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. liz

    The creationist are not taunting me if they want to believe some guy is floating around in the sky just waiting for the right time to come back so be call me when he gets here. LOL

    December 13, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
  2. Bill, NY

    I love the creationist museum somewhere in Texas where they have a dinosaur on Noah's Ark. Wonder how that worked out.

    December 13, 2013 at 11:15 am |
  3. Barnabas

    The evidence that God exists was revealed to mankind through Jesus Christ.

    December 13, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Silas

      Amen!

      December 13, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Piccolo

      And the proof of this is where? Muslims would say the same about Mohammed. How do you know which religion is correct?

      December 13, 2013 at 11:29 am |
      • Jericho

        Read the book-"Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus"

        December 13, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
        • DJ PsiPhi

          read another book based on a book written when people were still urinating on clothing to clean them, medical science was talking to magical beings for food and healing, scientists were executed when their findings contradicted religious beliefs, sounds legit.

          Maybe there will be a switch a roo soon. Your religious reign is coming to an end. More people are attending this new church. They go by many names, high school, college, university... their gospel is just as boring, but its 100x more useful.

          December 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • DJ PsiPhi

        Nobody will answer that question, its too mind blowing to question what has been drilled into your head by your abusive parents and community.

        I believe in Zeus, that dude would mess up any judy-christy god, because he is the god of gods. Taze him bro. Taze him.

        December 13, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
        • J-Pap

          Jesus couldn't launch lightning bolts. Jesus=fail.

          December 14, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
    • Renee

      Thank you!

      December 13, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
  4. shrimp

    Is it possible for the God of the Bible to not exist?

    December 13, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • Sean Murray

      Why do you ask this question?

      December 13, 2013 at 10:40 am |
      • shrimp

        I am asking for evidence. Why is it so hard for you to answer this simple question, I have been asking you for so long and you have been avoiding me. I hate non-answers. Go on prove to me that there is evidence. I have provided you with all the answers to your questions and your silence is deafening.

        December 13, 2013 at 10:43 am |
        • Teddy
          December 13, 2013 at 10:45 am |
        • are122

          Start by reading "The Mind of God" by physicist Paul Davie. Then if you are in to physics (and who isn't) read von Neumann, Wigner and Peierls writings. You will find most if not all physicists will never say there is no God.

          December 13, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • HotAirAce

          Do any of the scientists you mentioned provide any actual (objective, factual, independent, verifiable, repeatable, etc.) evidence for any god? Do they apply the scientific method to their religious beliefs? Or are they just a few examples of scientists who can compartmentalize their scientific work from their god delusions?

          December 13, 2013 at 11:38 am |
      • Piccolo

        He's asking the question because at least most atheists admit that they COULD be wrong and that they don't really know the answer because it is currently unknowable. Most would be willing to accept god, if he were proven to exist. The same cannot be said for most creationists. They are set in their ways, and cannot even admit that nobody REALLY knows the answer about god definitively. To them, it's impossible. I happily admit that I don't know right now due to our lack of science on the subject. If god exist, great. If not, I don't really care. Stubbornness in believing a certain faith, doesn't make it right. When you try to act egotistical and promote god as fact without even considering you may be wrong, it shows poor logic. That's the simple fact of the matter.

        December 13, 2013 at 11:36 am |
        • Science Works

          Research what Prof. Higgs says about that !

          December 13, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • DJ PsiPhi

      Why dont you read the bible and tell me the probability of all of these magical events happening but the most compelling evidence we have today comes in the form of waffles and toast images.

      not only have we found human remains dating 400+k years ago, im pretty sure you cant make the sun on the 4th day, as there would be no days prior, im still sure that there are not 4 corners of the earth and the earth is spherical... so it is pretty obvious whomever authored this book you speak of, was an idiot. Why would your god misinform you from the beginning? And if some parts of this book are wrong, how can you tell which are or which are not? Do you guess? Do you over look the stories where individuals sold their daughters into slavery and allowed them to be abused in the name of an angel? Murdering offspring to appease a god? Do you look at those events and say... well thats just what it was like back then? Or do you use your brain and say... holy crap.. people go pretty damn far to gain control over another's mind.

      It is not possible for the god described in the bible or koran to exist because it is clearly a work of fiction.

