home
RSS
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET

Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard war

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong."

The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis.

Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati.

The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas.

During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth."

“The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website.

"We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said.

"From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' "

Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards.

"They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' "

Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true."

"I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.

Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God.

Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack."

Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign.

IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000.

Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year.  He said another campaign was in the works for this year.

"They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it.

Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success.

"We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said.

The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community.

In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."

The museum responded with its own video. 

For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism.

In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

For as long as 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.

The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Christianity • Creationism • New York • Science

soundoff (8,748 Responses)
  1. Colin

    Come on my creationist friends, get with the 21st Century. Here are a few of the many, mnay reasons why we know Genesis (and indeed the rest of the bible) is sheer nonsense.

    Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

    Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    Now, a Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

    Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

    Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

    Look, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatorial witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

    Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

    Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

    October 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Tanker

      too long

      October 10, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
      • HotAirAce

        Perhaps, but what if there is more truth in the above than there is in The Babble? Which is better to pay attention too?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
      • LinCA

        @Tanker

        You said, "too long"
        You've identified a large part of the problem. Unless it fits in bite sized bumper sticker phrases, people can't be bothered to read it. It makes for a largely ignorant population.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • chaplain

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

      October 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
  2. bla

    If we make fun of these people who think a mythology book is more reliable than centuries of scientific research does that mean we're picking on retards?

    October 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Colin

      If you have ever engaged in serious debate with a creationist, you will pretty soon realize that, while not retarded, their knowledge of biology, history, geology and virtually every other scientific discipline is that of a third grader. And I mean that honestly, it is not a gratuti.tous insult.

      They truly are that ignorant.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
      • Athy

        I have noticed that myself. It makes for a very difficult argument. If you can't understand the basics, you'll never understand the conclusions. I usually just have to give up; I just don't have the patience.

        October 10, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
  3. geoff

    God is imaginary.

    October 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • God

      geoff is imaginary

      October 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • FrmrMrine

      I believe that you believe that wholeheartedly. But then one is left wondering why you are trolling CNN Belief Blog. Your atheism doesn't bother me. Why does my religion bother you?

      I don't know you, and this might not accurately describe you, but you remind me of the religious evangelists who constantly have to tell non-believers, or even fellow believers of different denominations, how absolutely wrong they are. What good does that do? I don't think that screaming "believe" at you will do much good. Why do you want to scream "don't believe" at me?

      October 10, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
      • Ted

        "why does my religion bother you?"

        It's because you get to vote, stupid. Internal beliefs have external consequences.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
        • FrmrMrine

          Well, that's interesting. So, because you assume that I'll vote differently than you, you are bothered by my beliefs. Well, so much for a democratic form of government. No one who believes something that you find inconceivable should be allowed to vote. Good to know.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
  4. Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

    I have to agree with David Simverman! This kind of blatant ignorance of scientific fact is just plain sad. Mankind seems to be doomed to eternal stupidity! The very idea that they are poisoning the gullible minds of children with this factually unsupported nonsense should be considered criminal! Meanwhile, the ignorant religious zealots wonder why we fight so hard to keep this type of fairy tale garbage OUT of our schools!

    October 10, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I believe it would be beneficial if they taught a comparative religion class in public schools. The intent would be to merely educate all about other schools of thought, but I suspect the outcome would be highly entertaining.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
  5. FrmrMrine

    Having accepted God into my life I know that using the works of the world to convince people that they are wrong will never work. God is my evangelist. Human evangelism is unproductive and possibly destructive. Either people hear God or they tune God out. But no billboard, leaflet or TV preaching will turn a Godless heart toward the One. And to think that it will is to presume that you speak for God. That is blasphemy. God is revealed. Humans cannot reveal God, they can only see and hear God.

    October 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      "Either people hear God or they tune God out"

      You forgot other possibilities with higher probability like : or there is no god and it is only in your head. Far more likely (from a probability standpoint) than yours.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
      • FrmrMrine

        No, you're wrong about that. I haven't forgotten other possibilities. But I'm speaking from my beliefs and my perspective. I'll let you speak for yourself.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
      • Richard Cranium

        Then your perspective is wrong. I do not hear god, and I do not tune him/her/it out. I tried for decades...nothing.
        Again....far more likely that god exists only in the minds and imagination of believers.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
      • Place Your Bets!

        The odds that there is a god/s are 1 in 2 or 50% (either there is or there is not.)

