home
RSS
August 31st, 2012
03:24 PM ET

soundoff (1,077 Responses)
  1. ScottCA

    August 31, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
  2. jcwags

    In Defense of Bill Nye and the Teaching of Evolution

    August 31, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
  3. Riggs

    Ya that is exactly what a creator would do, you idiot.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The earth is locally flat (well, considered as the surface of a spheroid it is). The important thing is to make your neighborhood as small as you can and never stray from your neighborhood. Then it will seem pretty flat if that's what you need.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  5. Michael Scott, regional manager

    In response to the argument that current observations of evolution do not prove historical evolution, I'd like also to point out that our modern observations of the sun existing do not prove that the sun existed when the earth was created by Jesus' smooth, smooth hands, and the everyday reality that the tide goes up and down does not validate the belief that the tide has ALWAYS gone up and down. It sure as hell didn't go down when Noah was floating around in his ark for exactly 40 days!

    sources: the Bible, my anus

    August 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Those are some of the dumbest remarks I have seen. A proper high school education should have taught you that the age of the sun is determinable.
      Not only can we trace evolution through history. But evolution is clearly visible in the lab with organisms that replicate fast enough to produce the many generations required.
      Your ignorance and ad vocation of things not based in fact is exactly what lead to so many people being killed on 9/11 and so many other deaths throughout history including those happening right now as I type...

      August 31, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Please tell me that your comment was satire. I don't want to believe there really are people that delusional.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
  6. ScottCA

    August 31, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
  7. just saying

    In contrast chad you are saying that a big daddy figure in the sky created us and keeps tabs on our sins. And he loves us so much that you will meet damnation at the end if you don't obey? What part of this is more plausible than the Big bang?

    August 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • Realist

      and he wants MONEY! – George Carlin

      August 31, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Chad

      God created us
      Keeps tabs on our sins
      Loves us so much that He sent His Son to die in our place, paying the price for our sins (knowing we could never do that)
      Loves us so much that He will honor our decision to be separate from Him for all eternity

      yes, actually, I find that infinitely more rational to believe than this entire universe came from nothing, by nothing.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Realist

      I work in the mental health field with children. I have heard of things happening to these children that is absolutely horrifying, things that I could never have imagined happening to anyone. Then, the child develops emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities that haunt them for the rest of their lives. Lives that sadly don't go anywhere, in most cases, but a adult group home or jail, where they are kept away from the rest of the public, for the safety of the public and the client. But he loves you!?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • Chad

      Realist: yes, He loves us

      This world we live in is not what was originally created. See Genesis 2

      August 31, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • hal 9000

      Unless there are two different enti'ties posting as "Chad" to this topic within the past thirty minutes, then I find the singular "Chad" ent'ity's posts conflicting:

      "people who believe utterly irrational notions get along quite fine.. After all, Nye believes that the entire universe was created out of nothing, but nothing. . "

      seems to conflict with a later post by "Chad":

      "I find that infinitely more rational to believe than this entire universe came from nothing, by nothing."

      with respect to rationality

      I find this interesting. Perhaps another ent'ity can provide more information.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad was driven off from apologetics earlier this evening. He's now simply declaring his faith. I think that's more becoming on him.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • hal 9000

      Thank you for your explanation, "Tom, Tom, the Other One". It will help me maintain a source ent'ity consistency value for the ent'ity "Chad".

      August 31, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      However – he's back on the 'Creationists Hit Back' thread and back on the divine origin – again!.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
  8. Chad

    Actually, people who believe utterly irrational notions get along quite fine..

    After all, Nye believes that the entire universe was created out of nothing, but nothing.
    and
    Life on earth just magically transformed from non-living matter.

    and, he seems to get along fine.. at least for now..

    August 31, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Are you REALLY this stupid, Chard?

      If so, you've surpassed even my lowest expectations.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Nice straw man.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      honestly, you've got to admit this post of yours is pretty lame.

      I know you can do better.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard is awfully adept at straw men.

      Hey,Chard, when are you going to stop wasting our time and provide proof that your god had anything to do with the Big Bang or evolution?

      You keep ejaculating, but you never really come, do you?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • Realist

      If you asked him what he believes, I am willing to bet he doesn't even use the word "magically". No one believes that everything was created "magically". And the Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing... and yes, life did transform from non-living material, its called carbon. Which is expelled from stars that went nova

      August 31, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I can see you're frustrated, Chad. Is there something you need to discuss? You've used the word "irrational" at least twice this evening. Maybe you'd like to talk about God?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
  9. Realist

    Creationism is a really dumb idea. If someone were to create this planet, universe, and all the life that exists, they wouldn't waste their time creating 350,000 different species of beetles, or 12,000 different species of roundworm, or the countless number of other species that have inhabited the earth. By the way, 99.9% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct, sounds like a good plan huh?

