home
RSS
Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET

Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Editors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET.

WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

(CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades.

So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame.

I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham 

Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms.

As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists.

On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering.

I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored?

Our young people and adults should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution.

It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.

Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority our infallible creator and his word, the Bible over the words of fallible humans.

Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture wars • Evolution • Opinion • Science

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Alias

    @L
    Most athiests here have looked at your bible and rejected it because it has flaws and major fails in logic.
    No matter how many time you call athiesm a religion, it is not.

    DT 24:16, 2KI 14:6, 2CH 25:4, EZ 18:20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins.
    RO 5:12, 19, 1CO 15:22 Death is passed to all men by the sin of Adam.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:23 am |
    • Topher

      So what's your problem with those verses?

      And atheism IS a religion according to the Supreme Court.

      http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977925893

      February 4, 2014 at 10:29 am |
      • Jahtez

        Only as it relates to free speech. Why the misrepresentation?

        February 4, 2014 at 10:32 am |
      • Cal

        I'm curious as to why it's such a big deal to consider whether athiesm is a religion or not.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • tony

          It's only a big deal if you think not believing in ghosts is a religion.

          February 4, 2014 at 11:02 am |
      • igaftr

        topher
        You actually think the SCOTUS is in the business of word definition?
        Nice misrepresentation...they only use their definitions as far as legallity issue, like free speech.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:34 am |
      • Sungrazer

        The Supreme Court didn't say atheism was a religion. It said atheism was afforded the same protection under the First Amendment that religions have.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:41 am |
      • Topher

        So are we going to talk about those verses or continue to go down this rabbit trail?

        February 4, 2014 at 10:45 am |
  2. Alias

    Good morning all!
    Is everyone ready for me to show the bible is flawed instead of directly proving god doesn't exist?
    Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
    Genesis 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:13 am |
    • Alias

      like shooting fish in a barrel, only drier, not as loud, and no fish have to die.
      EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
      GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
      1SA 8:2-22 Samuel informs God as to what he has heard from others.
      PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:18 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      So, what you're telling me is that you haven't read the narrative then...

      February 4, 2014 at 10:20 am |
      • Sorting mixed nuts

        How about Solomon's stables, Larry? Why the conflicting number of figures?

        February 4, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          This is 1st year seminary stuff. There's books on this stuff, but, suffice it to say, stop reading from atheist's websites and read the Bible for yourself.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Jahtez

          Then you won't mind answering the questions, since they're so easy for you.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • Charm Quark

          Jahtez
          Saint Larry the Slippery does not answer questions on demand without first consulting one of the many apologetics sites to find the correct interpretation, it is the general MO of creationists.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      • Alias

        I have researched this.
        I'm right, you and your bible are wrong.
        Everyone with an open mind or a working brain knows it.
        Get profewssional help with your insecurities.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Alias

          And as soon as you schedule that psychiatric eval, I'll take typing lessons.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Alias

          Ths one is very clear:
          JG 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.
          JG 5:25-27 Sisera was standing.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          I suppose you'll know for sure one way or the other when history reaches Revelation 20.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Actually, the song in Judges 5 says nothing about Sisera standing when he was slain. The word "fall" or "fell" is synonimous with "death." We even use the term today. "He fell in battle..."

          February 4, 2014 at 10:32 am |
        • Alias

          In one version he was asleep, in the other he asked for a drink.
          I see you did your research on this one!

          February 4, 2014 at 10:35 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      Genesis 10:5 is told in anticipation of 11:1-9...
      It's like the story of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. People who haven't read it think that it gives two seperate accounts. No, it gives a general overview in chapter 1, and them specific details are told in chapter 2.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:23 am |
      • Alias

        So you are usre that everyone all over the world spoke the same language before the tower?
        Stone tablets exist that would suggest otherwise.

        Your bible was written by men who had no idea what was going on in different parts of the world.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:32 am |
      • Charm Quark

        Saint LofA
        Does not interpret scripture he just tells you what every verse means, pay attention the Saint has spoken.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:33 am |
  3. Sungrazer

    "Let our young people understand science correctly." Couldn't agree more. I haven't seen a single theist here show a grasp of even the basic principles of evolution. So let's untangle the warped ideas they have. But of course Ham doesn't really believe this, because he's part of the disinformation problem himself.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:04 am |
  4. K-switch

    Let's atleast be honest about this. In this country "creationism" equals "The Christian story of creation".