        If there is a god/s then the odds become 1 in however many different religions/deity concepts there are (so in example if there are 100 philosophies on deities, the odds would be 1 in 100.)

        The odds that non-living matter evolved into living matter that evolved into more complex living matter that evolved into stronger complex living matter that evolved into smarter complex living matter that evolved into humans is 1 in however amounts of matter in the Universe there are multiplied by however many different organisms have evolved in the sum total of time. (so if in example there are 1 googol of non-living matter particles in the Universe that odds are 1 in One Googol multiplied by however many organisms ever evolved.)

        October 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The odds that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth is 1 on 2. There is or there isn't.
          The odds that it is Bertrand Russell's teapot is 1 in however many teapots there have even been (maybe 1 in a million).
          Now the odds that certain leaves developed tasty tannins all on their own in order for those teapots to be used for their intended purpose is the total number of leaves that have ever existed times the number of molecules that could possibly combine to form tannin plus however H2O molecules need to be heated to an exact temperature to excite the tannins and make tea – maybe 1 in a googol googol's googol or 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
          Therefore, the Teapot exists.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
        • Colin

          Doc, even by your high standards, that was a good post.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Colin

          In case a subtlety in Doc's post was lost on you, it does not necessary follow from there being two possible outcomes that the liklihood is 50%/50%. If it were, then every NFL team would end the season 8-8

          October 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Place Your Bets

          Lol so basically what you are saying is you are confirming my belief. That the astronomical odds of a teapot orbitting Earth are about the same as deities existing and the probability that the tea makes tasty tannins is about as statistically probable as evolution.

          However, let's get down to debunking this Teapotist Myth!

          The odds that there are a teapot orbitting Earth are indeed 1 in 2 (there is or there isn't, and honestly with all the space debris in orbit, I am tending to be a believer that there is a teapot orbitting Earth, but anyways that's beside the point.)

          The next part you got wrong, but that's okay, atheists are stupid. The odds that it is Bertrad Russell's teapot are 1 in however many teapots there ever were indeed also. However this is where you went wrong. You must also multiply the variable of how many teapots there ever were by how many people have ever been named Bertrand Russell (so we'll say there's 1 million teapots that ever existed the odds are therefore 1 to 1 million multiplied by the variable of Bertrand Russells that have ever existed.)

          The tea having developped tasty tannins is figured by the total of tea leaves ever to have existed (probably lower than a googol, I used a googol to low-guess the particles in the Universe, but heck, let's say there have been a googol of tea leaves in all history because this is fun.) Then we have to multiply the number of tea leaves ever to have existed with the different degree in temperature to determine how to make the tannins form MULTIPLY THAT BY (what you forgot) the amount of possible taste they can yield. (So we have the odds that the tannins formed and are indeed tasty being 1 to 1 googol of tea leaves ever to exist multiplied by the amount of temperatures one can brew tea to make tannins multiplied again by the amount of tastiness.)

          Therefore we conclude that the teapot exists because no one ever doubted the tea pot's existence 🙂

          We can also conclude that the statistical probability of the teapot existing and being Bertrand Russell's teapot floating in orbit above Earth is more statistically probable than Doc's tea yielding tasty tannins.

          (Also for your cheerleader Colin. I realize I might be too subtle for you, so let me be blunt. Statistical probability is a joke lol.)

          October 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
  6. Amy

    This is almost embarrassing... It's really funny because I took a mythology class that talked about all kinds creation stories from all different types of religions. When you open your mind and read more than ONE book. It really puts things in perspective.

    October 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • FrmrMrine

      Interesting assumptions. Your judgements are just about as bad as the evangelists.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Unhealthy belief systems

      Agreed Amy. I like the one where Raven came down from Heaven, and opened up a giant clam shell that let all the Humans out. (less gore and torture, and possibly even a degree less stupidity than the Abrahamic myths)

      October 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
  7. Dale

    I am so glad that I have received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and know where I am going. Wow, I see so many rebellious people in here that are lost and angry and hateful towards God and His Word and Christians. I had a reprobate mind like many in here. But God transformed my mind by His Holy Spirit thorugh faith in Christ and now the truth is clear and lies are clear. Many in here seem to prefer lies to the truth. What a miserable way to live. Thank God for Jesus, who is The Truth!

    October 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Topher

      Amen!

      October 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
      • Rasil

        Clinically insane

        October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • Nigel

          Rasil Bathbone? The game is afoot... and you are spot on with your deduction!

