;
      God is an intelligent agent
      God was involved

      August 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Chad

      I'm fine with that breakdown. I have always studiously attempted to avoid making the claim "we know an external enti ty did it, so there you go, God did it".

      All knowing that an an external enti ty had to have triggered something proves, is that an an external enti ty triggered it. It does not make a claim as to the identi ty of the external ent ity.

      An intelligent agent was not involved: probability -> 0;
      An intelligent agent was involved: probability -> 1;

      August 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • JerryN

      @Chad
      When I was 11 I played a game of Risk with my cousin and he managed to roll a 6 twelve times in a row. My mother once got all thirteen diamonds in a Bridge hand. When I was 23 I hit a baseball clear across a ball field and right into one of the pipes holding up the score board. That pipe was maybe a half inch greater in diameter than the ball and was the only one missing its cap. You can't tell me that fantastically improbable things can't happen because I've seen them happen.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I'm glad to hear that, Chad. I was worried for a moment that you meant something else. Now, can we place "God did it" on my list?

      August 30, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Ben

      >Chad ...That's some crazy math you pulled out of your behind. Where'd you get those probabilities?

      August 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @Ben "That's some crazy math you pulled out of your behind. Where'd you get those probabilities?
      =>start here: http://www.statistics101.net/

      =======
      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "I'm glad to hear that, Chad. I was worried for a moment that you meant something else. Now, can we place "God did it" on my list?"

      An intelligent agent was not involved: probability -> 0;
      An intelligent agent was involved: probability -> 1;

      P(God) = 1 – P(Sum of all possible other intelligent agent)

      so, what are the other possible intelligent agents? Subtract that from 1 and there you go.

      August 30, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Chad

      You never really answered my question. Why is it so difficult for you to wrap your mind around a very unlikely possibility, but you are perfectly fine with the supernatural occurring on earth even though there has been no proven supernatural event to have occurred? Where is the disconnect?

      Furthermore, do you think that if I shuffled a deck of cards a bunch of times, do you think it's possible to shuffle them randomly back into the original order they came in? If it were to happen, would you disbelieve it because the odds were so low?

      August 30, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "Why is it so difficult for you to wrap your mind around a very unlikely possibility, but you are perfectly fine with the supernatural occurring on earth even though there has been no proven supernatural event to have occurred? Where is the disconnect?"
      @Chad "Nothing "supernatural"?
      Well, for one thing, every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event.

      supernatural of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
      since the origin of the universe was the "result" of an enti ty external to our universe, that ent ity is by definition of the term outside the laws of our science.

      So, we all believe in the supernatural(a multiverse is supernatural as another example), Christians additionally believe in the God of Abraham as a supernatural ent ity.

      =======
      @Chuckles "Furthermore, do you think that if I shuffled a deck of cards a bunch of times, do you think it's possible to shuffle them randomly back into the original order they came in? If it were to happen, would you disbelieve it because the odds were so low?"
      @Chad "the odds of possibility are non-zero, but extraordinarily improbable. Obviously I would be justified in considering you a card shark if you did so.

      What are the odds of shuffling a deck of cards into the right order?
      It depends on how you shuffle them and the cards' order when you start. If you truly randomise the deck, the chances of the cards ending up in perfect order – spades, then hearts, diamonds and clubs – are around 1 in 10 to the power 68 (or 1 followed by 68 zeros). That's a huge number, roughly equal to the number of atoms in our galaxy.

      August 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • Kirk

      Chad
      There are over 100 named creator gods in world mythology, and a few other "agents" who aren't exactly gods. There's also the possibility that any actual creator is completely unknown to us.

      So, what does that do to your equation?

      August 31, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      I was trying to be po.lite as christians hate it when their god is refe.rred to as magical. However if you really want to par..se words.... fine. How can you believe in magical things happening like jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, god flying down killing thousands of children in egypt, or any other magical moment the bible dep.icts. That is all fine with you even though these events are classif.ied as impossible because they vio.late natural laws, but you have events that have the possibility of happening (say rolling a di.e 600 times and getting 2 every time, or shuffling a randomized deck into a perfect order) and that is just so improbable to you that it must be an impossible event.

      Now, I know what you're going to say, god is magical, he exists outside our universe, bla.h bl.ah bl.ah, but you only "know" this because then you can reconc.ile it with this world. What I'm really pointing out is that you've seen and presu.mably rolled a die before and furthermore you seen it land on 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 and different events. Since you've seen this and experienced it first hand, you can start to calcul.ate the odds of rolling a die and it landing on a specific number, in a row out of a certain number of tries. On the other hand, you have not met jesus christ in person nor have you ever experienced any magical event first hand (to be clear, "magical event" refers to an event that could not possibly happen, say you flying around or a person regrowing a limb etc...) and yet you can sw.allow the thought of jesus turning water into wine?