    February 4, 2014 at 9:51 am |
    • L

      Which atheists are emotionally attached to leaving out all other non-Christian religions. I find internet atheism laughable😃

      February 4, 2014 at 9:54 am |
      • tony

        You have an internet reputation for foinding even the the most basic facts laughable.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
    • Sungrazer

      I was just going to make the same point. Ham wants students to hear "both sides" of the origins issue. Obviously there are many more creation stories besides the Christian creation story. Does he want young people to evaluate those as well? If done in a religion class, by all means. Just keep it out of the Biology classroom.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • L

        And tell atheists to stop trying to teach their version of evolution in our science classrooms. I don't want their religion(meaning they distorted evolution out of context to sell a lie that it disproves God). Teach evolution by all means but NEVER teach the atheistic view of evolution. Most atheists cling to evolution tightly so they can mock and attack people for made up reasons that don't exist.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • Science Works

          L and the video that started it ALL ?

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

          February 4, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • igaftr

          Evolution is taught in classrooms because the science is sound. There is no mention of any god in teaching evolution.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • That's just

          a ridiculous accusation, L. Just what is your concept of "atheistic evolution" and please, by all means, show how this is being taught.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • Sungrazer

          Science is done by methodological naturalism because that's the only way science can work and progress. It's nothing personal. It is not done by philosophical naturalism, which might be what you mean by "atheistic" evolution.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • Science Works

          L if you would like there is 2 links here for you to watch for free ?

          Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight

          by
          February 04, 2014 8:20 AM

          http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271383099/creationism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight

          February 4, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Sungrazer

          "distorted evolution out of context to sell a lie"

          This is what Ham does, not scientists.

          I'll wager you don't have any basic grasp of evolution because I haven't yet seen you demonstrate that you do. You are welcome to debate what you consider its merits and flaws, but first you need to know something about it. If all you know is what you find on apologist web sites or what your pastor told you, then it is you that has the distorted view.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • Jahtez

      I would like to see how it would be taught without mentioning God or the Bible.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:19 am |
  5. JW

    ARE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CREATIONISTS?
    Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists. Why not? First, many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the Bible teaches.* Also, creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.
    Furthermore, in some lands the term “creationist” is synonymous with Fundamentalist groups that actively engage in politics. These groups attempt to pressure politicians, judges, and educators into adopting laws and teachings that conform to the creationists’ religious code.
    Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral. They respect the right of governments to make and enforce laws. (Romans 13:1-7) However, they take seriously Jesus’ statement that they are “no part of the world.” (John 17:14-16) In their public ministry, they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards. But they do not violate their Christian neutrality by supporting the efforts of Fundamentalist groups that try to establish civil laws that would force others to adopt Bible standards.—John 18:36.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:50 am |
    • Alias

      And I give them just as much respect as scientologists.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:00 am |
    • L

      Time is irrelevant in the realm of God. The bible NEVER hints the exact date of how old the earth or universe is. Maybe atheists should stop making fun of the idea thinking it's mocking Christianity. They are only mocking themselves😄

      February 4, 2014 at 10:02 am |
      • igaftr

        The bible was written by men. There is no sign any gods were involved.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • L

          Atheism is a unproven man-made concept and you're telling me I'm the one that's wrong?! LOLOLOL. Atheists are hilarious here!

          February 4, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • igaftr

          Simply stating a fact. Men DID write the bible, and there is no evidence of any gods.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • L

          That depends on what you consider evidence. God cannot be proven using the scientific method and atheists still haven't gotten over this fact since the dawn of science. Kinda sad. I thought atheism give you special powers of logic and reason! Guess that's wrong!😃😄😀

          February 4, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • Sorting mixed nuts

          "God cannot be proven using the scientific method "

          Decent evidence for God hasn't come from any method.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • igaftr

          Your trolling and ad hominem doesn't change the fact that I stated.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • L

          If you can't accept that no human can prove God exists, you are already wasting a sad life. You aren't even being honest with yourself yet even when faced with the truth, you still deny it and continue to ask believer for evidence. Not even you can prove you are 100% correct. I could be wrong in the end sure. I don't have all the answers. Sure. I admit I can't prove I'm right. You want a rise out of people for egoistic reasons while you yourself cannot even accept the plain truth that is staring you right in the face. All your logic and reason doesn't even help you face the truth. If you cannot comprehend that no human can prove God exists, you are a dishonest atheist.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • bacbik

          ".. when faced with the truth.."
          ".. cannot even accept the plain truth that is staring you right in the face. "
          ".. doesn't even help you face the truth. "

          Too much BS.. too long..