          October 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      Indeed, you are right about one thing, many in here do prefer lies over truths.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Simon

      HAHA ! 😀 that was a funny thing to read.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • bla

      But did he save you 15% or more on car insurance?

      October 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      And what did your Lord and Saviour have to teach about the development of biological organisms?

      October 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
  8. Vote Up if you don't like this comment!

    Evolution may be popular with the atheists but it does not make it real!

    October 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • ME II

      Popularity does not make something real, agreed.

      Thankfully, unlike Christianity, evolution has plenty of real evidence to support it.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
      • Topher

        So you've found a change in kinds?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
        • Joey

          Yes countless, you just refuse to accept the truth. Everything single animal alive today evolved over billions of years from single celled organisms.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • Sherlock

          No, they don't have the evidence. They will point you to various websites , but when you analyze all that is stated by them, at the end of the day there is no evidence for Macro evolution.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          So you've come up with an explanation for human vestigial organs?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
        • Athy

          Topher, what about those blind cave-dwelling fish that still have shrunken eyes under their skin? And what about all those fish in the ocean that have reversed retinas for "radiation protection" when there is no radiation in the ocean? And the plants, like dandelions, that reproduce without the need for flowers or pollen, yet still have them? Can you explain why the "intelligent" designer made these organisms that way?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          Is an avalanche "Micro" or "Macro"? It may be this giant wall of snow that rushes down the mountain looking very macro. However, on closer examination one finds it is a build up of micro snowflakes over a long period of time building up to that sharp sound that sets off it's macro change.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • ME II

          What's a "kind"?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Yes countless, you just refuse to accept the truth. Everything single animal alive today evolved over billions of years from single celled organisms."

          How do you know that?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
        • Topher

          Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "So you've come up with an explanation for human vestigial organs?"

          What vestigial organs? Like the coccyx? Or the appendix?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
        • ME II

          "How do you know that?"

          There is plenty of evidence for evolution:
          Fossils like ambulocetus, tiktaalik, archeopteryx, etc.
          Biochemistry like Cytochrome-c etc.
          Genetics like Human Chromsome-2, ERVs, etc.
          Biogeography like marsupials, etc.
          experiments like Lenski's e.coli experiment.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
        • ME II

          "... It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well docu[]mented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. "
          ( http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html)

          October 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          "What's a "kind"?"

          From biology-online.org ... Kind: Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
        • Topher

          AE, is that me?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
        • Nah

          AE is "out there", but not as far out as Topher.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • ME II

          Well if you include "race", then sure.

          Race:
          "Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation."
          (wikipedia)

          "2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"
          (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race)

          Many different "races" have been produced, sure.

          Also, Biology-online.org is an interesting choice. Let's look at the rest of your quotation:

          "2. Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind. Come of so low a kind. Every kind of beasts, and of birds. (James III.7) She follows the law of her kind. (Wordsworth) Here to sow the seed of bread, That man and all the kinds be fed. (Emerson) "Bacteria becoming bacteria is not a change of kind" (Comfort)"

          ... as in Ray Comfort? What definition of any value would reference Ray Comfort, unless the entry were "Ray Comfort".

          ...ridiculous....

          October 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          "... as in Ray Comfort? What definition of any value would reference Ray Comfort, unless the entry were "Ray Comfort"."

          I have no idea if that's Ray Comfort or not. What does it matter? The statement is true. Bacteria "evolving" into bacteria is not evolution. It's natural selection at best. But not what Darwin was talking about. There is no demonstrable examples of a change in kinds. According to your worldview, you've had billions of years to let evolution produce this. Why hasn't it?

          October 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
        •  

          Godless Vagabond
          I see Topher has evaded Athy's questions again. Par for the course.

          October 10, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          As your definition showed, "kind" is a very va.gue definition. So no it is not correct, if bacteria evolve into a new "race" of bacteria. whatever that means, then it is a change of "kind", apparently. More importantly it is evolution regardless of whether a specific change results in a new "kind" or not.

          There are observable examples of evolution, as well as genetic evidence of the lineage of individual organisms. But ultimately, it takes a long time to accu.mulate the large scale changes that you are demanding and close observation over such time has not happened yet.

          October 10, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
        • ME II

          kind
          "4 a : a group united by common traits or interests :"
          (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind)

          By this definition, there is very solid evidence that e.coli bacteria in Lenski's long term experiment evolved into a new "kind" of bacteria that could readily metabolize citrate.