      Now that I've gone into incredible depth of what my question actually means, no more dive.rsions chad, explain to me where the disconnect is.

      (Also, I would appreciate it if you don't try and turn this back around on me again like you just tried. I understand that "believing" in the big bang can be a tough pill to sw.allow, but of course A) only a theory so I believe in it as far as the evidence takes me and B) the only belief I have is the explanation from the data given.)

      August 31, 2012 at 2:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, probability has been a non-starter for you. I don't know if you think of yourself as an apologist (in the sense of 1 Peter 3:15). If not, well, this is entertainment, I guess. If so, what are the fundamentals of your religion? What evidence is there for truth in any of it?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Really-O?

      Dishonest Things Chad PostsAlert!

      Until references are provided [and, given the statement is a universal (every cosmologist) a supporting reference from every cosmologist is required], this one definitely belongs in the Dishonest Things Chad Posts project:

      "...every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event."
      August 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      August 31, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Hello Really-O?

      I might accept that the origin of the Universe involved a supernatural event. First I'd want a good and useful definition for "supernatural". Using the term opens doors for Chad, who is able to work with multiple definitions of a term at the same time.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Really-O?

      Is anyone besides me unclear on the intent of Chad's posts in this thread? Seriously what is the focus of his rambles? The origin of the universe? The origin of life? Evolution? The article in question is regarding evolution, and I have some reasonable responses addressing Chad's ignorance of probability theory (not for Chad's edification – because he's lost – but just so no one else is led astray by Chad's nonsense), but I don't know where to start because, for the life of me, I can't nail down what the hell Chad is talking about. Following Chad's arguments is like herding cats.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Really-O?

      Hey Tom, Tom, the Other One. How are you?

      I agree that a supernatural origin is one hypothesis. However, I'm not letting Chad off the hook for this ridiculous and false statement (I think even Chad knows this is a lie):

      "...every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event."

      August 31, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Really-O?

      As a matter of fact, Chad's assertion that, "...every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event" is not only untrue, it's also another one of Chad's lies as he is aware of the following from Stephen Hawking (I've posted it previously, with full citation, and Chad has responded):

      The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator". (emphasis mine)

      August 31, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It seems like all of Chad's claims are meant to be be little wedges looking for cracks in anything anyone has said about reality that might make a place for his God to hang on – even if only by its fingernails.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One –

      I imagine it's quite unsettling to witness your cherished supersti'tions disintegrate as science and reason continue their relentless assault.
      ...

      August 31, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Chad

      Really-O? "...The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator". (emphasis mine)..."

      =>an inherently self contradictory statement.
      where did the laws of physics come from? 🙂

      contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

      What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

      That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own – but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

      Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

      To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

      Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

      August 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Wow! I hope everyone sees that – now Chad is asserting that Stephen Hawking has posited a "self contradictory statement" with regard to the origin of the universe. I'm sure the press will be beating a path to Chad's door for interviews.

      Chad's frantic flailing leads me to believe he has either become desperate or he has simply lost his mind.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad- You probably need to dive into the philosophy of alternate possible worlds to get an idea of something more basic than physical laws. Here's this:

      http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dekker/essays/logic.pdf

      August 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and the copy & paste support (unattributed, of course – more plagiarism from The Chad) for Chad's wild assertion is John Lennox (from a Daily Mail – yes, the tabloid – article...Oh, Lord!) – a Christian apologist, philosopher, and mathematician (no credentials in physics, please notice) who has been thoroughly trounced in several debates available on youtube.

      I smell desperation.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad- I was looking for something on impossible worlds. I did find this:

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impossible-worlds/

      August 31, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Chad

      again, "The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator""

      that whole "something can indeed come from nothing" is predicated on a definition of "nothing" that has laws, virtual particles..

      very disingenuous..