      December 13, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
  5. mick

    Beliefs do not need to be proven by all.

    December 13, 2013 at 10:22 am |
    • Piccolo

      No they don't, which is why they are called beliefs and not facts. If your worldview is based on pure faith, there's nothing wrong with it. The problem shows itself when folks promote it as absolute fact, when it's not even close to it, or refuse to acknowledge that since it is just faith, it COULD be wrong. Faith is faith. Science is science. They are almost polar opposites. It is dishonest to promote faith as fact, scientific fact as faith.

      December 13, 2013 at 11:42 am |
      • Street Epistemologist In Training

        Faith: Pretending to know things you don't.

        December 13, 2013 at 11:46 am |
  6. KenB

    There is no need to fight anymore. Both sides are right. God created the big bang, he created early humans and they did evolve. The Earth is millions of years old, etc. The new revelation to the planet explains everything.
    http://truthbook.com/urantia/evolution-and-history/physical-evolution

    December 13, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Yet another jesus/god cult. Nothing new here, move along. . .

      December 13, 2013 at 10:16 am |
  7. Dylan

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs&w=640&h=390]

    December 13, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • Zing

      What do you get from the embryo of a fruit fly?

      –A fruit fly!!!

      December 13, 2013 at 9:43 am |
      • Piccolo

        What do you get when thousands of generations of fruit flies are isolated into separate environments? Speciation. One group of fly is no longer able to breed with the other. This is proven speciation, and when tiny changes like that add up over millions of years, the changes are bigger. It's really not that complicated, but then again, you have to be honest about it when looking at the evidence, and your post pretty much shows you know nothing at all about how science works.

        December 13, 2013 at 11:54 am |
        • Zing

          It's really not that complicated when you use your imagination. 😉

          December 13, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Or when you refer to scientific facts and experiments.

          December 13, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Oh yeah, and god definitely has nothing to do with imagination at all!!! LOL

          December 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
  8. GOOD NEWS

    "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.

    Here is The Ultimate Evidence you are asking for, Mr. Silverman!

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
    UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES

    December 13, 2013 at 4:26 am |
    • Science Works

      Good news and PAUL what do you say ?

      Rapid Evolution of Novel Forms: Environmental Change Triggers Inborn Capacity for Adaptation

      Dec. 12, 2013 — In the classical view of evolution, species experience spontaneous genetic mutations that produce various novel traits - some helpful, some detrimental. Nature then selects for those most beneficial, passing them along to subsequent generations.

      "It's a very cool story in terms of the speed of evolution," says Nicolas Rohner, lead author of the Science paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Harvard Medical School Genetics Professor Clifford Tabin.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141938.htm

      December 13, 2013 at 6:55 am |
  9. Bender Bending Rodriguez

    Great discussion between astrophysicist and Catholic priest George Coyne and biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. As a religious individual I agree with nearly everything Father Coyne said.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3L15e2sNZsU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3L15e2sNZsU

    December 12, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
  10. Piccolo

    Why did got create Satan, knowing full well he'd end up becoming the devil and ruin his creation? For an all powerful guy, he sure has a roundabout way of accomplishing his goals.

    December 12, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • yea

      Satan is on a leash.

      December 12, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
      • Bones McCoy

        So basically he's god's pet? This god guy just gets better every day. Why go through this whole process of killing people and spreading evil to the world? He could have just not created it, and then coexisted with his creation peacefully forever. Instead, the guy writes a book about it and then vanishes off the face of the earth when man becomes more and more divided over which version of him is correct, leading to countless wars. Basically man has to get lucky and be born in the right location to be indoctrinated into the right faith and essentially guess right. How dumb is that?

        December 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
  11. Piltdown

    Those who don't believe in the "molecules to man" evolution lack imagination skills.

    December 12, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • Piccolo

      Those who believe that molecules to man is part of evolution need to read a biology book.

      December 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
      • Paul

        So you don't think that life came from non-life?

        December 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
        • redzoa

          Do you really expect others to answer your questions when you refuse to answer those addressed to yourself?

          1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?

          and;

          2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?