          February 4, 2014 at 10:42 am |
      • That's

        just your opinion. That's what makes Christianity the easiest target. All the different sects that say their opinion is the right one.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • L

          As do atheists. Atheists generally are the same way.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • igaftr

          l
          based on what, your opinion only?

          February 4, 2014 at 10:30 am |
      • Sungrazer

        That hasn't stopped your fellow Christians from declaring that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or less than 10,000 years old. And they do it based on a literal reading of the Bible. Maybe you guys should huddle up and get the right play called.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:13 am |
    • Madtown

      Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.
      -----
      Where is this word found? What do you refer to?

      February 4, 2014 at 10:06 am |
      • JW

        Bible based. 2tim 3:16

        February 4, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • Madtown

          But, God didn't write the bible. We know the names of most of the authors of the books currently included, they are definitely human. Why do you call these works the word of God? What makes you sure that God is responsible for their creation?

          February 4, 2014 at 10:28 am |
  6. Live4Him

    Existence of dino soft tissue
    1) Given the ubiquitous coverage in peer-reviewed scientific journals concerning the finding of dino soft tissue in a temperate environment, and
    2) Given that contrary claims for dino soft tissue of 'biofilm' has been limited to self-published sources

    Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that dino soft tissue has survived from the age of dinosaurs to our current time.

    DNA and soft tissue is limited to 10,000 years in a temperate environment
    1) Given that scientific experiments conducted after the movie Jurassic Park found that DNA could not survive for more than 10,000 years in a temperate environment, and
    2) Given that subsequent scientific experiments found that DNA could not survive for more than 10,000 years in a tundra environment, and
    3) Given that all soft tissue is composed of DNA

    Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the dino soft tissue previously found is less than 10,000 years old. Alternatively, it is reasonable to believe that the dino soft tissue previously found is less than 100,000 years old if one were to factor in the Ice Ages since the extinction of the dinosaurs. But given therelatively short duration of these ice ages, the actual maximum time since the dinosaurs would be close to the maximum limit of the temperate environmental conditions.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:45 am |
    • Frank

      List 1 Reference for all that garbage propaganda you just spilled?

      February 4, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • Previous responses to the "dino soft tissue" issue repeatedly brought up by Live4Him

      –from a conversation with MEII on October 5, 2013-

      (MEII) "It looks to me like what Schweitzer claims to have found is soft tissue, not DNA. In addition, even the article you cited state that DNA is inherently unstable and actually needs repair in vivo in order to remain usable.
      In essence, you are citing articles that give estimates of the longevity of material that wasn't found, i.e. not applicable."

      –from a conversation with MEII on December 3, 2013–

      (MEII) "As for the soft tissue debate, as I’ve said before, you misunderstand the data, which is primarily talking about DNA, not soft tissue, and is often dealing with specific situations, not all situations. The potential longevity of all soft tissue is not a settled matter in science."

      –from a conversation with hawaiiguest on January 22, 2013-
      L4H: "Keep googling. It is very common. While Mary's research provided the 80% figure that I quoted, I haven't been able to find this since the initial publishing – so you may not be able to find it anymore. However, other scientists are doing their own research on their own specimens – which shows the ubiquitous nature of the issue."

      (HG)

      "1) Give me sites and statistics
      2) Very vague assertions of "some scientists" are doing research on some "specimens" don't really tell me anything."

      L4H: "After the movie Jurassic Park, scientists pointed out that the internal chemical bonds would breakdown – regardless of the preservation process – within 10,000 years in a temperate environment. Second, these are not "fragments", but whole cells and flexible tissue."