      Really-O, since you've challenged it, I'm forced to rub your nose in it one more time.. Here is Krauss getting slammed on this very issue by Craig.

      from Krauss-Craig debate:
      Krauss: "The actual first person to talk about the fact that the universe had to begin at a finite time in a singularity is Stephen Hawking, who made some singularity theorems with Roger Penrose. But the interesting thing is Stephen Hawking has also argued, as, in fact, we now know, given quantum gravity, that universes can spontaneously appear. In fact, one of the things about quantum mechanics is, nothing—not only can nothing become something, nothing always becomes something. Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in quantum mechanics. And if you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, you can show that it’s possible that space and time themselves can come into existence when nothing existed before"

      Craig: "He says, “But it can come into being out of nothingness because nothing is unstable.” This is the grossly misleading use of “nothingness” for describing the quantum vacuum, which is empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a rich, physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure. If a religious person were to so seriously misrepresent a scientific theory as this, he would be accused of deliberate distortion and abuse of science, and, I think, rightly so! What the quantum vacuum is is a roiling sea of energy. It is not nothing. As Dr. Krauss himself has said, “By ‘nothing,’ I don’t mean nothing. . . . Nothing isn’t nothing anymore in physics.”7 Empty space is not empty. “Nothing is really a bubbling, boiling brew of virtual particles.”

      Krauss: " O.K., we don’t understand the beginning of the universe. We don’t understand if the universe had a cause. That is a fascinating possibility. By the way, [points to PowerPoint slide] there’s the picture of the vacuum that Dr. Craig so adequately described that I talked about. It’s not the nothing that I’m going to talk about in a second; it’s one version of nothing

      August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Really-O?

      William Lane Craig is a philosopher and Christian apologist, not a physicist. He is, without a doubt, eloquent – and this is precisely why he is invited to participate in so many debates. However, Craig couldn't slam Lawrence Krauss with regard to questions of physics even if Krauss allowed Craig to hold him over his head. And, yes, I've seen the debate in question (Craig's approach is all style and equivocation).

      Appeals to authority are only valid when the authority to which on appeals actually is an authority. Neither Craig nor Lennox have any authority in physics, whereas Hawking and Krauss undoubtedly have the chops.

      I still smell desperation...and ignorance.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...I think you have something on your nose there, Chad. Hahahahahaha!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Really-O?

      In case anyone is interested, here are three excellent videos debunking William Lane Craig. There are also several websites that do the same.

      "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug"
      "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jXu8vIlAoA&feature=relmfu"
      "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OGEC4UK770&feature=relmfu"

      August 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Oh, Chad is still on "come into being" and "the universe had a cause". I do admire Krauss for admitting that "We don’t understand if the universe had a cause."

      Hawking's thoughts on reality are interesting. I recall he was saying that different versions of reality may appear to us through different valid ways of interpreting observations. Model-dependent realism: all we can know about reality is a model we can construct of it. There may be different consistent and apparently valid models for which we can have no basis for preferring one. We may have to live with a multiplicity of realities.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Chuckles

      I'm reposting this because Chad either A) didn't see it or B) there were too many tough questions to squirm out of so he decided to ignore it. I'm hoping for A)

      I was trying to be po.lite as christians hate it when their god is refe.rred to as magical. However if you really want to par..se words.... fine. How can you believe in magical things happening like jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, god flying down killing thousands of children in egypt, or any other magical moment the bible dep.icts. That is all fine with you even though these events are classif.ied as impossible because they vio.late natural laws, but you have events that have the possibility of happening (say rolling a di.e 600 times and getting 2 every time, or shuffling a randomized deck into a perfect order) and that is just so improbable to you that it must be an impossible event.

      Now, I know what you're going to say, god is magical, he exists outside our universe, bla.h bl.ah bl.ah, but you only "know" this because then you can reconc.ile it with this world. What I'm really pointing out is that you've seen and presu.mably rolled a die before and furthermore you seen it land on 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 and different events. Since you've seen this and experienced it first hand, you can start to calcul.ate the odds of rolling a die and it landing on a specific number, in a row out of a certain number of tries. On the other hand, you have not met jesus christ in person nor have you ever experienced any magical event first hand (to be clear, "magical event" refers to an event that could not possibly happen, say you flying around or a person regrowing a limb etc...) and yet you can sw.allow the thought of jesus turning water into wine?

      Now that I've gone into incredible depth of what my question actually means, no more dive.rsions chad, explain to me where the disconnect is.

      (Also, I would appreciate it if you don't try and turn this back around on me again like you just tried. I understand that "believing" in the big bang can be a tough pill to sw.allow, but of course A) only a theory so I believe in it as far as the evidence takes me and B) the only belief I have is the explanation from the data given.)

      August 31, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      More than 24 hours and counting since Chad uttered this lie:

      "Well, for one thing, every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event."

      Stephen Hawking won't tell you the origin of our universe was a supernatural event. Any bets on whether or not Chad will man-up and admit his lie? ...

      August 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles –

      Don't be surprised if Chad doesn't respond to your post as it would take some time, effort, and thought. He's busy being this bog's theist-little-Dutch-boy, running around sticking his finger in the dy'ke of his supersti'tion each time it springs another leak.