          December 12, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
        • redzoa

          What, pray tell, are you afraid of? OK, given your, for lack of a better word, cowardice in refusing to respond to these simple questions, I'll take your repeated silence as your concession that: 1) for all your arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the physical evidence, physical evidence really has no bearing on your position, i.e. an evidence-free faith-based position; and 2) you cannot even concede the possibility that you might be wrong, i.e. you would claim for yourself that same infallibility you claim for your preferred deity.

          You're like a juror who enters the jury box completely self-assured that your a priori position is correct and no evidence could possibly change your mind, so you'll simply reject it out-of-hand as flawed. This is the quintessential unreasonable doubt and betrays a complete lack of any integrity in discussing these issues.

          But as long as you don't actually make these concessions, then they aren't true, right? Right . . .

          December 12, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
        • lol??

          Don't have a cow, redzoa constrictor.

          December 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm |
        • Piccolo

          That's not what I said, Paul. I admit that I do not know the answer as far as origin of life goes. Can you admit that? I doubt your ego will let you, but it's the ONLY honest answer. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, since you cannot have genetic mutations without genes. That was my point. Many folks who know nothing about science equate the 2, but they are vastly different. Abiogenesis is the study of how basic building blocks (amino acids) form RNA, then eventually DNA. Evolution is the study of how genetic mutations and natural selection slowly change life over time. Without life, evolution doesn't exist.

          When you're talking about life from non life, it really depends on how you define life. Right now it's difficult to make that judgement. Is RNA alive, DNA? Viruses? Where is the cut off? There's still no set definition because there is quite a bit we still need to learn about it. Experiments have shown that amino acids can be formed from comet impacts and that amino acids can form certain parts of RNA in certain environments. That's a start, and it's way more than the current evidence for god.

          You still haven't answered my question as to why genetic mutations cannot add up on the longterm. I'm still confused why you feel this cannot happen.

          December 13, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
        • fred

          Piccolo
          Are you aware of any scientific study that looks anywhere other than the rabbit hole of evolution theory (the digging of which started 200 years ago) to explain divergent or convergent species?
          The reason I ask is that one of my reasons for questioning current theory is that I do not see other alternatives being even looked at outside of religion.

          December 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
        • Piccolo

          No peer reviewed science paper has ever pointed to god. The reason is because there isn't any evidence. You can't have a scientific study that isn't based on experiments and observations, and believe me, people have tried looking. In science you first form a hypothesis, which is basically an educated guess (usually based on other known phenomena). After you have the hypothesis, you try to either confirm it or falsify it via repeated observation and experimentation. If you confirm it, it becomes a theory. If you falsify it, it gets discarded and a new hypothesis must be formed. A hypothesis is essentially a work in progress (ie abiogenesis). Since no experiment exists that can confirm or falsify god, the concept does not graduate past hypothesis, and in fact I don't think it even qualifies as a hypothesis since it cannot be tested. Evolution is a theory, and is based on mountains of evidence. Nobody considers other possibilities because there's no evidence anywhere to suggest anything else, and evolution denial is like round earth denial. It has no basis in reality.

          December 13, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
        • fred

          Piccolo
          It is not that I deny evolution theory I just seemed we were only looking at possibilities that fit the pattern that was already established by Darwin in general. Supernatural creation does not lend itself to scientific method agreed, however how is it that no alternative to the current pathway is mentioned. What is to say science is so blinded by its own methods they cannot realize they are reverse engineering speciation in the same way China copies our chips. Science has supported their own versions of a "flat earth" many times over the years.

          Evolution could well just be acknowledging that certain molecules can only combine in certain ways under limiting conditions. Each species only contains a limited number of combinations and if exhausted under a given limiting condition can no longer adjust the existing limiting conditions. Humans may have come from the same core pull as primates but not the same core pool as frogs.
          We have a good grasp on how the chemicals bond but we know little about the core instruction set that governs combinations. We can clone Dolly but we cannot take human DNA and turn it into a frog. The instruction set is missing (core programing is corrupt)

          December 13, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
        • Piccolo

          " Each species only contains a limited number of combinations and if exhausted under a given limiting condition can no longer adjust the existing limiting conditions."