          October 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
      • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

        Yeah, let's take the modern-day example of antibiotic resistant bacteria. We have the before, the after, and can see the changes. Yes, creationists reject even that modern day evidence, where we have the gap! Ignoring that is just delusion.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
        • Topher

          Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance

          What did the antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve into?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • Joey

          I like how creationists have invented micro and macro evolution so they can believe that evolution occurs and not believe that evolution occurs all at the same time.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • ME II

          "What did the antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve into?"

          Christians? Naw, that can't be right.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
        • ME II

          p.s.
          We all evolved from some single-celled organism in the far past, but it likely was not antibiotic-resistant.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
        • Topher

          Answer: The bacteria evolved into ... (wait for it) ... bacteria.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
        • Joey

          Yes Topher, a different species of bacteria which is evolution. But you have to go with the "kinds" thing so that you can continue to ignore reality.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          That's natural selection, not evolution. You can complain you don't like the term "kinds" all you want, but without it, you don't have evolution.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
        • Joey

          Guess what Topher, natural selection is how evolution occurs. So it is evolution, even according to you.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, why don't your present you evidence for a young earth, and evolution being impossible. And don't just do your list where you list things like the moon. If you think the moon is evidence for a young earth then tells us why.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "That's natural selection, not evolution."

          It's both. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms of evolution.

          "You can complain you don't like the term 'kinds' all you want, but without it, you don't have evolution."

          I disagree, "kind" is not a classification used in science.

          October 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          "Answer: The bacteria evolved into ... (wait for it) ... bacteria."

          Hmm... just like man evolved from Great Apes into ... Great Apes (Hominidae?).

          October 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
      • FrmrMrine

        What a silly argument. Science is science, faith is faith. But there is nothing that says that an all powerful God can't choose whatever method God wishes. Not saying you have to believe, but why set up a false dichotomy? These things are not mutually exclusive.

        God gave us minds for a reason. I don't presume to know the intentions of God, and I'm perfectly willing to wait patiently until the day when all will be revealed, but I think it's fairly safe to assume that if God did not want us exploring creation we wouldn't have the capacity to do so.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

          You are right – they are not mutually exclusive, however, they both require proof (at least that's what we need), and that's where the Bible doesn't make it. All of us believe that where great claims are made, great evidence is required. The same lack of proof for ancient religions is the same problem that current religions face.

          October 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Steve

      Wow, that is exactly the sort of ignorance we laugh at.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
      • Charles

        Exactly, I also laugh at the Geocentric theory.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Rob

      👍

      October 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

      It is NOT "popularity" that makes evolution true; it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that makes it true! On the other hand it is nothing but "popularity" that keeps the fictional tales of the bible in circulation since there is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support ANY of the bible's popular myths! We know for a FACT that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old!

      October 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Ice caps may be melting at an alarming rate, nearly all of the scientific community agrees it's real, but that doesn't make global climate change real... it's the fact that global climate change is real which makes it real.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • bla

      Good thing the facts and observations we've made which prove it is are there then!

      Sooooo... How about some facts and observations about your cosmic Jewish zombie bringing people back from the dead? Or an invisible magic man in the sky creating dinosaurs and going, "Oh whoops, didn't mean to do that!" and killing them off or putting giant bones in the ground just to mess with us?

      October 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
  9. franklovesfl

    "15% believed in atheistic evolution" – Wow! After all the time and money they have spent making sure that atheists are the only voice in schools and that's the best they can do. No wonder they are so hateful and vile in their posts!

    October 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Max

      Go to a religious school that is not funded by taxpayers, and you can teach anything you want. Plus, you may want to read some of the posts that tell people they're going to hell on a regular basis is you want to read how "loving" some of these pseudo Christians are.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
      • Topher

        Why is it not loving to tell someone they are going to Hell if they are, but that they don't have to go there?

        Seems like it would be hate to just sit back and let you go there without warning you.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The god that sends people to hell based on whither they believe is not a loving god and would not be worthy of worship.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • EZ

          Topher,

          A Muslim might lovingly tell you that you are going to Jahannam for not fulfilling the 5 Pillars, with no more verified evidence for such a prediction than you have.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
        • Topher

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "The god that sends people to hell based on whither they believe is not a loving god and would not be worthy of worship."