      Cheers

      August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Chuckles

      PS

      I'm also confused with how Krauss was "slammed" by craig in that little conversation snippet Chad posted. Is it because Krauss right admitted that since we don't know anything about pre big bang and there are fascinating possibilities? Or is it that even in "nothing" there is something and since that dismantles Chad and Craig's arguments, they rely soley on the unprovable time before the big bang to actually be nothing so god can step in and create something? It's sort of clever if you think about it, instead of going for the "god of the gaps" method, they wait for something to be declared as impossible to answer and then jump there as proof of god because they can safely sit in the in-between not being able to prove or disprove something. It's still incredibly disingenuous and dishonest but a non-starter because we won't really ever be able to explain what conditions were like pre big bang (other than, if Turok and Steinhardt's theory is correct, that we are only 1 of many iterations of a continually expanding and contracting universe)

      August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Chad

      The only way for the origin of the universe to have NOT been supernatural, is for the universe to have created itself.
      which
      Hawking is NOT saying

      what Hawking IS saying, is that our universe had as it's "origin", an environment (external to our universe) which "was" a sea of virtual particles where physical laws such as gravity did not exist.
      as such, that environment is supernatural, not being part of our existing natural universe.

      get it?

      probably not.. read it a couple of times...

      August 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, ghouls, goblins or guns

      But Hawking does say that no god is/was required.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @0G-No gods, ghosts, ghouls, goblins or guns "But Hawking does say that no god is/was required."

      I guess you missed the definition of "supernatural"

      supernatural of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

      August 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      What Hawking is saying Chad, is that "the laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator." Which, by extension, means our universe was not created by a supernatural event, which means, Chad that your statement -"Well, for one thing, every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event." is false. It is also a lie because you know at least one cosmologist does not assert that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event.

      Get it? Most likely not, but I'm sure everyone else does. When all else fails, Chad, just keep denying , avoiding, and obfuscating.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Chad

      You're slipping. Seriously, the best you got is that the universe had to start in some supernatural way and so you take the broadest definition of the term and insert your own idea that it was the god of abraham because that's as supernatural as anything else?

      You still have yet to explain to me the disconnect between the ideas. I'm waiting........

      August 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @0G-No gods, ghosts, ghouls, goblins or guns –

      Hawking also states that the laws of physics can explain the universe which, if correct, precludes a supernatural explanation as the laws of physics are descriptive of natural phenomena. Don't let Chad's BS fool you.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Really-O

      Careful, Chad is using the term "supernatural" in the broadest sense possible, namely that something outside of nature occurred to begin the universe, which is technically true insofar as nature didn't exist so everything that occurred pre big bang was "supernatural". The dishonesty here is subtle, but Chad is using that term as a jumping point to include his very specific version of the supernatural in it because they share the same word, sort of like the transitive property: the universe had no nature, then something happened and there was nature so the event is classified as supernatural. The god of the bible is supernatural, thus the event to start the universe was the god of the bible.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles –

      I'm still waiting for Chad to admit to this lie – "Well, for one thing, every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event."

      27 hours and counting...

      August 31, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles –

      Perhaps your right – Chad often falls back on equivocation when his feet are held to the fire. Either way, his assertion regarding cosmologists universally positing "supernatural" explanations is false, dishonest, and a lie.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles –

      "your" = "you're"...getting ahead of myself and not taking time to proof.

      Cheers

      August 31, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "Chad is using the term "supernatural" in the broadest sense possible, namely that something outside of nature occurred to begin the universe, " Chuckles is on to Chad.

      Chad is still holding on to his absolute requirements that the Universe had a cause, that it "began", that "created" in some sense of the word applies. Here's a prediction for Chadwatch: soon he will get around to the Kalām cosmological argument.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One –

      I wonder how long it will be before Chad busts-out this little gem of ridiculous nonsense again:

      "...everything we know points directly to the God of Abraham as the creator.."

      That one slays me!

      August 31, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...well, once again Chad is the guest of honor at a blanket party.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Chad

      Perhaps this will help you understand.. from:
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/27/bill-nye-slams-creationism/comment-page-153/#comments

      ========
      @ Tom, Tom, the Other One Not quite right Chad. I hope your reasoning is not along the lines of:
      An intelligent agent was not involved: probability -> 0;
      An intelligent agent was involved: probability -> 1;
      God is an intelligent agent
      God was involved

      ======
      @Chad
      I'm fine with that breakdown. I have always studiously attempted to avoid making the claim "we know an external enti ty did it, so there you go, God did it".