      (HG) "Any citations? As far as I've seen, they've seen the outlines of what used to be blood vessels, and all these things were not soft and pliable right out of the bone, they had to be treated first."

      L4H: "That's right! Carbon dating is limited to 50,000 years (which is why I mentioned the carbon dating issue in the first place), so Harvard obviously thinks that dinos lived less than 50,000 years ago."

      (HG) "How cute that you ignore the part where I pointed out the T-Rex specimen has undergone amino acid racemization and it has confirmed the age of the fossil to be around 65 million years as expected. You're talking about using only a single dating method that isn't viable, not to mention I have found absolutely no corroboration of Harvard wanting a specimen to use carbon dating like you claim."

      –from a conversation with RickK on February 4, 2013–

      L4H: "How does one falisify evolution?

      Evolution needs millions of years to take place. If organic material survived a million years, be it DNA, soft tissue, or even bone, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!"

      (RickK) "FALSE. Small changes happen over a generation, large changes happen over large periods of time. A little evolution will happen when you have children. And, how the fossilization process may preserve soft tissue has precisely ZERO to do with evolution."

      –from a conversation with Rodents for Romney–

      (Rodents for Romney) "DNA mutation rates prove millions of years of Evolution. Too bad.
      Multiple dating methods, (dendritic dating, ice cores, all the DIFFERENT radiometric systems all AGREE0.
      The probability they ALL AGREE and produce the SAME wrong dates, is zero."

      February 4, 2014 at 9:49 am |
      • Frank

        Nice to see this is just a paid troll from some foundation whose supporters are anonymous. Creationism in America is its own industry just like climate change denial, CCD made over 2 billions dollars last year alone. These are not even real people making comments about their opinions, they are just copy pasting their go to red herrings arguement to make it "Appear" as if there actually are people who hold these opinions.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • Jahtez

          What? Have you been here at all? All of these people are posters who post often. I find it curious that you would prefer to slam them with insults instead of refuting what they have said.

          These are NOT fly-by posters. These are regulars.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Jahtez

          Unless you're talking about L4H. Then, I tend to agree.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • Frank

          L4H is the paid blogger sitting from home or it is simply a bot program like JW, auto finds articles with keywords, auto posts comments and auto responds.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:42 am |
      • Live4Him

        Nice to have a fan following all these exchanges, but what's your point?

        February 4, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • Just that

          you continue to post the same BS even though your "point" has been whittled down to nothing time and time again.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • Frank

          Your fan following is about the same as Hitler's fan following, not sure if I would be proud of that one.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:47 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      A scientist once claimed to find Dinosaur soft tissue, therefore all science that points to an old Earth is invalid.
      Seems like a perfectly cromulent argument.

      Was there salt water 10,000 years ago when these dinos lived?
      What about ice caps?

      February 4, 2014 at 9:52 am |
    • G to the T

      Not DNA. Collagen. Preserved by the iron in the blood.

      And yes, while the source I was checking was an onilne article, it was an interview WITH Mary Schweitzer who originally discoverd it. You are misrepresenting her work, either knowingly or through ignorance.

      February 4, 2014 at 9:54 am |
      • Jahtez

        She does it knowingly. She doesn't care.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:17 am |
      • Live4Him

        @G to the T : Preserved by the iron in the blood. ... it was an interview WITH Mary Schweitzer who originally discoverd it.

        Yes, but it is pure speculation – i.e. not very scientific.

           <><

        February 4, 2014 at 11:21 am |
    • Science Works

      Discovery Inst-itute and Ken Ham and the ICR ?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Discovery_Inst-itute

      February 4, 2014 at 9:56 am |
    • Topher

      I like how you atheist belief-bloggers now quote each other to make an argument against Christians. Talk about an appeal to authority fallacy.

      February 4, 2014 at 9:57 am |
      • Salero21

        😀😀 Atheism is stupid, but Topher takes the cake!!!!!!😀😀

        Please Topher, shut up!😀😀

        You are creating more atheists thanyou are saving!!!!!!! 😀 :-D:-D :-D:-D😀

        February 4, 2014 at 10:08 am |
    • Science Works

      That was for L4H ?