          He doesn't need to send people to Hell for that. He doesn't have to go that far. He will send them there for lying, stealing, lusting, using blasphemy, disobeying parents, etc. But the same God would rather us not go to Hell. And thus provided a way out.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
        • ME II

          Because you are judging them to be "bad" (even if you are supposedly "just repeating what the Bible says", it is still your interpretation of the Bible)

          October 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Infinite punishment for finite crimes is also immoral Topher. I wouldn't treat my worst enemy that way. That makes me, and most people, more moral than your loving god.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          "Because you are judging them to be "bad""

          We are all bad. That includes me. In fact, no one deserves Hell more than me. But that doesn't change the fact we've all broken God's laws.

          "(even if you are supposedly "just repeating what the Bible says", it is still your interpretation of the Bible)"

          No.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
        • Topher

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Infinite punishment for finite crimes is also immoral Topher."

          No. And I'll tell you why. A finite crime would be like me punching you in the nose. It's between two people. But when the crime is against God, it is no longer finite. And thus not immoral. It IS moral to punish lawbreakers. And God is just to do so.

          "I wouldn't treat my worst enemy that way. That makes me, and most people, more moral than your loving god."

          You claim your own goodness, but you've sinned, too. And God says that our good works are as a filthy menstrual rag.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "But when the crime is against God, it is no longer finite. And thus not immoral."

          Topher,

          I don't believe your god is real, so we are back to punishing based on belief. If I believed I could be forgiven. But I don't so I will be punished according to your dogma. So when you said your god doesn't punish based on belief you were not being honest.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
        • sam stone

          fvck you and your warnings, coward

          October 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
      • Topher

        Max

        "Go to a religious school that is not funded by taxpayers, and you can teach anything you want."

        Also, if that few people believe in evolution, why are the taxpayers allowing it to be taught in public schools?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
        • ME II

          Because it is science, not faith/religion, i.e. it has a secular purpose.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • Topher

          It's not science. It's not testable or repeatable. And you've yet to display a change in kinds.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher, if evolution is not science, can you explain why there are so many scientific articles relating to evolution that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that become accepted within the scientific community? Can you point to a successful rebuttal, published in a reputable scientific journal, that successfully rebuts any major point of evolution? Can you explain how all the practical inventions and advancements based on evolutionary theory managed to come about if they are based on "not science"? And while we're chatting, did I miss your response to my list of topics I posted yesterday in response to your list of things that prove creationism?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
        • Topher

          HotAirAce

          "Topher, if evolution is not science, can you explain why there are so many scientific articles relating to evolution that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that become accepted within the scientific community?"

          So a group of people who believe in something get together with people who agree with them ... and that's proof? If I used that for my position I'd be thrown to the wolves. It has to do with a presupposition. The don't want God, and so to reject it, they have to find some answers. If it IS science, then it should be testable, repeatable and demonstrable. So far the case for it is bacteria became bacteria and dogs became dogs. That's not evolution.

          "Can you point to a successful rebuttal, published in a reputable scientific journal, that successfully rebuts any major point of evolution?"

          Certainly I could. But you'd reject them because they disagree with your worldview.

          "Can you explain how all the practical inventions and advancements based on evolutionary theory managed to come about if they are based on "not science"?"

          Like what?

          "And while we're chatting, did I miss your response to my list of topics I posted yesterday in response to your list of things that prove creationism?"

          I was in and out all day yesterday. I don't remember.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
        • Topher

          AE, is that me?

          October 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Nice tap dance routine topher...dodge and weave, dodge and weave.

          Try answering a question directly. Site specific data that refutes evolution, and I will show you exactly where they are wrong and more importantly , why.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher then can you explain the thousands of Christian scientists who also believe in Evolution? It is not like they don't want there to be a god. becuase they already believe in Jesus just like you.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Topher then can you explain the thousands of Christian scientists who also believe in Evolution? It is not like they don't want there to be a god. becuase they already believe in Jesus just like you."

          I don't know that there are any Christian scientists who believe in evolution. But let's say there are. They'd be calling God a liar, then you'd have to question whether they're really Christian.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
        • Topher

          Richard Cranium

          You atheists/evolutionists could shut up us Christians/Creationists real fast. All you have to do is show a change in kinds. Just one. That's all you'd need. But instead all you'll give me is ad hominem fallacies and someone will steal my name. Why? Because there aren't any changes of kinds.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
        • Joey

          To try and claim that you aren't a Christian if you acknowledge that evolution takes place is pretty absurd.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
        • Joey

          In fact the only people who don't acknowledge that evolution takes places are those with a literal reading of the bible, and AIG and places like start with the idea that the bible can never be wrong, and then claim to be doing science, which is laughable.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "To try and claim that you aren't a Christian if you acknowledge that evolution takes place is pretty absurd."