      All knowing that an an external enti ty had to have triggered something proves, is that an an external enti ty triggered it. It does not make a claim as to the identi ty of the external ent ity.

      An intelligent agent was not involved: probability -> 0;
      An intelligent agent was involved: probability -> 1;

      August 31, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "Chad is still holding on to his absolute requirements that the Universe had a cause, that it "began", that "created" in some sense of the word applies. Here's a prediction for Chadwatch: soon he will get around to the Kalām cosmological argument."

      =>"that the universe began" is not in question, right? see big bang
      =>"that the beginning had a trigger" is not in question, right? unless you are either claiming that our universe is infinite in the past, or that it was created out of nothing, by nothing

      right?

      August 31, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      I'll keep posting this until you answer my question. Where is your disconnect between not believing in highly improbable events but being able to believe in magical events?

      Secondly, @Tom Tom the Other One has made a very solid point, what does "beginning" or "created" mean in this context? The universe we live in at the present came from the rapid expansion from a singularity, but when was the singularity it "created"? Since we only know what happened nanoseconds after the great expansion and it's impossible to study what happened previous to that, what does "create" mean in the context that the singularity might have always been there and so it needed no creation? Would you start calling this singularity god because it shares some attributes as the one you've made up? Most definitions are pretty rock solid, but when you start to traverse the waters of the big bang and pre big bang environments, those definitions get tossed out the window. Can "beginning" exist when there is no such thing as time? Can a trigger? Since we don't know the rules of pre big bang conditions, who are you, or me or anyone else to dictate what must have occurred during that time? I will concede in the most broadest sense of the word that a supernatural event did occur which we call the big bang or the great expansion, meaning that it occurred outside the laws of our natural universe, only because those had not been created yet, however it's unfair and, what's that word i"m looking for.... oh right, it's unfair and DISHONEST to equate the event to your supernatural god.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad- "right?"

      Tom, Tom, the Other One- "Well, no."

      August 31, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Chad

      notice you didnt say "how" it wasnt "right" 😉

      =>"that the universe began" is not in question, right? see big bang
      =>"that the beginning had a trigger" is not in question, right? unless you are either claiming that our universe is infinite in the past, or that it was created out of nothing, by nothing

      those are facts..

      August 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And now here's the big question, Chard: can you prove that your god was the "trigger"?

      August 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad- "'that the beginning had a trigger' is not in question, right?"

      Do you want to go over "The Universe is uncaused" again?

      Chad- "that the universe began" is not in question, right?

      Pay attention to what happens near the singularity you've been referring to: the curvature of spacetime is unbounded. This means a path through spacetime cannot be traced that has an endpoint at the singularity. I would have to be able to trace such paths to define a beginning in spacetime. Most people agree that strange things happen when the radius of curvature reaches the Planck scale – maybe there's a way out for you there, Chad.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "Do you want to go over "The Universe is uncaused" again?"
      @Chad "you mean where you say "well, since time came into existence, then there can be no cause, because cause requires time, so it's pointless to talk about it? you mean that lame nonsense?

      sorry 🙂
      you lost that one.. remember?

      Every cosmologist there is quite comfortable using "cause", or "trigger" or "agent" when referring to the origin of our universe, you dont get a pass because it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that their must be an external trigger.

      sorry 🙂

      ======
      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "Pay attention to what happens near the singularity you've been referring to: the curvature of spacetime is unbounded. This means a path through spacetime cannot be traced that has an endpoint at the singularity. I would have to be able to trace such paths to define a beginning in spacetime."
      @Chad "sigh..
      you still don't get it?
      what you are describing is the origin of time at the singularity ..

      The reason EVERY cosmologist debates the "cause" of the universe, is because it has a beginning.

      an universe infinite in the past(one that had no beginning) would obviously be embraced by atheists. The reason no one talks about it
      is
      it's not what the data indicates.

      right?

      you are embracing irrationality.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Chard sez: "You're embracing irrationality."

      And that's different from what YOU'RE embracing, Chard, exactly how?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Chad

      Kind of an interesting feat of mental gymnastics that someone could talk about the age of the universe.. then declare that the universe had no beginning (and would therefor be ageless)

      go figure..

      August 31, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad's frustrated.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...Still waiting for Chad to admit to this lie – "Well, for one thing, every cosmologist will tell you that the origin of our universe was a supernatural event."

      48 hours and counting...

      September 1, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Chad

      supernatural " of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

      The ONLY way that the origin of the universe ISNT a supernatural event is for it to have either
      A. created itself
      B. be eternal in the past.

      since neither is correct, it has a supernatural trigger and is therfor a supernatural event.

      right?