      February 4, 2014 at 9:59 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      IN 2008, a team of researchers conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils, including Schweitzer's samples. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was basically modern (in a geological sense) pond sc.um.
      SOURCE: Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms
      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

      February 4, 2014 at 10:07 am |
    • Cal

      Funny, yesterday Liv4Him was Quoted as saying

      "Which is another way of saying that science is constantly being proven wrong."

      So whatever science l4h is using in support of Dino soft tissue may be proven wrong later. That's the folly of claiming science is fallible yet claiming said fallible science supports your side.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:21 am |
  7. Embarrassed

    If you disagree with someone's opinion piece, it is possible to intelligently contradict without stooping to grade school type bullying, name calling, exaggerating, and falsely generalizing. Believe it or not, being a jerk rarely gets your point across, and it most certainly does nothing positive for your credibility, regardless of who you are or what you've studied.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:42 am |
  8. Billy

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcMLUfmy0Q8&w=640&h=390]

    February 4, 2014 at 9:18 am |
    • Frances

      ugh

      February 4, 2014 at 9:55 am |
    • I love the part

      about the Gazelle descending the Canadian Rockies and jumping in the ocean and swimming across it for months to the middle east only to get into Noah's boat for a forty day trip to stay out of the water.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:47 am |
      • Because

        Ken says God told the animals to go to Noah...

        February 4, 2014 at 10:48 am |
  9. Frank

    Question for Mr Ham.

    If Noah's flood happened as it says in the Bible, and all save Noah and his passengers on the Ark were the only people/creatures spared from God's wrath. In the fossil record you explain as

    "Well, let me put it another way: if there really was a global Flood, you would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth … which is exactly what you do find!" -Ken Ham 8-1-05

    *Ref- http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/cant-allow-it

    Should we not find many, if not THOUSANDS of fossilized human remains? We do find fossils of dinosaurs being carnivores, we have now found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers(Thanks China!) Yet we find no fossils of the uncivilized and sinful world that God could not allow to continue on this planet and so after Noah made his last ALL ABOARD call, God laid waste his wrath upon the world to clean it of all the filth and sin that had overwhelming taken over at that time.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:10 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-H1gC7i4Q0&w=640&h=390]

      February 4, 2014 at 9:40 am |
      • Frank

        Thanks for video, Billions of dead things, laid down in rock layers, all over the earth. 1 Fossilized Human, Nope.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:47 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Actually, there have been fosilized humans...

          Human bones were found in the same "cretaceous" sediment in the Ocucaja Desert in Inca Peru as many dinosaur bones.

          Also, in 1971, human bones of 10 individuals were found in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah in the same "cretaceous" sandstone as the Dinosaur National Monument.

          What about the Glen Rose donisaur tracks with human footprints intermingled with dino tracks?

          And on, and on, and on...

          February 4, 2014 at 9:54 am |
        • Frank

          If you are calling this something to be worth looking at, sadly I will have to explain that the fossilization process can be reproduced using modern technology. The main thing to get about all those things you brought up is that is all speculation. It belongs on a creationist website, in fact i think I found the one you read.

          http://manwithdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html

          February 4, 2014 at 10:15 am |
    • Topher

      Frank

      "Should we not find many, if not THOUSANDS of fossilized human remains?"

      Well, not so much. 95 percent of all fossils are marine creatures. Less than 1 percent are land animals. As land animals die in water, they tend to bloat, float and come apart. Scavengers would then become a problem (birds), seawater and bacteria would then go to work. And then, if you happen to get some trapped, the mudflows would have been powerful enough to grind bone to powder.

      "We do find fossils of dinosaurs being carnivores, we have now found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers(Thanks China!)"

      I've not heard of this one, but I hope it's more reliable than the last time it was claimed that a dinosaur was found with feathers.

      February 4, 2014 at 9:54 am |
      • Frank

        That is my point Topher, there are no fossils of humans because the process of fossilization is a very VERY rare occurrence on our planet and the fossils we do have were most likely formed when massive tsunamis were created from asteroids/meteors smashing our poor younger planet.

        But Mr Ham says they all formed at the very same time in this one grand flood, but if Genesis is literally accurate, we would have fossils of every ancestor to every living thing we currently find on our planet(since Noah saved dinosaurs and humans) we should have both Human, Dog, Giraffe, etc fossils. Right?