          Not absurd at all. God describes very specifically how He created man. It was on Day 6. Not over millions of years. And not from a common ancestor with apes. Christians hold that the Bible is the word of God. And if you belief in evolution, you're calling God a liar.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
        • HotAirAceb

          So Topher, it's only because of a centuries old, world-wide, anti-believer conspiracy, known as the very public scientific method, that evolution to achieve the status it has? And there must be another conspiracy that allows evolution to be taught in public schools but not creationism, despite the vat percentage of decision makers being believers?

          There is no one more invested in their delusions than you and your creationist brethren.

          Here's a post from the thread on page 8 that you bailed out of:

          HotAirAce

          Topher, google "Specific Creationist Arguments" and get back to us when have read the material by Matson and understand each point. I don't expect to hear from you. Oh, you might want to read the stuff at liesingenesis about which arguments creationists shouldn't use.

          October 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm

          Looking forward to your next set of excuses and non-answers, but not holding my breath 'cause as usual when you are backed into a corner, you take the coward's way out – you run away.

          October 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher
          "It's not science. It's not testable or repeatable. And you've yet to display a change in kinds."

          A change in "kind", whatever that is, is not necessary. Evolution is testable and repeatable.

          Look at the discovery of Tiktaalik. It was found because evolution predicted when the transition between fish and tetrapod happened and then geology (i.e. old earth geology) was used to determine where rock of that time period was exposed at the surface. And Voila! Tiktaalik (over simplified of course)
          (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html)

          Look at the long term e. coli study that docu.mented the evolution of a bacteria over, I think, ~30,000 generations.
          (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html)

          Look at Human Chromosome 2. Evolution predicted that a fusion of Chromosome was needed between our common ancestor with chimps and us. Then after investigation, what did they find? Extra telomeres and remnant centromeres, indicating a fusion of two chromosome. More over, they identified the corollary chromosomes in Chimpanzees, i.e. the un-fused versions.
          (http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf)

          October 10, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Run Topher! Run!!

          October 10, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
        • ME II

          Correction:
          "[Docu.menation of] a change in 'kind', whatever that is, is not necessary."

          Evolution is the change in "kind", at whatever level you want. But a fully docu.mented, direct observation, of change above the species or genus level in a population is not required to be as certain as science gets that evolution occurs. (Science does not claim absolute certainty)

          October 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
      • bla

        A "religious school" isn't a school. It's an indoctrination facility.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • ME II

      Evolution is not an Atheist concept it is a scientific theory.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
  10. Amy

    You ask me how I know he lives..HE lives within my heart. It is all about faith!

    October 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Alias

      your god is cholestrol. Revolutionary thinking right there.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
      • paco128

        whoever finds God finds life!! Look into it

        October 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
        • Which God?

          Paco, I looked under every rock and bush. Nope, didn't find the little sucker.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
      • bla

        Har!

        October 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Faith won't develop a new vaccine.
      Pharmaceutical biochemists directly applying the laws of evolutionary theory will.

      October 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
  11. Reverend Ambush

    Shouldn't that billboard read "To all our Athiest friends, and Jewish friends, and Muslim friends, and Hindu friends, and Shinto friends, and...?

    October 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • Jan

      why? they believe in a God......make some sense.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
      • ME II

        @Jan,
        Are you saying that AIG would consider them "right"?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
      • Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

        "why? they believe in a God"

        Not in YOUR God! You have obviously never read any other religious books, have you?

        Ignorance breeds more ignorance...