          Well the fact that life is so diverse today, is direct evidence that there isn't a limiting condition. Please explain what possible condition could limit a genetic mutation? Remember, it's a mutation, a complete change in genetic code. Why would a mutation be limited to anything? Now you have to ask why millions of direct DNA code changes cannot add up to become major change. Genetic mutations include additions, deletions, and neutral mutations that go unnoticed until they combine with others down the road. The simple fact of the matter is that based on our multiple methods of dating, we see change in genes that is consistent with the evolutionary process. If humans didn't share a common ancestor with chimps (and all other life on earth), then why did they suddenly emerge just a couple million years ago? Where did they come from? What, god waited 3 billion years before creating the first human and then did it out of scratch? The problem with that viewpoint is that thousands of genomes have been mapped, so we can tell many of the exact differences with our common ancestors to determine when the evolution takes place. It's not surprising that it matches the fossil record exactly as far as timelines go. What about mammals emerging in the late Triassic? Where did they come from?

          People that talk about interpreting the evidence differently very often ignore genetics completely. Darwin predicted evolution long before we even had microscopes to study cells, and almost everything he predict about it became true. See that's another requirement of scientific theories. They have to be able to make accurate predictions, and also there has to be a way to falsify it. For example, if evolution were false, the geological column would not be in perfect ascending order. There would be different types of creatures all over the strata. If you are looking for a creation process, that's where you'd find it, but that's not what we see. Even just one creature out of place could falsify evolution. Oddly enough we keep finding more and more evidence to confirm it and nothing that points away.

          Perhaps one day we will be able to genetically reverse engineer species, but you can't make up for millions of years of evolution by simply rearranging the current genetic code. You might be able to get something similar to humans, but why would you expect to be able to create a frog from human DNA? To do that you have to go in reverse order of evolution making millions of small changes before you finally regressed it back to a frog. Maybe one day, but you gotta give science time to do its thing. We are still just scratching the surface and what we can accomplish via genetics.

          I mean if you have a viable alternative theory to evolution, you are always welcome to start testing it, but right now nothing points to anything else. You can say "what if" until the cows come home, but in science, evidence talks.

          December 13, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
        • redzoa

          "The reason I ask is that one of my reasons for questioning current theory is that I do not see other alternatives being even looked at outside of religion."

          Every time a researcher goes into the field to search for fossils, or to survey some ecological relationship, or conducts a phylogenetic analysis, they are inherently inviting evidence which will contradict evolution. You should also consider that both scientists and scientific journals want nothing more than to uncover paradigm shifting evidence. This is how careers are launched and journals are sold. There's little incentive to only conform to current understanding. The reason evolution is the only theory being used to explain observations is because it is the only theory based on empirical physical and its record of successful prediction and validation is unrivaled within the entire modern scientific enterprise. As for the proposed alternatives, you're absolutely correct in that they are primarily religious and offer no testable hypotheses and no chance of falsifiability. Perhaps if the various ID/creationist groups invested more into developing actual research programs, rather than investing in PR and apologetics campaigns, we might have some legit alternatives to explore. But as you seem to suggest and as I'm certainly in agreement, we probably shouldn't hold our breath.

          December 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Guerin

      As someone famously once said, Evolution: Where reality ends and imagination begins!

      December 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        But no one famous I'll bet as it is totally untrue. No evidence for creationism, plenty for evolution.

        December 12, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Creationism: Becuase magic is more fun than fact.

        December 13, 2013 at 8:59 am |
        • Logical default

          ZING!!!

          December 13, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
  12. Logical Default

    I'm still waiting for any one of the evolution deniers to explain to me why small evolutionary changes cannot add up over millions of years. Most creations are no longer delusional enough to deny genetic mutations or natural selection. They have instead moved the goalposts to say, "Oh, changes only happen within a kind", or "we can prove micro but not macro evolution". Please answer the question. What prevents changes from adding up?

    December 12, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Paul

      Mutations are a loss of information or scrambled information. No new information is being added.

      December 12, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
      • redzoa

        See Duplication or Insertion mutations. See Lenski's E. coli or the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Paul has no understanding of the relevant science and worse yet, has no real interest in understanding. Cue Paul's creationist youtube or AIG/ICR link (again, without understanding the science) . . .

        December 12, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
        • Paul

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

          Just as I expected: Bateria becoming bacteria. Not the change needed to become something other than bacteria. It's just an adaptation.

          December 12, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
        • redzoa

          You stated, mutation cannot produce new information. I showed you that it can. You respond with a different argument, move the goal posts and claim victory. Does that really satisfy you?

