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. blah

    blah, blah...

    October 9, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
  2. trollol

    What benefit is there to believing creationism? Is there something to be gained by being right?

    On the other hand, what is gained by denying creationsim? Progress in science?

    October 9, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "On the other hand, what is gained by denying creationsim? Progress in science?"
      +++ the truth. knowledge. very much progress in science.

      denying creationism = fighting willful ignorance

      October 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
  3. ME II

    AIG. What a joke.

    "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
    (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith )

    October 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      I wonder what their answer to the following question would be:

      What is the speed of light?

      If they answer "299,792,458 m / s" ask them how the current light in transit is possible with a 10,000 year old universe theory. That is when they shift into "magic" mode.... remember to do jazz hands when you say the word "magic"...

      October 9, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
      • JP81

        To be fair, I'm pretty sure most creationists believe God created everything with the appearance of age.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "appearence of age" is one thing, creating light particles in transit from hundreds of millions of light years away is the trick I was referring to...

          October 9, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
        • JP81

          What I was trying to say was that God claimed to create both stars and light, and if science uses the speed of light, the amount, location, and color of the light emanating from a star in determining how old that star is, then all those things could have been created exactly the way we see them today, if God did create it that way, with a so-called 'appearance of age' There is no inherent requirement that the star only began to emit light the moment it was created.

          October 9, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I'd like you to be aware of the contortions you are having to go through to maintain your strange belief, JP81. It is indeed possible that the Universe came into being just now with all particles and fields in exactly the configuration they're now. It is not useful to think it true.

          October 9, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • Taliban

      In other words, any science at all that goes against what they intpret scripture to be is false? What a load of feces.

      October 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
      • Paul

        Science is abstract, a concept. It's a tool we use to help us understand and evalutated the world around us. Science itself is neutral.
        Now there's an atheistic intrepreatation of the scientific evidence and a theistic interpretation of the scientific evidence. This is where the confilct is. The conflict is not between science and religion.

        October 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
        • tallulah13

          Actually there is no conflict. Science simply does not support the theistic interpretation, no matter he much spin creationists put on it. For there to be a conflict, the creationists would have to have a leg to stand on.

          October 9, 2013 at 9:38 pm |
  4. bostontola

    Fast forward 300 years. University class t itled, " Greek, Roman, and Christian Mythology". Don't worry, there will be other classes with Norse and Egyptian mythologies.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Columbustola

      Highly doubtful.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
  5. October sky

    I don't like it because it makes it sound like all theists are creationists. That's not the case. We can oppose atheistic philosophy but not be deserting science.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Do you claim to be a christian? If yes, how can you ignore some parts of The Babble but believe others?

      October 9, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • ROO

      Atheism is simply the rejection of the unsupported asserted claim for gods. Has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting science. Atheists simply don't believe baseless claims.....no more than anyone would believe the claim for flying fairies without any evidence to verify it.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
  6. Andrew

    All in all, both side's hate this form of taunting, Creationists hate being called stupid because they believe in some figure that made them all just because one book told them so, and Athiests get upset that Creationists can look at just book with validity even though if it were any form of modern research paper it would not have the supported referencing to actually be valid, kind of a level of OCD in regards to Creationists. Now I myself an Athiest, born a Christian, and personally I think you have to be an individual who is craving for structure and unable to direct your own life so you look to a figure in the sky to hold your hand and tell you all is fine, and thats fine. But I believe and this includes Athiests and any religious group should be forbidden of any public display of belief, so keep your God at home...kind of like a hobby...not everyone needs to know about your hobbies right?

    October 9, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • ROO

      @Andrew

      "Creationists hate being called stupid because they believe in some figure that made them all just because one book told them so"

      -that's not why they're called stupid. It's because their texts make claims about the natural world that are directly contradicted with evidence. The natural world is testable. So they choose to directly ignore observable evidence in favor of ancient literature. Atheist get upset because creationists present their belief as fact instead of belief. Atheist have no problems with other mythology common in the ancient world as long as they aren't presented as fact with no justifiable evidence. Atheist don't have a belief. It's simply a position of rejection for an assertion. Saying in public "Santa is myth" isn't a display of belief. Claiming Santa exist IS a display of belief. Non-existing things have no evidence. There's nothing there. Fictional claims have no evidence. To claim existence....require evidence to know something exist, otherwise...you simply make things up.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
  7. Mark

    Oh those silly christians and their mythology. 🙂

    October 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
  8. Robin

    To Answers In Genesis.org: PROVE IT.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • ROO

      The site: "An Index to creationist claims" (if you Google that phrase) from talkorigins correct many of the ignorant things "Answers in genesis" says.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
  9. Reality # 2

    And another suggestion as a counter display to the topic sign: (only for the new visitors to this blog)

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinker bells? etc.) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Brandon

      THANK GOD YOU'RE WRONG.