        October 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
      • bla

        Not your god though. Remember Zeus? Odin? Those are gods too, is that sign assuming they exist too?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      ... and Catholic friends – the Catholic church believes in evolution over creationism.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
  12. some guy

    Nothing good ever comes from extreme stances.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      Well, I would ask you. Is 1+1 = 2 and extreme stance, or is 1 + 1 = whatever I want, and extreme stance.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
  13. nogodomo

    Man came to be due to an accident of nature. There is no creator. There is no soul. There is no soul mate. There is no meaning of life. Your life has no meaning. There is no fate. Nothing was ever “meant to be”. There is nothing sacred. Your body is not sacred. When you’re dead, your body has no value, no meaning, no significance. It’s just rotting meat. You are no different from the meat in a BigMac. Your mother is no more special than the rodent that I ran over this morning. Your spouse is no more beautiful than the deer rotting after getting hit by a truck. Your dead grandmother is not watching over you. She’s compost. Remember, you are just an accident. A freak accident.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
  14. Stan

    This is great, this is comical, and I hope everyone goes home and finds those bible scriptures on those Christians signs. The bible creates more atheist that anything else.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Steve

      Exactly right. The best argument for not believing is to just read the bible. Any normal person will clearly see what nonsense it really is.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      How true. It was the immoralities and contradictions that showed me the light !!

      October 10, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • bla

      Too true. Once I started actually reading the bible thing I realized just what a vile, horrible being god is.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
  15. Jay

    I guess things like dinosaur bones were just put on Earth to fake history, even though there are actual Dinosaurs still alive today. Pop – Fake Earth History. lol Seriously how can you even talk to people who have a bumper sticker mentality like this? I'd be embarrassed to say such stupid things.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

      Oh yes, those dinosaur bones were faked and placed under millions of years of sediment, millions of years ago, by SATAN specifically to fool the good "god fearing" humans of the current millenium! LOL!!
      Hilarious!

      October 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
  16. God

    What is wrong with these "creationists"? Why on earth would they kept on using my name?

    I should've smite earth with my fist..

    October 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Webby

      * should've smote - or smitten (but that one has other connotations)

      Kudos for getting "should've" correct, though. "Should of" drives me up the wall.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • bla

      Forget the fist, use a sledgehammer.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  17. Matthew

    Creation is the truth. Evolution is simply a lame attempt by finite minds to comprehend a dateless past. However, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. It simply says, "In the beginng" but does not give an exact date.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Topher

      Exactly right.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Bong_Bong

      Bible: Best storybook ever.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Moore J

      Right!

      October 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      Yet another comical evolution of the religious in order to find a way to keep believing despite the evidence before their eyes. "Look, and you shall see!"

      October 10, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • EZ

      Matthew,

      On the contrary, creationism is simply a lame attempt by finite minds to comprehend a dateless past... finite minds of primitive Israeli tribesmen, and their fantasies and supersti.tions - as are all of the airy-fairy, rhapsodic flights of fancy of their writings, some of which were eventually compiled into your Bible.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Joey

      creationism is nothing but people ignoring reality in favor of a poorly written 2000 year old book.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Madtown

      It simply says, "In the beginng" but does not give an exact date.
      ------
      No kidding. The humans that wrote the bible weren't around when the earth formed, they couldn't include the date.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
      • Stan

        ...and you know this how?

        October 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • Madtown

          Logic Stanley, look up the definition.

          October 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
        • ME II

          @Stan,
          Seriously?

          By the Bible, which has man showing up on day 6, or by science which has man showing in year 4.5 billion +/-, either way man wasn't there, right?

          October 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
        • Matthew

          The Bible doesn't have man showing up on day 6. The Bible has Adam showing up on day 6 of God's renovation of the earth. The earth had become without form and void and had been covered with water. There was life on earth before the Adamic Creation. The Bible doesn't go into detail because the purpose of the Bible is to tell the fall and redemption of the Adamic Creation. Adam and Eve were told to replenish the earth. It's obvious that there's an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
        • Joey

          I guess all of this life that lived on Earth before Adam and Eve didn't need the sun to survive since god hadn't made it yet?

          October 10, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • ME II

      The past is not dateless, especially here on Earth. Several dating methods can be used to determine fairly accurate dates for many materials found in the geologic record.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Exactly wrong.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Steve

      So what flavor is the Koolaid?

      October 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • EZ

        Steve,

        Not sure exactly, but it coats their tongues with fairy dust particles.

        October 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • bla

      Which is the mark of lamer mind? One which continues to look for the answers even if they appear to be unobtainable, or the one which makes up an answer and never changes its mind when proven to be wrong?

      Should I get your wheelchair?