        February 4, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • Topher

          Frank

          "That is my point Topher, there are no fossils of humans ..."

          But we DO have human fossils. Just not many ... which is exactly what we expect.

          "... and the fossils we do have were most likely formed when massive tsunamis were created from asteroids/meteors smashing our poor younger planet."

          Nice idea, but where's your evidence? You have the same problem with hardly any human fossils. Not only that, but a tsunami isn't covering with much sediment.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • Frank

          Topher

          "That is my point Topher, there are no fossils of humans ..."

          But we DO have human fossils. Just not many ... which is exactly what we expect.
          *Then why does not Ken show bill evidence of these fossils, Empirical evidence that man and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time and our fossil records are proof of Noah's flood because here we can show you and you can see the evidence for yourself that a human fossil exists in the same layer as dinosaurs. They cant, because they do not have the evidence, why, because it doesn't exist.*

          "... and the fossils we do have were most likely formed when massive tsunamis were created from asteroids/meteors smashing our poor younger planet."

          Nice idea, but where's your evidence? You have the same problem with hardly any human fossils. Not only that, but a tsunami isn't covering with much sediment.
          *So you don't seem to get that the giant pot holes on our planet(http://www.arizfoto.com/fotos/arizona/meteor_crater.jpg) say one smashed into the ocean or the Chicxulub crater(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater) would not be able to move a lot of sediment and displace a lot of water? And in the process possibly wipe-out complete ecosystems covering them with sediment and preserving them perfectly as it is such a fast process.*

          February 4, 2014 at 10:34 am |
      • Frank

        btw google images search of Chinese bird fossil

        https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+fossil+bird&espv=210&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=YgHxUsifM8KRygG7joHICw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=675#imgdii=_

        February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • Topher

          Those are a lot of different images. Do you know which is the supposed new find? And how do we know this isn't just a bird like Archaeopteryx?

          February 4, 2014 at 10:14 am |
  10. Nobel Prize Committee

    Can anybody help us. We are looking for Topher and Live4Him. Apparently they have evidence to overturn accepted science in the disciplines of sedimentary geology, plate tectonics, continental drift, genetics, biology, anthropology, cosmology, paleontology and astronomy.

    It seems that all the millions of people who work in those fields all over the World are wrong and have been deluding themselves for over a century. The entire Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, complete with a talking snake! Help me find them, because this is a much bigger breakthrough than anything Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Newton or Galileo ever did. They deserve their Nobel Prizes.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:09 am |
  11. nonChristian

    Even if Evolution is not a 100% provable at this point in time, that doesn't automatically make "Sky daddy created everything in an extra long work week and snakes can talk". Creationism is NOT the default. There is absolutely no proof for creationism apart from "belief" in a violent, misogynist, slave mongering book written by goat herders 2000 years ago. It cannot be taught as an alternative because not only is in completely unscientific, it is also impossibly stupid.

    Instead of nit picking on evolution, you might want to try to get a few shreds of actual scientific evidence for your "theory", for negating one theory doesn't automatically make another true.

    February 4, 2014 at 8:58 am |
    • .....

      You are so very wrong. EVERYTHING in the bible can be scientifically proven.

      February 4, 2014 at 9:58 am |
  12. Creationist

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    February 4, 2014 at 8:52 am |
    • Evolutionist

      In the beginning, um....um... we don't know...

      It's okay to not know, we are perfectly happy to not know!

      February 4, 2014 at 8:53 am |
      • Chad

        You do realize you just offended a large number of people who are theistc evolutionists. Good job on creating division among your brothers.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • John

          If they're offended by the fact we don't have all the answers then that's their problem.

          February 4, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Science Works

          Chad likes this ?

          Goofy fricking stuff?

          In the debate between Ken Ham's Creationism vs. Bill Nye's Science, both are wrong

          http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=54090

          February 4, 2014 at 9:28 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Evolutionary biology is not concerned with explaining the origins of the Universe, nor does it address abiogenesis.
        It is the study of the development of organic life, not its creation.

        As for the "we don't know" – that part is at least a fair statement.
        "We're happy to not know" is not accurate. If scientists were content with ignorance, they would not be exploring, chronicling and attempting to explain the ways in which the world works.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • Almighty3201

        That is a lie it's human nature to know all things! To deny that is a lie! Then never ask another question in your life!!!