      See billboard above!

      October 9, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
      • Brandon's Mom

        MY SON BRANDON IS REALLY STUPID.

        October 9, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
  10. scourge99

    Creationism is not the same as Young Earth Creationism. Very few creationists are also Young Earth Creationists, as Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis are.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
  11. David Sarif

    Well it's not the first time a few people did something stupid and made the rest look bad. This is a waste of time, money, and advertising space. It wouldn't help their cause it would only increase the conflagrations that have surrounded religion. If they want to talk about reasons to believe or practice then perhaps talk about the positive effects of those who actually follow morals set by the religion.

    If they really want to get into convincing the legitimacy of their practices they could open it with intelligent arguments. For example if afterlife is in question of whether or not it exists they could talk about quantum physics. There are theories stating that the human brain could be a quantum computer that is hardwired into the universe. The consciousness takes advantage of superposition, quantum nonlocality, and even more advanced theories in superposition; quantum entanglement to describe how this is possible. Although be it, this theory is largely hypothetic as is with most of the edge of physics. Attribution to that would be M-Theory a theory derived from super string theory, however awesome it is, it hasn't yet had a shred of empirical evidence. At the very least there's a bit of logic as to its possibility. Then again Russell's teapot. Then again science does come from simple hypothesis and theories that are yet proven to be mere conjectures or have merit to them

    I don't know what to believe at this point, some say God or some sort of omnipotent being is the end result of creation of afterlife which was created in our minds to cope with the emptiness followed by death. Interestingly enough there is a certain area in your brain if stimulated by electrodes whilst under minimal sensory stimuli can give someone a divine experience. Whether or not that person believes it to be divine is largely up to their ideologies to decide.

    At the very least though, you can appreciate the good morals instilled in them and the many of us who "practice" religion and largely believes in science and other branches of philosophy. Oh and the God created the world between 5,700-10,000 years is crap with the current evidence, just thought I'd say that since it's currently circulating on posts.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
  12. VMAN

    Looks my my previous post was deleted?

    Einstein believed the world and the universe was created by God, all intricacies, from sub-atomic particles, to solar systems and galaxies, in his perspective, was improbable if not impossible for all of that fall into place by chance, and have such strict laws that interact perfectly with each other.

    Science today seems to want to disprove God, when many scientists are believers of one thing or another. Most people say that they don't believe facts without Proof, most theories out there governing the Big Bang, or Evolution are just that Theories, and have no undeniable proof that shows that those events were not guided by God.

    Christians who say the world is only 10,000 years old, and created in 6 days are also misguided (misled as prophesied by Jesus). When it says in Genesis, that the universe was created in 6 days, why do we assume that its 6 earth revolutions, when the earth was not even created yet? Both sides "Big Religion", and "Science based Atheism", are simply there to confuse the masses to fight against each other. Which is what everyone does and have done for generations.

    Truth is God exists, the greatest minds in history believed that to be true. Science doesn't have all the answers, and don't believe all what big church has to say. Look in the bible, Jesus said most will be misled, judge the tree by the fruit my friends.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • scourge99

      I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

      – Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

      It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

      – Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

      October 9, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Einstein believed no such thing. You're cherry picking out of context quotes. Why didn't you use this one:

      "1. Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
      The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

      Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954"

      October 9, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
      • David Sarif

        Agreed, although it could be argued that this person's beliefs lead to such an interpretation rather than intentional interpretation. But since we are talking about Einstein he did say something along the lines of, "Religion without science is lame and science without religion is blind."

        October 9, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Einstein said many things and while probably being one of the most brilliant humans to date, was wrong at times. For example, he was wrong about his own cosmological constant and despite his best efforts, was never able to refute quantum mechanics. Einstein's quotes need to be taken in context of his broader biography.

          October 9, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • ROO

      "Science today seems to want to disprove God, when many scientists are believers of one thing or another."

      -science study things that are testable. You can't disprove something non-existent. Science isn't concerned with disproving the existence of leprechauns because the position doesn't require them to disprove it. Only existing things can be proved. If you are claiming something exist without evidence showing how you know it exist, then your claim can be dismissed. This is because anybody can claim anything from imagination.

      "Most people say that they don't believe facts without Proof"

      -facts are observations. That doesn't require belief so if they reject observations then they have bigger issues.