      October 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

      Even though there is not a single solitary shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous presumption AND entirely ignoring the MOUNTAIN of scientific data to the contrary, you gullible believers have to ignore an awful lot of FACTS to keep pretending that your myth is true!
      Each and every day, more and more scientific data disproving creationism keeps pilling up higher and higher while YOUR "stack" of supporting evidence is STILL empty and nonexistent! How sad.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
  18. Gail

    I believe in Creationism. I am not ashamed of it. I also believe that you cna believe in creationism and still be able to work in science. After all science is just the way that God makes everything work. Also, you can all have your beliefs and I can have mine. There is no reason for everyone to be so negative with each other nor is there any reason for everyone to be degrading someone else for the way they believe. If you don't believe in Gid that's your choice just as believing in Him is mine.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • Moore J

      I would be ashamed if I were an evolutionist!

      October 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      Well, you'll need to prove two things: first, that God exists, and second, that God created the universe.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Anders

      I guess its the choosing of what is true that is not really the same as what is actuall truth. "the Truth" does not care what you or I Think. It is a scientific fact.. I cannot choose what to Believe myself. I cannot disregard facts and Believe something else..

      I know some can and do. This is what I have a hard time understanding.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Maxwell's Demon

      The problem with your stance is that creationism flies in the face of the vast majority of the sciences.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
      • Topher

        Maxwell's Demon

        "The problem with your stance is that creationism flies in the face of the vast majority of the sciences."

        Which ones?

        October 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
        • Joey

          Geology, Biology, Chemistry, and Astronomy to name but a few.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Gail

      You said, "I believe in Creationism. I am not ashamed of it."
      Well, maybe you should be ashamed of it. It's a fairy tale.

      You said, "I also believe that you cna believe in creationism and still be able to work in science."
      Every lab needs janitorial services, but I doubt that's what you mean by working in science. To "work in science", as in doing actual scientific research, while believing in fairy tales, you have to compartmentalize. As soon as you mix the two, you cease doing science.

      If you believe in fairy tales, I would question your scientific work, even if it is unrelated to the origins of life or the universe. Believing in fairy tales is a symptom of an uncritical mind.

      You said, "After all science is just the way that God makes everything work."
      Only according to your fairy tale.

      You said, "Also, you can all have your beliefs and I can have mine."
      That is the beauty of this country. You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, and I am free to criticize it.

      You said, "There is no reason for everyone to be so negative with each other nor is there any reason for everyone to be degrading someone else for the way they believe."
      Yes there is. Beliefs in that nonsense is holding this country, and other parts of the world back.

      You said, "If you don't believe in Gid that's your choice just as believing in Him is mine."
      Like I said, you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want. If you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or even Gid, feel free. But, if you display your infantile beliefs here, expect to be ridiculed for them.

      October 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
      • a reasonable atheist

        hear, hear

        October 11, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • bostontola

      Gail,
      The root cause of your error is not creationism, its that you don't understand science. Saying science is how god makes the world work is wrong even if there were a god. Newton's laws are science, but they're not how the world works. Einstein's theories aren't either, they just describe it over a larger range of conditions. Your lack of understanding of what science is probably explains why you believe in creationism also. You can learn if you want.

      October 12, 2013 at 11:16 am |
  19. Tanker

    Even if there were a "divine" miracle that happened for everyone to see like Fatima, even if Jesus did heal all those people and people saw him resurrected, that wouldn't be scientific proof that God exists. Science is built on "verification through replication" of the experiment. Future peoples and scientists should be able to reproduce the results. We can't. Therefore, none of these things happened and God doesn't exist.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Perimeter of Ignorance

      I would be willing to accept this miracle : everyone on the planet has the same experience at the same time. I mean – identical.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
      • Spinner49

        Even then it would be suspect. Scientific reality lies outside human perception and is recordable through other means. Millions of people have similar simultaneous experiences every night. It's called mass media. But when you dig deeper, those guys on "Lost"? They were never really lost.

        October 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
      • Tanker

        Not me. Even if everyone on the plant witnessed this "one divine" event, it wouldn't be "reproducible" for future generations. This is part of the scientific method. Plain and simple science.

        October 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
        • Tanker

          Come to think of it, any "miracle" wouldn't be reproducible.

          October 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
        • Alias

          That does prove one thing- you don't understand science.
          Text book definitions in freshmen level classes are not the end-all answer to everything.

          October 10, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
        • Tanker

          The scientific method of "reproducibility" has been around a lot longer than me and you.

          October 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
  20. Bong_Bong

    Bible: Best storybook ever. 'nuff said.

    October 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Anders

      Not really... I read my kids alot more interesting stories.

      October 10, 2013 at 12:16 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
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.