    August 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • asldkfj

      There isn't a plan. The diversity in species is due to the diversity in conditions on planet earth.

      September 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • takawalk

      lol hey a kid likes playing with clay some adults too. Maybe a creator likes to you know CREATE. Most things created serve or have served a purpose this is true in evolution isn't it? Don't mean for the tone of this to be sarcastic but simply a honest statement and a honest question.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
  10. sad for the use

    Mark you are completely distorting what science "is". It's tiresome to read creationists re-defining science and scientific terms you don't even understand. You are making distinctions that are completely made up.

    August 31, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  11. ScottCA

    August 31, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  12. mark

    Apparently everyone on this site needs educating. Bill Nye only has a degree in engineering. He is no scientist. Like most of the "scientific" people writing here, there is a difference between historical science and observable science. There is no proof of historical evolution since it is by definition non-experimental and non-proveable. Very few people have a problem with observational science. Christianity has no problem with observable, provable, science that follows scientific principals. Science must be repeatable to be acceptable. Since when is evolution (sic Historical) repeatable. There has been no observable evolution. There has been adaptation which is hugely different than evolution.
    Evolution is not proven. Hence the phrase: theory of evolution.

    August 31, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @mark,

      so "Science must be repeatable to be acceptable" but

      one time only miracles are unquestionably true, simply because they are in the big book of smiting? Do you not see the failure in your logic?

      Evolution is observable by the way. That's the whole reason Darwin wrote his book.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Sam

      I'm writing to discuss your clearly nonexistent understanding for engineering. Engineers and scientists take similar coursework for the most part. It obviously varies with each concentration. Also, with regards to "historical science", are you dismissing carbon dating as well?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Yet another hit and run I guess.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Realist

      You don't have a good understanding of science... There are literally millions of examples of evolution. And since when is believing the earth is only 10,000 years old historical science, or Johan living in a whale for 3 days... or Virgin birth... There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the existence of God. You listen to too much Kirk Cameron, "I've never seen a half crocodile, half duck before." That is ridiculous and it is not how evolution works.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Bill

      Whenever anyone says that evolution is neither observable nor provable they betray a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science – most of which is through direct gathering of evidence, not lab experiment. Astrophysicists don’t create stars in the lab, geologists don’t make rocks, physicists don’t create gravity, physicians don't create germs. Evidence from fossils, embryology, comparative anatomy, observed speciation events, and, recently, DNA proves evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Alternative “explanations” fail because they fail to answer three questions: what does the alternative theory predict? what does it explain? what evidence does its proponents offer? Remember, evidence must be vetted by peer review by professionals in the field.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • Realist

      Also, it is generally considered that evolution is as much of a theory as the earth being round.

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

      Evolution is observable in the lab with organisms that replicate fast enough to produce the many generations necessary to witness it.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Historical context

      Christianity has no problem with observable science you say? What about our dear friend Galileo? You know, that Italian guy who invented the telescope and discovered several of jupiter's moons? He was forced to recant his discoveries by the catholic church because they were inconsistent with the prevailing beliefs that all celestial objects orbited around the earth. This was important to Christianity because this established the levels mentioned in the bible, he'll below, earth, the firmament (what ancient sand people, yes much like those from tatoine, called space) and the kingdom of heaven beyond. This single case of many (try Copernicus Darwin etc.) establishes a precedent of denial of observable science by Christianity. Or do they not count because they the deniers in these cases were Catholics?

      September 1, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • Netizen_James

      Mark: You wrote: >There has been no observable evolution.<

      This statement is simply false. We have observed in the laboratory, the formation of new reproductivly-isolated species due entirely to selection pressure. This is not 'adaptation'. This is evolution. The formation of new species through random mutation and selection pressure is evolution. That's what it is. And it's been observed. And no, sorry, if you think 'historical' evolution doesn't have eight-million tons of evidence to support it, then you must also acknowledge that there is similarly no 'proof' that the figure you call Jesus Christ ever walked the earth at all. That's all based on 'historical' evidence – not 'repeatable'. There is, in fact, just about as much evidence that Hercules really existed.... Which isn't saying much.
      N_J

      September 1, 2012 at 2:44 am |
  13. mark

    Apparently everyone on this site needs educating. Bill Nye only has a degree in engineering. He is no scientist. Like most of the "scientific" people writing here, there is a difference between historical science and observable science. There is no proof of historical evolution since it is by definition non-experimental and non-proveable. Very few people have a problem with observational science. Christianity has no problem with observable, provable, science that follows scientific principals. Science must be repeatable to be acceptable. Since when is evolution (sic Historical) repeatable. There has been no observable evolution. There has been adaptation which is hugely different than evolution.