      " most theories out there governing the Big Bang, or Evolution are just that Theories"

      -Theories explain facts. They are explanations. This is because facts don't explain anything, they are just pieces of data. In order for us to understand what we're observing and why a phenomenon occurs, we form theories to.....explain them. We already have facts and data for a theory. You gather those first before you get an explanation.

      "and have no undeniable proof that shows that those events were not guided by God"

      -and they have no undeniable proof that shows those events were not guided by advanced aliens....or a flying elephant...or magic fairies. None of the evidence gathered show any of these to be a guided process anymore than the hydrologic cycle is a guided process. Simply claiming the need for a guide of any type...doesn't equate evidence for a guide.

      October 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
  13. Alex Tobe

    As a catholic I can admit that I believe in both God and Evolution. The way I see it is that at the very beginning (no not 10,000 years ago) someone or something lit a spark and that person I believe to be God. Maybe only half of America believe in God but what % of the other half will pray to God when faced with a tragedy? I think that # will surprise you.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • VLord Armstrong

      Agreed the Catholic Church does not actually condemn evolutionist theory. In fact the Catholic Church has been responsible in furthering genetic research. The father of Genetics Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
      • Ironicus

        LOLOL
        WHAT part of Mendel's work was directly informed by his schizophrenia? Answer: none of it. His scientific method brought the results. Had he used his schizophrenic delusions to formulate some goofy spiritual theory about the souls of pea pods, then you might have said something worth listening to, fool.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:50 pm |
  14. Ivan Tomek

    Isn't it a bit arrogant to be so sure that your God is the one and all other Gods are wrong? Where is the proof that the two testaments are God's revelation but Quran is not, that Hindus are all wrong, etc.

    On a more substantial level, it is paradoxical that US has almost without doubt the largest and most advanced scientific community in the world while at the same time the predominant position among its citizens is anti-science (as in refuting Science concerning the origin of Cosmos and the Earth). Can this state be maintained forever or will countries that take Science more seriously eventually prevail?

    October 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
  15. Ignatius

    Zeus, Jupiter, Isis, Thor, and 1000's more-God today gone tomorrow- the Easter bunny, Santa, you were right.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
  16. fmagyar

    I'm an atheist and understand that in science a theory is tantamount to being a fact! So obviously I accept the TOE as the best explanation currently possible consistent with all the available evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, microbiology, biochemestry, etc. etc. The fact that Answers in Genesis publicly wants to make fools of themselves by refuting reality bother's me no one little bit. Then again I don't argue with people who still think the earth is flat either. I just roll my eyes and move on. Life is way too short to waste time trying to rationally convince people who are not rational.

    "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." – George Bernard Shaw quotes from BrainyQuote.com.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Paul

      "I'm an atheist and understand that in science a theory is tantamount to being a fact!"

      The problem is that a scientific theory is not equivalent to being a fact. A scientific theory means that it has experimental support. The theory can still be falsified.

      "So obviously I accept the TOE as the best explanation currently possible consistent with all the available evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, microbiology, biochemestry, etc. etc."

      There's evidence and then there's interpretation of the evidence. I suspect that what you really mean is that you accept a materialistic/naturalistic explanation of the evidence.

      "The fact that Answers in Genesis publicly wants to make fools of themselves by refuting reality bother's me no one little bit."

      You mean that YOU believe they are making fools of themselves. They are also not refuting reality – they are refuting your interpreation of the evidence.

      "Then again I don't argue with people who still think the earth is flat either."
      Very few people have every believed and do believe that the earth is flat. The flat earth myth got started because 2 college professors cited a fictional book as fact.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth

      October 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
      • tallulah13

        As they are refuting without providing any evidence of their own to support their claims (just misinterpretation of the work of others), I fail to see how they are NOT making fools of themselves.

        October 9, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
  17. rmac

    answers in genesis...... how?

    October 9, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
  18. Bootyfunk

    For those of you who said they wanted me to keep them informed, I just spoke to John Blake (CNN author). He had mentioned me in his “Holy Trollers” article (peacemaker section at the bottom: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/05/holy-trollers-how-to-argue-about-religion-online/). I disagreed with some of the things Mr. Blake said in his article, so I wrote to him:
    _____________________________
    This is Bootfunk. You mentioned me in your article: 'Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online.' You have made the mistake of assumption.