      September 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • midwest rail

      "The ONLY way that the origin of the universe ISNT a supernatural event is for it to have either
      A. created itself
      B. be eternal in the past."
      False assumption. Merely because we do not know does not automatically mean a supernatural cause.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • midwest rail

      "The ONLY way that the origin of the universe ISNT a supernatural event is for it to have either
      A. created itself
      B. be eternal in the past."
      False a-ssumption. Merely because we do not know does not automatically mean a supernatural cause.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • midwest rail

      And my apologies for the double post.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Chad

      Whatever agent created our universe, was external to it, so therefore supernatural (by definition)

      September 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
  12. 633music

    I find it very interesting that evolution cannot be discussed without talking about the Bible.
    You do not need the Bible to see that evolution is a silly little fairytale that requires a great deal of faith and credulity to swallow.
    Anger at religion does not mean we got here by evolution..
    Get a new doctrine, this one is broken.

    August 30, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Another fractally wrong post from one who doesn't know the first thing about science.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      I have no issues discussing evolution, or any other scientific theory, without using the bible. Not sure what your hang up is.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • 633music

      I am in great company here then.
      Evolution is not science, it is a religion, rife with its own angry crusaders, much like their brothers from those other religions...

      August 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Huebert

      @633

      Can you specify any of your problems with the theory of evolution?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Ok I'm calling complete poe on 633. I'm choosing to think that someone cannot be this stupid, because it'll just sink my opinion of humanity even lower.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • 633music

      Been there done that.
      Massive oversimplification of some many extremely complex mechanisms and organic processes.
      And here are the answers:
      "Oh, that just happened, you must not have been educated".
      Why? "Cause' it just did"

      August 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • 633music

      @hawaiiguest Typical.
      What have you ever written, made, invented that was original?
      Yet, your ilk go around saying how easy it is for the most complex things to become operable and animated all by themselves.
      Credulity at its worst.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Huebert

      @633

      "Massive oversimplification of some many extremely complex mechanisms and organic processes"
      Such as?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • 633music

      Tell me HOW EXACTLY, the human body is what it is.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • 633music

      @Huebert See the above.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Athy

      Folks, I think 633music is just jerking our chains to get a reaction. Nobody could be that fucking dense and still be able to write halfway cogent sentences. Maybe he/she is really that stupid, though. Either way it's a waste of time to try to explain anything to her/him.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Evolution doesn't require faith to accept. Faith is what you need for concepts for which there is no evidence.

      The only thing acceptance of evolution requires is the ability to read.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • 633music

      @Athy There you go, that is what I am used to.
      Believe in Jesus or burn in hell.
      Ask questions and you are stupid, uneducated.
      What church do you go to?
      The religion that is evolution has its own crusaders ready to fight the holy war.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Huebert

      @633

      That question is largely beyond my knowledge. If you want an in depth answer I would suggest searching "morphological history of the human body" or "evolution of human anatomy". All I can tell you is that our present physical form is the most successful form, able to produce the most offspring, in the hom.osapien family.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Wow 633, either you're just really commited to the troll, or you're just horribly, horribly stupid. Evolution a religion? That's like saying a computer screen is a religion, although one could probably make a better case for a computer screen than evolution being a religion.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • 633music

      @hawaiiguest
      Exactly what preachers say to me when I question the validity of their trinity doctrine.
      I have been thrown out of church's.
      Notice not one answer to my question...
      The computer screen?
      The maker can explain EXACTLY how it works, just amazing..
      Evolution, well, no exact answers for anything...
      Thanks reverend.
      Your devoted troll.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • Athy

      I've never gone to any church except for a few weddings and baptisms. I recognized early on how ridiculous religions were. Groveling on my knees in front of some altar just didn't make sense to me. For some it takes a little longer to see the light, like their early 20s or thereabouts. Others wakeup later. Some, like you, probably never will.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • niknak

      This clown is just trying to be funny.
      He most likely is a fundie, but thinks he can poke fun at evolution with his over the top schtick.
      Or unless someone can be that stupid.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  13. hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

    hindu, ignorant atheism, or pig ism, self center ism, denial of truth absolute,self proclamation of being truth absolute is not of human, but borrowed from animals, atheism is just not hind, an insult to human intellectualism but way of hindu's, ignorant s, having looks of human but brain of a hindu god, monkey.Darwin was one of hindu's, ignorant from list of hindu's denires of truth absolute of hind, dark ages, hinduism stupidity of hindu ignorant evolution is not some thing of new age, but fundamental belief of hinduism, racism with a new rapper to hind, fool humanity.