    August 31, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @mark,

      so where are your observable, repeatable miracles like spontaneous creation then?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • james

      How do you think house pets such as dogs came about? Its called artificial selection. Much like natural selection except it was set in motion by us. So it has been observed. We have also OBSERVED fossils over many generations. You might not of observed them personally but being ignorant is not an argument.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • chris hitchens

      Duh reproduction.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      james, sweetie? Not of? Really? Is that the best you can do?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • chris hitchens

      Tom tom knows these thing cause tom tom watches its favoooooorite science guy all the time.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TTTPS,

      I had the impression that @james was trying to refute @mark.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      GOPer, he may have been; that doesn't excuse stupidity.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • james

      Yeh that was against Mark :S

      August 31, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • james

      Oh ok not sure what is stupid about talking about artificial selection in an evolution debate, but ill leave you to it, with retorts like "oh sweetie" your going to win this thing. I think you should join the creationism side they could use you.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Look, jimmy, if you want to pose an argument, try to pretend you have a minimal education. It's "have" not "of". Figure it out.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "You might not of observed them"

      It's "You might not HAVE observed them."

      It's difficult to support the arguments of atheists when they look just as uneducated as fundies.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Jonathan Hatch

      "Not of " instead of "not have" is used frequently by English speakers. It's not as clear but come on, you can't tell me you didn't understand what he said.

      See what I did there? Come on? (laughs with glee)

      September 1, 2012 at 10:45 am |
  14. Paul

    Creationism and evolution are not opposites, and thus, they can both exist concurrently. You are all arguing about nothing. It seems as if you are purporting that Darwin's theory of evolution (which would conflict with creationism) is true, incorrect. Evolution (that is a proved fact) and his theory are not the same thing. Maybe we did start as a plasma puddle being struck by lightning, but no scientists support Darwin's complete theory. He did however point us in the right direction. I am not surprised at the misunderstanding since a well known science teacher such as Bill Nye is confused. I am not trying to say one side is right or wrong, just that you are not arguing about anything. Enjoy your debate.

    August 31, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Paul,

      46% of American selected this answer in a Gallup survey:

      "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

      Whatever you think "Creationism" is, the idea that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, is NOT consistent compatible or concurrent with evolution at ALL.

      See:
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx?version=print

      August 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • james

      No dont go! Educate us. What is his complete theory that will bring harmony to both sides?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Paul,

      perhaps you are one of the 32% who said:

      "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of lif, but God guided this process"

      which as you can see is clearly a different answer.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • takawalk

      I too am trying to understand the argument, why do folks that think the evolution theory is fact, think this means there is no God or intelligent designer?

      September 2, 2012 at 3:40 am |
    • Damocles

      @takawalk

      I have a question for you: Who created the creator?

      September 2, 2012 at 4:02 am |
    • takawalk

      Damocles I think it is to late to reply but it doesn't matter because truth is I don't know. That is something that I have asked myself. These guys who think there is no higher power except time must have part of the truth, God has always been so he must have came from nothing. Hey dude I believe in him because of personal reasons. But where he came from is above my pay grade. "seek and ye shall find" humble and in honesty. Worked for me, can't be denied now, but the rest of it how could any mere human understand. All humans are baby's, just how much can we learn in a century or ten century's for that matter. If your I.Q where 410 you might be smart enough to think you know (or stupid and arrogant enough)

      September 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Damocles

      @tak

      Nah, it's never too late to respond. I think what I have a problem with is this: it's fine if you believe in a deity, I have no bones about that, but there is no reason to elevate it to a posistion of 'creator of everything'.