    "I actually e-mailed readers like “Bootyfunk” and “KatieRose” to get their perspective, but all I got was silence. Not one commenter wanted to talk on the record for this story." You assume we read your email and decided not to respond. I have a junk email associated with the blog here. It's not that I decided not to respond – I didn't even know you emailed me. That’s bad journalism. You shouldn’t assume answers to questions. I didn’t know you emailed me. After I saw my handle in your article, I went and looked through my junk email address for your email. I couldn’t find it. It was not under “John” “Blake” or “CNN.” But I had thousands of emails in there, so it's likely I just missed it.

    And your choice of words was purposely inflammatory: “all I got was silence. Not one commenter wanted to talk on the record for this story.” How would you have any idea what we wanted since you didn’t successfully make contact with us? Your choice of words said we dodged the hard questioning, that we got your questions but they were just too hard-hitting for us to handle. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of. Your slights were subtle and not overt, but they were there. No one is afraid to answer your emails. Perhaps next time be a little more honest in your journalism and say just say you didn't receive a response to an email instead of painting a picture where people are avoiding you.

    I would very much like you to resend your email. I will answer any questions you put before me. I’ve made a new email, just for use on the CNN Belief Blog. Please resend your email to that address and I will be happy to answer you.
    _______________________________

    Mr. Blake replied with his phone number. We just spoke on the phone. Gotta say, Mr. Blake was a very nice guy. We had a great conversation. He listened to everything I had to say. I brought up the things that he wrote in the article that bothered me. I brought up that he had said in his article that he’d tried to contact me and “all I got was silence. Not one commenter wanted to talk on the record for this story.” He apologized and agreed he should not have worded it like that.

    I brought up that he suggested atheists get to know a religious person (and that religious people get to know an atheists.) I told him that almost all atheists already know religious people intimately – we were raised by them. Most atheists were raised in a religious household. Most relatives of atheists are religious. Few atheists don’t have a religious friend. It’s the opposite that isn’t usually the case – most religious people don’t know (or realize they know) an atheist. Perhaps that is why many of the religious have so many misconceptions about atheists.

    I told Mr. Blake that we have to respect people – not crazy ideas. I do not have to respect the idea that Christian Science pract.itioners think they can pray appendicitis away. That’s a crazy idea unworthy of serious debate or consideration. Mr. Blake and I agreed that just calling someone “stupid” isn’t going to help a debate, but I told him pointing out willful ignorance, like saying the world is 10K years old, is not the same as calling someone stupid. Many religious people are very smart – but intelligence doesn’t make people immune to religious brainwashing.

    Anyway, I brought up a few other things, as did he. We had a great discussion. Even if Mr. Blake and I disagree on our religious views, I give him big points for contacting me to discuss the article. 🙂

    October 9, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Akira

      Fantastic! I must admit that your post was much more interesting than a lot of articles I read here.
      Well done. Thanks fo the update.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
      • Apple Bush

        Bootyfunk makes fake HeaveSent sad.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
      • Ironicus

        Ditto.
        I am glad someone was able to give some good feedback to his silly article. +10 internets for you, Bootyfunk.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      I thought it was hysterical that they quoted HeavenSent and the snakes eating fat drippings for all eternity and called her a troll. She doesn't even exist anymore and he didn't read the whole HeavenSent post (as usual). lol

      October 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
      • Ironicus

        I have no doubt that your brain is severely damaged for you to be such a weird troll. O small yellow fruit.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
  19. Steve

    Nice work answers in genesis... You really got those atheists with that one! It will be a long time before they'll be able to come up with a response to that. It's almost like you answered all of the criticism with one ad. Bravo!

    October 9, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
  20. David B

    "46% of Americans believed in creationism"

    Yes, and a good percentage of those 46 percent also believe in sleeping with their cousin.

    October 9, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • PeterVN

      Funny, David, and probably sadly true. And pretty much the same set have no comprehension of what inbreeding is and why it is a problem.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
      • Jim

        Oh, grow up! (And no, I'm not a "creationist", but I also think atheists are morons, too.)

        October 9, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Stay out of Riverdale.

          October 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Smarmy Bigglesworth

      So you wouldn't bang your cousin? Even if she was hot?

      October 9, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        It's a dilemma. I probably would if she was really hot.

        October 9, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • skalaballa

      So you must be liberal because you put down anyone that doesn't agree with you.... If atheists can put up billboards then creationists have the right to defend themselves in the same way. Fair is fair. Belittling someone for what they believe shows that you can't have a normal debate with someone because everything is personal. Grow up.

      October 9, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
      • tallulah13

        Creationists can put up a thousand billboards for all I care. With luck, it will encourage people to look into the utter nonsense that creationists are trying to pass off as truth. Nothing exposes a fraud like scrutiny.

        October 9, 2013 at 7:11 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.