          What if I told you that by your own admissions regarding the relative level of taxonomy relating to "kinds" the ability to utilize citrate moves the E.coli out of it's kind and into a new kind? Of course to appreciate this, you'd have to have some background in microbiology and molecular biology. Consider the number of Orders of bacteria and then realize that many of these Orders have multiple Families. In relative terms, bacteria are incredibly diverse. But to you, they're all just the "Bacteria 'Kind.'"

          December 12, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
        • redzoa

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bacteria_genera

          December 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm |
        • Paul

          I didn't move the goal posts. Maybe you should have asked what I meant instead of making assumptions.
          Did the bacteria produce anything other than bacteria? No, it only has the information to produce bacteria. Sure, they adapt, but they are still bacteria.
          Do you think that after milliions (or billions) of years, they'll become something other than bacteria?

          December 12, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Paul – You stated: "Mutations are a loss of information or scrambled information. No new information is being added."

          You were wrong, i.e. mutations can and do add information, or more appropriately, new functionality. When confronted by this error, what you "really" meant was that "kinds" reproduce within their "kinds." When it was pointed out to you that even under your "kinds" argument, Lenski's E. coli demonstrates an effective "kinds" level shift, you again retreat to the "but they're still just the bacteria kind" position, without addressing the point.

          Why on earth would I answer any question you pose when you refuse to answer questions? What difference does it make when you don't give a flip about evidence and believe yourself effectively infallible in perception and interpretation?

          Quid pro quo . . .

          December 12, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
        • Paul

          redzoa,
          Exactly. The bacteria are going to make all kinds of bacteria because the only information they have is how to make more bacteria. Sure, they can adapt, but they are still bacteria. You're just proving my point.

          December 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Paul – What your "proving" is that you really have no comprehension of the relative differences between bacteria and vertebrates with respect to inter- and intra-family diversity, i.e. did you not say "kinds" were equivalent to the family level? Go look at the link I posted above, and then click through to get an idea of the diversity of taxonomic hierarchies within bacteria (“bacteria kind” is like saying “vertebrate kind”). Again, I see you can't fathom the fact that you were actually wrong regarding the inability of mutation to create "information." I also see again, that you are unwilling to answer even the simplest questions I ask . . .

          If you want to know my answer to your question regarding whether or not bacteria can adapt into something else, my answer is look to the fossil record and the progressive ordering of forms, including a progression from individual communal bacteria to multi-cellular life (complete with replication of such events in real time: http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810).

          Quid pro quo. Having directly addressed your points and answered your question, I await your thoughtful and direct response to any of the questions I've asked you. Again, feel free to explain how this progressive ordering of the fossil record came about, or, alternatively explain the biological mechanism which precludes acc-umulation of adaptations into recognizable higher taxonomic diversity?

          (Don't worry about the evidence for evolution or God possibly not existing questions. I figure your repeated deafening silence has been a more than sufficient answer)

          December 13, 2013 at 12:15 am |
        • Logical default

          Paul, you didn't answer my question. What prevents the small mutations from adding up over time? Your first reply was a flat out lie, your second response was irrelevant to the question asked. Creationists do nothing but play dodge ball in their responses. Please answer the question directly, stop deflecting and please stop posting lies. If you don't understand how a particular field of science works, I can help explain it if you have a genuine interest in the knowledge, but it doesn't seem that way at all. Your only interest is denial of science.

          December 13, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
      • Science Works

        redoza

        ICR fred's favorite site !

        December 12, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
  13. 2 dangerous sections of America

    – New Atheists peddling under the guise of enlightenment and reason and science.

    – Christian Right peddling under the guise as a form of Christianity.

    December 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Chikkipop

      "New Atheists peddling" what?

      December 13, 2013 at 11:01 am |
  14. "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

    "Not to be mistaken for an atheist who merely uses the internet, an internet atheist is someone who is ubiquitous when it comes to websites or forum threads related to religion. They will often poke fun at religion and religious people, especially Christians and Muslims, but they have a sort of "search and refute" thing going on with Christians, whereas the Muslims usually only fall prey to internet atheists when they happen to come across them. Of course many internet atheists have the habit of searching for Muslims, too.