      Doesn't matter what we learn, if there was absolute proof that no deities exsisted, would it turn you into a non-believer?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • takawalk

      Damocles wow didn't think I would be back here tonight, but I am glad I looked in. It is hard to answer that question. I have assumed that the experiences I had and at times renews itself has been with the "almighty" but I guess someone could be consorting with a "demon" and believe the same thing. I don't think however that it could ever be proved that deities don't exist tho I guess it could be some kinda of brain malfunction. Hell dude I don't know. I think not it is still a function of faith even if you truly believe that you know what you know and all that. I will say this however. I am grateful and fulfilled in spite of all the downsides to my inability to understand this God I think is real. Kinda just boils down to you choose what you believe. Any thing that can be "fact today" can be disproved tomorrow" I am not arrogant enough to think I am right I just think that I know I am. Anyhow rather take this short journey to death thinking I know the big man than to die and be nothing but dust ( my spirit not the body, it will be dust) It gives life meaning if you die and you become nothing then it don't matter anyway. So is that logic wrong?

      September 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • takawalk

      Damocles Wrote that to quick sorry for punctuation. Hope you can understand the thought tho

      September 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  15. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things,

    August 31, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It's prayer-bot again.

      Zuzu's teacher says: every time you feed a troll, God kills a puppy.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  16. krhodes

    "Flat Earth"...what a moron...i have an idea for Nye. Why doesn't he debate a Christian on the opposite side of the subject and lets see who wins that one. Maybe Bill should go back to teaching the kiddies...that is more his speed...let the grown-ups debate these ideas.

    August 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Nykamp

      He isn't claiming that the earth is flat... he's saying that teaching that the earth was created 10,000 years ago is exactly as if we decided to teach that the earth is flat. Which if you don't understand is ridiculous, as we have more than enough proof on both the fact that the earth is a sphere and that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. You should make sure you know what is going on before commenting

      August 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      krhodes: if he went back to "teaching the kiddies", honey, he'd be teaching YOU.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      krhodes..in order to debate i think you would need facts.. Christians would have none..and by christian I mean any religion.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • james

      and what exactly would you debate? You understand that a debate looks at both sides of the argument don't you? In order for you to win that debate you would have to place your fingers firmly in your ears and deny things like carbon dating and background radiation, two examples of things that WE CAN OBSERVE.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      krhodes isn't exactly up to snuff on that 'sciency stuff", you know, He's more into that "fantasy crap".

      August 31, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • james

      Well thats ok, I love fantasy, Lord of the Rings is awesome, but I don't think id ever go around worshiping Frodo.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Maybe Eru Ilúvatar ....

      No on second thoughts let's not press the metaphor.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love fantasy and sci-fy, too. I just don't confuse them with reality. Too bad the OP does.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Jbar

      Science is not won by "debate". It is won by producing verifiable, reproducible evidence that any other scientist can replicate, and by successfully disproving counter-arguments, again with evidence and experiment. If your argument has been disproved you don't get to keep on repeating it endlessly (like climate change skeptics constantly do). You don't get to hold up ancient books as testable, verifiable, replicatable evidence. Ancient books are NOT testable or replicatable and often not verifiable. There is no "fair" or "equal time". Science is not a democracy. There is no voting or show of hands, especially not by people who know next to nothing about the subject, like politicians and average Joe bloggers.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      YES! Bravo! Bravo! Bravissimo!!!

      August 31, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
  17. Scientist who is also a Christian

    @Just a John: If you count kings and priest who in ancient times claimed to be chosen by God, there are some terrible histories of "christians" acting poorly. BTW sounds like the need redemption. However, look at the Chinese and Russian governments that went to the official state "religion" of atheism. There were millions (way more than "christian" history) of people killed because of that. The abuse of power in the name of God is terrible, again, man's errors has nothing to do with whether their is a God or not.
    @ Sue "Belief actually disqualifies you as a scientist." Name one scientist who does not have belief, this is outrageous. Scientist should be unbiased while doing research, experiments, data, etc. Anyone who publishes a paper will always write their conclusions of the data collected. If we are talking an experiment of plant growth, then the data is fairly straight forward, but there are much more complicated conclusions than that. BTW, I was not born a Christian, I collected evidence, and made a decision. Disproving uninformed Christians who claim the world is flat is no evidence against God.

    August 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You can't even figure out how to make "scientist" plural!