    August 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • sbp

      I think what I find most interesting in the schizophasia demonstrated by Hindu is the way he uses the word "hindu" as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb and pronoun.

      Hinduish Hindus, hinduingly hinduing.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Athy

      We're being thoroughly "hinduized".

      August 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  14. IslandAtheist

    "The Future of the Creationism and Evolution Controversy" – Dr. Eugenie Scott – TAM 2012

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h4xK2bNWto&w=640&h=360]

    August 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      This will help explain the atheists:
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUFUujSNpEU&w=640&h=360]

      August 31, 2012 at 12:33 am |
  15. hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

    hindu, ignorant atheism, or pig ism, self center ism, denial of truth absolute,self proclamation of being truth absolute is not of human, but borrowed from animals, atheism is just not hind, an insult to human intellectualism but way of hindu's, ignorant s, having looks of human but brain of a hindu god, monkey.

    August 30, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  16. Bev

    even Darwin revoked his Theory of Evolution before he died and Bill Nye is too foolish to know that. As a "creationist" I will continue to believe my Bible, and when I get to heaven I won't care how God the Father created it, but rather be thankful that He did and that every word in the Bible is true and that is that. You can believe it or not, but the fact that you DONT believe it doesn't make it any less true.
    Explain this ONE little thing BILL – why don't we see half formed man-apes walking among us today if that's the way evolution does it...hmmmmm?

    August 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Good grief...

      August 30, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Explain this ONE little thing BILL – why don't we see half formed man-apes walking among us today if that's the way evolution does it...hmmmmm?"

      Because that's not how evolution works. And the whole death bed denial is a fabrication, not that it would invalidate decades and hundreds of thousands of independent and peer-reviewed studies. If Newton, on his death bed, would have denied that gravity was real, would that make it true?

      You failed fifth grade science, didn't you?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • wayne

      "even Darwin revoked his Theory of Evolution before he died and Bill Nye is too foolish to know that. "

      Source?

      "Explain this ONE little thing BILL – why don't we see half formed man-apes walking among us today if that's the way evolution does it...hmmmmm?"

      Humans ARE apes. Just like eagles and hawks are birds and lions and tigers are cats. You are bascially asking to see a place halfway between indiana and the united states.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • wayne

      Hey Bev, I guess next you will want to see a half german shepard half dog? What about a half man half mammal?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • donna

      Darwin didn't "revoke" anything and even if he had, it wouldn't have any impact on the reality that natural selection is a factually occurring process. We don't need Darwin's approval to observe reality.

      And people are apes. So that should do it for you.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Darwin was one of hindu's, ignorant from line of hindu's denires of truth absolute of hind, dark ages, hinduism stupidity of hindu ignorant evolution is not some thing of new age, but fundamental belief of hinduism, racism with a new rapper to hind, fool humanity.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @wayne

      "You are bascially asking to see a place halfway between indiana and the united states."

      LOVE IT!

      @hinduism

      Does it make you feel good to be not only a troll, but an incoherent moron as well?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Bev,

      Why are some people born with little tails? Evolution would say that it is a remnent from our ancestors which would make perfect sense in line with evolution.

      How do you answer this with creation?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Evonix

      Leave science and clear thought to those who are capable of understanding it.
      Disbelieving evolution is the same thing as disbelieving toothpaste or obesity.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • donna

      Evonix, that would be fine if these people weren't voting. There's a realistic need to educate voters about things like rational thought and evaluating evidence.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Truth

      "Why are some people born with little tails?"

      Obviously it's a small remnant of demon blood from the Nephilim, if let to grow on it's own it will form a spade tipped end and turn red and you will have the urge to grow a goatee... right?

      Either that or their parents must not be paying to the Church hard enough, er, i mean praying, praying to the Church...

      August 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Truth

      I thought the children of Nephalim were just really realy big, like goliath or some weird crap like that.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Ken