    They usually lack any sense of humor if jokes are made about them, but they find nothing wrong with being incredibly offensive to the point of being disgusting when making jokes about religious people. They also love to show off their knowledge about any subject they might know something about.

    They will often make snobby attempts to annoy or insult religious people, sometimes calling them names, but will immediately condemn someone who bothers atheists, h**mos**xuals or liberals if they don't have a legitimate reason. Even if they do have a legitimate reason that justifies their bothering it might not matter. They will also claim they don't discriminate, but they are usually far more polite and accepting if they think you're a fellow atheist."

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20atheist

    December 12, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bones McCoy

      Oh yeah, because Christians NEVER insult atheists or promote their faith dishonestly. They didn't used to burn them alive or torture and execute them for expressing even minor doubts.

      December 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
      • "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

        Well if Christians did it, lets just do the same thing to them.

        December 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
        • Logical Default

          How many atheists torture and murder Christians, today or burn people alive for believing in Jesus? Jesus said turn the other cheek. Why can't any Christian ever follow Christ? Instead they attack anyone that doesn't blindly believe in their ancient fairytale book as this alleged Christian above who is attacking atheists.

          December 12, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
        • Don't scapegoat others.

          “I committed the crime not my faith”

          December 12, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
        • "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

          I've never met a Christian who tortures, murders or burns alive atheists.

          Have you?

          December 12, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Hey

          Never met one but I know they have.

          December 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
        • Logical default

          All you have to do is read your history of the dark ages. And what about the abortion clinic bombers? Prime example of modern Christians murdering innocent people because they do not share the same faith / religious views.

          December 13, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Now that's just stupid...

      and you are dumb to believe anything in a make believe dictionary. Goes along well with a make believe holy book though, I guess.

      December 12, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
      • "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

        Not reading holy books, but thanks for acting like an internet atheist and making a snide comment about religion.

        December 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • igaftr

      The NEW new group ....the ANTI INTERNET ATHEISTS.

      This is an individual who has nothing to say except for attacks on what it perceives as "internet atheists".

      It will post it's definition of what that means and condemn ALL for what it perceives as wrong...and we all know how terrible freedom of speech can be.

      His only motivation is the fear that reality will begin to sink in to believers, and the falseness of religious docu.ments will become apparent.

      Watch out for the atheist hater...

      December 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
      • "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

        But I'm agnostic. I'm just trying to point out how atheists/christians are so much alike.

        December 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Lies and slander. Atheism is simply lack of a belief, mostly due to lack of evidence. Christianity is a blind belief in a magical god that allegedly had a son for the sole purpose of dying a painful death to free people from sin. Atheism is logical, Christianity is a guess. They aren't even close to the same thing. Science is verified, faith is not by definition.

          December 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
        • "INTERNET ATHEISTS"

          Agnosticism is logical. Atheism is not logical. Or scientific. And your description of Christianity sounds like it is defined by somebody who hates Christians.

          December 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
        • Logical default

          Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of stubborn atheists, but if proof of god were to arise, 99% of them would change their beliefs on god's existence, because most of them are grounded in logic and science. Atheism isn't as absolute as you think. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, because my motto is "I'll believe it when I see it", so for now I do not believe in god, but I admit I don't know the answer and am open to one day finding out the answer, regardless of what that answer is. I do agree that saying stuff like 'absolutely no god can ever exist' is a bit extreme, but it is the logical default based on the lack of evidence.

          December 13, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
  15. Augie

    "Here comes the comment section..."
    *makes popcorn

    December 11, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
  16. Joel

    As a Messianic believer its hard to put into words the tremendous peace I have found in Yeshua. Reading some of these posts and seeing such lost souls, it really is sad. Knowing God's peace, and the reality of The Father, and His Son, and His Holy Spirit, and seeing such spiritual darkness over many in here, it is truly remarkable. The two extremes of the spectrum couldn't be greater. May those who are searching come to find the peace of God, and the forgiveness He provides through faith in Yeshua. Shalom

    December 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
    • Wade

      Replace "Messianic believer" with "Person deluded to an insane degree" and you'd be off to a more accurate start.

      December 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • Jim

      Thank you, Joel. Merry Christmas to you !

      December 11, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
  17. k-dog

    HOLY CRAP!
    'nuf said.