      Are you really that dumb?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Just a John

      @Scientist
      Why is it that intelligent christians can't get beyond their own little beliefs, it is just not you that are bound by religion. Is religion a force for goog in the world? That was the topic of the Munk debate between Tony Blair and Chris Hitchens, not limited to just the christian religion. What it amounts to is my religion is great for humanity but those other sh*it heads have got it all wrong. Would atheism, not a religion, be any better in making the world a safer more peaceful place, probably not? The human condition of mans cruelty towards his fellow man may never change but the struggle and hatred of one religion to another is not helpimg. God figures are BS and you know it if you are a scientist as claimed.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • Sue

      Again,claimed Scientist who is also a Christian, belief does disqualify you as a scientist, and I contest your claim to be one.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Sue

      So what scientific discipline do you claim to work in? What is your claimed area of expertise, and what research are you actively involved in? Got any publications that you can cite?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hahhahh! I'll bet the doofus can't cite a thing that hasn't been ghost-written or completely fabricated.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • mitch

      @Scientist
      "I collected evidence then made a decision" Oh! please enlightened one please share this evidence, that we too may share in your epiphany, for the love of yawhew, ra, zeus and the rest of the guys and gals please share, HALLELUJAH

      August 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
    • There's 2 sides to everything

      Why is it that so many people can't see that the ideas of evolution and creationism can coexist without conflict? Personally, I don't see a problem. I'm taking biology this year and evolution is going to be THE main theme, and I 'm going into it with an open mind. There was once a prominent scientist who said, "Whether through evolution or creationism, I see God's hand in both." That's a bit of a paraphrase, but what it really means is God is all powerful (not to mention all loving). If he created the world in six creative periods (not days as we know them), molding and creating life the whole time, and resting on the 7th day, then perhaps that's the way it was. I believe the evidence of the Big Bang and the Earth being 4.5 billion years old because there is so much evidence. But that doesn't in any way shake my faith in God. Truthfully, the only thing it does is strengthen it.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @2 Sides,

      the issue here is that 46% of Americans chose this answer on the Gallup survey:

      "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

      Whatever you think "Creationism" is, the idea that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, is NOT consistent with what you just posted.

      Can you believe it – 46% ?

      Only 32% were willing to take a position similar to what I presume you believe:

      "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of lif, but God guided this process"

      August 31, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ooops – "life" obviously, not "lif"

      August 31, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Netizen_James

      SWIAAC: You wrote: > I was not born a Christian, I collected evidence, and made a decision.<

      What objective empirical evidence led you to believe that 'souls' exist? What objective empirical evidence even SUGGESTS that 'spirits or demons or angels or deities exist? Surely you don't think that mere FEELINGS qualify as any sort of 'evidence', do you?
      N_J

      September 1, 2012 at 2:53 am |
    • takawalk

      Ditto for two sides, Kinda thinking that someone who thinks creationism and evolution can co exist, is a third side so to speak

      September 2, 2012 at 3:47 am |
  18. ScottCA

    Welcome to the moral high ground Bill Nye. Those of us who are sane and can use logic and reason to examine the natural world and deduce what exists from predictive power are on your side.

    August 31, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      In other words, the educated and intelligent are on Bill's side, and the dimbulbs and dolts aren't.

      I agree.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • krhodes

      So Tom, then you are not on Nye's side?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
  19. fernace

    Does this t.itle really need a story? I think it says it all? Nothing more needs to be said: Creationism IS like teaching the earth is flat! It should be taught in Sunday school NOT Public school!!

    August 31, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  20. Creation

    Jesus,,,Dad, how did everything come to be?
    Joeseph...What do you mean son?
    Jesus...The earth, where did it come from?
    Joeseph...Well son, it is a long story. About 13.75 billion years ago everything was in a tiny hot and dense space, so hot and dense it exploded in a massive big bang in the form of pure energy. As the energy began cooling it began forming into miniscule strings that were vibrating at different frequencies. These strings began to attract each other and became sub atomic particles and the particles were influenced by an energy level expressed as the Higgs Boson that attracted the particles to form quarks and the quarks had different properties and joined together to create protons and led to mass, the building blocks of everything we have now.
    Jesus...I don't understand, how could that happen?
    Joeseph...Well neither does anybody else, but in the future men will understand the strong force, the weak force and some day gravity.
    Jesus...But dad the people think I am sort of messiah and keep worshiping me, what should I do.
    Joeseph...Nothing you can do, just go with the flow and enjoy it while it lasts.
    Jesus..Thanks dad, does that mean I am not the son of god.
    Joeseph..No son, you are not, I think it might be you are the son of the goat herder, your mom always liked him.
    (A parody, not anywhere near scientific)

    August 31, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      The goat herder bit seems plausible. Ricky Gervais put forward the hypothesis that Mary may have inserted a bit of 'spunky water' while washing in the Sea of Galilee.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.