        February 4, 2014 at 9:05 am |
    • Observer

      Why do you guys on the opposite side of the spectrum?

      February 4, 2014 at 9:01 am |
      • Creationist

        Because, one is actively trying to remove God from the equation.

        If you don't believe in God of the beginning, you cannot tag along and say you believe in a 'god of the now', you either believe in Him from the beginning or you don't.(period)

        The Bible is very clear: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • igaftr

          just one set of beleifs. Many religions have creation stories, and their own gods. Theirs were made up by men. Yours was made up by men.
          Your religion is no different than any other religion or gods that men have created to this point.

          February 4, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • WASP

          i would say if you are going to pick a creation myth, atleast try and find the oldest one. i say always stick to the original because those "up-dated" gods are evil. 😄

          February 4, 2014 at 9:31 am |
      • Creationist

        The most important point to note is that, God established His relationship with the very first man/woman to walk on planet earth, from the beginning of time and He continues to do so every single day, to this day and will continue to do so.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • WASP

          so you are ok with accepting that you are imbred twice over again. ok that's your choice. i prefer accepting genetic illness and disease as being part of nature seeing it happens to all creatures, not just "sinful" humans.

          " God established His relationship with the very first man/woman to walk on planet earth"

          oh the second time was noah.😄

          February 4, 2014 at 9:37 am |
      • Creationist

        Matthew 11:15

        February 4, 2014 at 9:24 am |
    • AverageJoe76

      "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..... or at least WE think..."

      Because we're HONEST with ourselves to say, "WE DON'T KNOW". And even if a 'god' created everything, AND wanted us to follow them somehow, they left sh-tty instructions, and even sh-ttier people as the guardians of this knowledge. At least I THINK they're made of fecal matter.

      February 4, 2014 at 9:14 am |
    • igaftr

      Before "in the beginning" a bunch of men got together and created a fictional story that began " In the beginning".

      February 4, 2014 at 9:45 am |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Good morning young earth creationists. The planet you are on is a bit over four-and-a-half billion years old. Humans have been on it for only a few hundred thousand years – depends on what you mean by human. It is a small planet and it orbits a smallish star a fair way off to the edge of a fairly large galaxy. You are important to your fellow human beings, but most likely no one else. Hold hands with someone when you feel lonely. Physicists know better than anyone it's dark out there.

    Jesus tried to distill your religion for you: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

    February 4, 2014 at 8:48 am |
  14. pcg

    I don't understand the visceral reaction by the pro-evolution people here. I personally don't believe in creationism. It seems like a shortcut to thinking about the complexity of the problem but the last time I checked nobody has created life in the labratory from a bunch of lifeless molecules so the debate is still open. I don't think anyones ideas should be censored or mocked as long as they put serious thought into it as this guy seems to have done. I personally believe evolutionary theory is on the right track but probably not the whole story. The creation of life from nothing is a technology way beyond our abilities and looking at the problem with no preconceived biases is the only way we will solve it.

    February 4, 2014 at 8:28 am |
    • Colin

      Oh but it were that simple. But it isn't. The creationists are WAY less reasonable than you paint them. They honestly think the World was created in six days less than ten thousand years ago in an incident involving a talking snake and then went through a worldwide deluge where every creature on Earth boarded an ark!!

      Mountains, and I mean mountains, of evidence against this ridiculous kindergarten view of the world are dismissed by the simpletons who then claim false parity with established scientific disciplines. They are as bad as it gets.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:38 am |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Some aren't simpletons. Some are afraid of what God will do if they can't believe that stuff.

        February 4, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • Frances

          you guys are funny. I am looking forward to a debate in hopes that it will cut out all the name calling and emotional insults.

          February 4, 2014 at 9:15 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      In the mid 20th century, Dr. Sidney Fox synthesized amino acids, the basic building blocks of organic life, from inorganic compounds and thermal energy. What he made have been dubbed "protobionts". Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism, and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings.