    December 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • Piccolo

      That's what the pope said after he dropped a nice deuce.

      December 16, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
  18. k-dog

    HOLY CRAP!
    'nuf said.

    December 11, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
  19. redzoa

    @Jim – Perhaps you could run us through a few simple calculations, e.g. the speed of various forms of transmission (presumably radio waves) v. distances to closest stars, galaxies, etc., and then factor in directionality in 3D space, interference, etc. If you could pull these #s together, you might have a stronger case. Right now, I'm thinking space is just really, really big and communications/travel are really, really slow; but I concede I could be missing something so feel free to show where I'm wrong here . . .

    December 10, 2013 at 10:05 pm |
    • lol??

      lol??
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      You live in a fallen wurld. The earth is falling all over the sun.

      December 10, 2013 at 10:13 pm |
      • Science Works

        lol?? you know it is that se-x thing no what needed lol?? ?

        clue it starts with a G

        You Are What Your Father Eats: Father's Diet Before Conception Plays Crucial Role in Offspring's Health, Study Suggests

        Dec. 10, 2013 — Mothers get all the attention. But a study led by McGill researcher Sarah Kimmins suggests that the father's diet before conception may play an equally important role in the health of their offspring. It also raises concerns about the long-term effects of current Western diets and of food insecurity.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131210113315.htm

        December 11, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • Jim

      With all due respect, what you are missing, is simple logic. There should be billions of extraterrestrial civilizations much more advanced than ours communicating for many thousands of years, if life has been forming everywhere where the right conditions exist. The "Space Federation" should have contacted us by now.

      December 11, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        There could be life elsewhere obviously and probably is. Presuming other life resembles life on Earth, the conditions for life are not found elsewhere in the Solar System for example so those conditions may exist 1000's of light years away. Other life may not have advanced in the same way as humans – a meteor hit took out the dinosaurs allowing mammals to flourish eventually leading to humans. Other planets could be at the equivalent of pre-human stage. Then we've only had the technology for maybe a century, so it is by no means certain that any life out there is capable of communicating with us.

        December 11, 2013 at 10:43 pm |
      • redzoa

        @Jim – Also with all due respect, instead of declaring what should be, crunch a few numbers and see what you come up with. You've have a hypothesis, now take the first step in testing it. If science has taught us anything, it's that we are frequently wrong in our intuitions about how things should work, e.g. it was perfectly "logical" to believe that certain diseases were the product of "bad air" (mal aria) or the result of the stars' "influence" (influenza).

        December 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm |
      • Bones McCoy

        You are forgetting the prime directive, Jim.

        December 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
      • Piccolo

        So let me get this straight. You think that life outside of our solar system doesn't exist because they haven't contacted us? By that logic, god doesn't exist. Surely he would have contacted us by now. We don't know the exact odds on the formation of life. It could be 1 in a million or 1 in a billion. The universe is so huge, that the likelihood of being contacted by one of the hundred or so (based on 1 in 1 billion estimate)intelligent species in our galaxy is still pretty low. You have to realize that to get to even our closest neighbors would take 5 years at the speed of light (which cannot yet be done by us and might not even be possible). Lets not forget that most stars in our galaxy are hundreds to thousands of light years away. Certain things might not be possible, regardless of how advanced a society is, so assuming any alien race would automatically contact us, is a bit of a stretch.

        December 12, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • Joey

          I, personally, put the chances of life existing elsewhere in the universe at near 100% and the chance of the Christian god existing at near 0%.

          December 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
        • Piccolo

          Agreed. Even if the odds are 1 in a trillion, that still means life is inevitable somewhere.

          December 12, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
        • Glenn

          What would be the odds of matter coming from nothing. Or life from nonlife?

          December 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Piccolo

          We do not have enough information to make such a calculation at this point. Matter coming from nothing? Isn't that what people believe god did?

          December 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
  20. Mars Hill

    Evolution, where reality ends and imagination begins!

    December 10, 2013 at 7:24 pm |
    • What are the odds?

      Fish>Amphibian>Reptile>Mammal

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA&w=640&h=390]

      Hey, there is a chance 😉

      December 10, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • fintastic

      Christianity = make up your own facts!

      December 16, 2013 at 12:28 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.