      Bev, looks like those who are criticizing you (and ultimately our Creator) are blinded by the promises of science. Science can only prove micro-evolution (i.e., German Shepherd dog mating with a labrador = mutt), it doesn't prove macro-evolution (dog specie over time becomes another specie through natural selection or mutation). All mutations we know of today show degenerative outcomes – leaving the specimen weakened to the point of bare survival, let alone pass on its genetics.... Where are the transitional species? Shouldn't there be millions of species in transition today, yet there are less than a few thousand or less. That's because they did not evolve from something else. Ever seen a Rolex watch? How intricate is that watch? Very. It took a creator to create that watch. Well, what about a human body? Don't you think it's a million times more complex than a watch? Do you really believe that it was created out of randomness and natural selection???? How can an evolutionist believe for one second that the human body, in all its complexity, evolved from some other specie over time and out of randomness???
      Hold tight to your faith Bev because God will reward you not only in the life to come but also in this life. The reward I'm talking about is not money or materialistic, it is a deep sense of joy and peace and confidence that death is not the end, but the beginning of an eternal reality with God in Heaven. It really takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in evolutionism. The world will one day pass away, and when that day comes, it will be too late for people to realize that God, revealed to us in his word (the Bible) and through his son (Jesus Christ), and through his creation, created everything, including the free will of man to rebel against such a loving and forgiving God.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Ken,

      Get thyself to a science journal (or at least a high school biology class). Inter-species evolution is not only easily observable, it is necessary to modern medicine. If you think that such medicine is an insult to your chosen diety, I'd recommend against using vaccines or modern anti-bacterial medication.

      Wow.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • justmetoo

      Hey ken, don’t leave like the others. Please stick around and debate with us.

      If you believe in creationism then how do you explain carbon dating?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • NutGrinder

      lol This type of lack of education is the problem.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Ken

      There is no micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution. Stop listening to moronic apologists who have no idea how to do anything but lie (i.e. Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, people like that).

      August 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • NutGrinder

      Prayer Changes Things!!!

      August 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • justmetoo

      Also Ken, I’m a Christian. Do you feel that I am sinning by believing in the big bang and evolution?

      August 30, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Looks like Ken is just a post and run loser. People who have to run all the time and are unable to defend their position are just plain useless.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Athy

      Wow, Bev! What a shame. How could you ever allow yourself to be so thoroughly biblewashed? You've intellectually crippled yourself for the rest of your life. But, looking on the bright side, you'll probably never become aware of it.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • niknak

      Good, and the next time you get really sick just pray on your bible cause we better not catch you going to a doctor to use science to heal you, Bev.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Lisa

      Bev
      Because things like centaurs (half man, half horse), mermaids (half woman, half fish), and angels (half man, half bird) only seem to exist in myth.

      August 30, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
  17. Cq

    Question for creationists. If God had actually created all life, and suffering only entered the world with Adam's sin, why did he create predators with claws and teeth clearly designed to rip flesh causing pain and suffering? Pain and suffering must have been part of the plan all along then, right?

    August 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • 633music

      Excellent question.
      Another?
      Why would any of them come to life?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      The claws were for digging up roots to eat and the teeth were for breaking through the tough shells of nuts.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Cq

      Honey Badger Dont Care
      Anteaters, who do dig through the earth, don't have claws like carnivores; and squirrels, who do eat nuts don't have teeth like them either. So, no, that explanation doesn't cut it. It also doesn't explain the need for camouflage, stingers, poison, high speed and a host of other animal features that only make sense in the predator/prey dynamic.

      I read once in American Fascists a creationist try to explain away the teeth of T-Rex as being best suited for eating pumpkins prior to the Fall. It's really an amazing read, I highly recommend it.

      August 30, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Cq

      633music
      You're trying to deflect the question.

      August 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
  18. Agnostic Atheism is Healthy for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    School has begun, and now more than ever, we have to think about young, impressionable minds. Time to make sure we are building strong minds.

    It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and let's them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, are just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago; and that other things, like god, we really don't know a damn thing about.

    Atheists have strong minds, and don't run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, disserving society).

    So instead of praying to make-believe people, get a good cup of tea and go on and sit down and collect your damn thoughts. My goodness.

    mama kindless

    August 30, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • donna

      Atheism has nothing to do with religion. It refers ONLY to a belief about god and nothing else. So it doesn't make sense to say that they should be atheistic about religion but not god.

      Also, agnostic just means that you know you can't prove or disprove existence. People can be agnostic atheists and agnostic deists. "Agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  19. Sammy

    In the most recent scientific literacy survey the US managed to come in 14th place. Sad!

    August 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Athy

      Well, with 46% of us believing in creation, it's surprising we're not in last place.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Ben

      The people in last place don't have many schools, or don't send their girls there. With the popularity of home schooling we're headed that way.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:20 am |
  20. SeanK

    I wish my parents had taken me to see Bill Nye for an hour every Sunday morning instead of that pointless preacher just rehashing the same sermon over and over again till it loses all meaning.

    August 30, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Lisa

      You're lucky! Our pastor use to dedicate at least one Sunday every month to the importance of giving more alms to pay off the fancy new church none of us asked for in the first place.

      August 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
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 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
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.