      The problem is that Ken Ham and his creationist cronies at the Discovery Inst/itute want Creationism to be taught as science, which it most assuredly is not.
      The reason they try so hard to present religion as science (as in Intelligent Design "theory") is that these fundamentalists fear the cultural impact of nation without God. They see naturalistic science as being inextricably linked to atheistic materialism. They fear that teaching facts to children will drive them away from religion.
      If you tell your kid that evolution is true, you're contradicting Genesis so you may as well throw out the whole Bible – which inevitably leads to people pillaging, murdering, ra/ping, stealing, coveting, mouthing off their parents, and sacrificing vir/gins to Ba'al.
      Exploration of creation myths is something for a comparative religion classroom, not a biology course.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:40 am |
      • Zed

        Well said.

        February 4, 2014 at 8:49 am |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Oh Doc, you can see the imprint of God's hand on the building blocks of life. With one hand he made amino acids. With the other he made sugars. Clear as day.

        February 4, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • WASP

          *SMH*

          February 4, 2014 at 8:59 am |
    • WASP

      @pcg: "The creation of life from nothing"

      that is the common misnomer; science siads " something came from something"; theist state god used magic to make the universe.

      what gave rise to everything was energy, it makes up everything around us from the stars in the sky to the dirt under your feet.
      search the periodic table, see what's the simplest element then accually research what the element consists of. the most abundant element in the universe is also the simplest for the universe to create.

      1 PROTON, 1 NEUTRON, 1 ELECTRON. everything else builds from that; don't believe me research how a star operates. it fuses these atoms together to create heavier elements.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:57 am |
      • lumi

        Minor correction, 1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron = deuterium (²H), hydrogen lacks the neutron. 2 H fused results in 1 atom of deuterium, a positron, and some extra heat energy.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • WASP

          thanks for the correction. see one minor slip and you get another element.😄 *ok, ok hand me my dunce hat*

          well back to my books and researching.:)

          February 4, 2014 at 9:42 am |
  15. joshtheapologist

    I am a Catholic, {obviously} and I believe in evolution along with the Catholic Church. I think that evolution has nothing contradictory to the Creation accounts unless read literally like some Young Earth creationists do. The Book of Genesis is symbolic with allegorical characters, { ie. Adam and Eve, snake.} The word adam literally translates to Hebrew as "man," so he and his wife represented early humanity. And, gardens have been long thought of as a sanctuary or paradise, so, we might interpret this as meaning that the earth appeared to these humans as a paradise. And, the fall did happen, just probably a different way than eating a fruit from a tree. The fruit-eating represents man's disobedience of God by picking the wrong 'fruit', or decision. And, we dont know how long a day is to God, but we do know that the 24-hour time frame is relatively new. One verse in Peter says, "One day with the Lord is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as one day." Now, in the Hebrew language, one number can also mean a higher number, notice how the word one million or so is not mentioned in the Bible, but thousand is. And the Book says man was FORMED in God's image, which could mean that God directed the evolutionary process until man was formed into his current image. Therefore, I think, the Book of Genesis read in the correct style is compatible with scientific accounts for the origins of the universe.

    February 4, 2014 at 7:33 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      Allegorizing Biblical narrative is bad hermeneutics.
      See:
      "The Insti.tutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin
      "Herman Who?" Todd Friel

      Martin Luther also wrote quite a bit on proper hermeneutics, as did Jonathan Edwards, and modern pastors like John MacArthur, and Ravi Zacharius.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:46 am |
    • WhyMe

      Genesis 1:
      4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
      5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

      Sounds pretty clear that a day in the bible is a day as we know it.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:57 am |
    • Science Works

      joshtheapologist

      If you are riding the ground FOAMING at the mouth having an epileptic seizure it is not the DEVIL – Neil deGrasse Tyson

      February 4, 2014 at 8:21 am |
    • Frances

      That is why I left the catholic church. When do you decide to trust the Word of God as true? Catholicism teaches you that men need to INTERPRET God's Word as if God Himself is not able to tell us exactly what he means. JESUS believed the old testement as true. He referred to Moses and Noah et al as real men. How do you explain when He was seen with them by the apostles before His ascension? Were they figments of the apostles imagination? Were they hallucinating? Were they lying?

      February 4, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • joshtheapologist

        I never said that the Old Testament heroes were allegorical, just the creation accounts.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:31 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
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.