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.
"Evolutionary 'belief' system"?. Hey Creation guy, what about the 'general relativity' belief system, or how about the 'gravity' belief system?Prepare to be schooled, something that should have happened to you decades ago
On one hand, I applaud Nye for helping teach science here. On the other hand, even having the debate gives an air of legitimacy to the Creationist point of view, which is entirely fabricated nonsense.
I personally believe evolution is on the right track but this subject is definately unsolved. There's no way to create even the simplest lifeforms in the lab from scratch let alone one so complex as to be pondering it's own creation. Close minded pro-science people are almost as annoying as the bible thumpers. I believe that good science requires out of the box thinking and you can't have that if anyone that strays from current dogma is censored and mocked. While I don't think this creationist guy is right he may have some well thought out points especially about the flaws in current evolutionary theory which would be constructive.
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.
Can you give examples of flaws in current evolutionary synthesis?
synthesizing amino acids is pretty far away from creating a self replicating lifeform. Generally what we describe as life.
"While I don't think this creationist guy is right he may have some well thought out points especially about the flaws in current evolutionary theory which would be constructive."
While new ideas are welcomed in science, provided the evidence backs it up. Ken Ham and AIG are notorious for using bad science to promote their version of Christianity and should not be given the time of day, unless he has some peer-reviewed data/research to back it up (and no, the "Answers Research Journal" does not qualify as a peer-reviewed science journal).
Why does an idea have to be backed up by proof. Bill Nye can't conclusively prove that atoms and molecules can randomly join into a self replicating lifeform. Maybe in a hundred years we can do this but not today. The theory comes first then the proof.
The belief that if something cannot be created in a lab, it is too complex and therefore doesn't fit evolutionary models is called intelligent design. It's a belief not a theory (it cannot be tested) and carries about as much scientific merit as a Transformers movie. It's precisely this kind of mentality that Nye is claiming is killing science education, and he is right. The rational mind would say "we cannot do this at the moment, but we will strive to learn how we can." The irrational mind says "We cannot do this at the moment, therefore it proves our theory is flawed and a higher being must be involved." If we ever fall into the latter line of thinking, there will never be a major scientific breakthrough again.
"There's no way to create even the simplest lifeforms in the lab from scratch "
Really...no way? SO all of the steps we are taking that are getting us closer...a complete waste of time...OR is it more likley that we haven't been able to do it yet, and you just decided to show your ignorance in that if we can't do it now, then it can't be done. There may be a way, and we are trying to get there.
the simplest but most inspirational ,logical and scientific future solution for our conflicting faith in God is Panthrotheism,the belief that we are one and part of God
the father, the son, the holy spirit and me
oh yes, that makes about as much sense as Thor throwing the lightning bolts
Panthrotheist means you think Panthro is god...Thundercats HO!.
But otherwiase, your assumption there is a god is why it has nothing to do with science, as you have previously supposed.
Nothing good can come of this. This is just another example of media wanting to create us versus them "news" that encourage us to be intolerant of people who don't think and view society like we do. It's rubbish and it's contributing to the incivility and political/social polarization that is hurting our republic.
It could be. Or, it could be an attempt to have two people, respected in their particular areas, prove that people with differing opinions can still have a civil debate without comparisons to fascist dictators or personal attacks. As for the viewers, I'm not so sure.
Funny that the same people who constantly accuse athiests of failing to disprove God are trying to disprove evolution.
The NTSB/gov. is moving forward all new cars will be required to talk to each other .
This is the usual nonsense that Ken Ham repeats ad nauseum on his ludicrous website. Hopefully, when his Ark Project hits the financial skids in a few days' time, Ken and his band of merry fools will disappear from public view.
I am a geologist and a secular humanist. I don't call myself an atheist, due to the connotations that word has, but I am a-theist, meaning I do not believe in any supernatural beings, including Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, God, Allah, Zoroaster, etc. I do not disparage religious people, but I do secretly feel sorry for them. Being who I am gives me total freedom to choose to do the right thing because it is the right thing, with no expectation of reward or punishment after I die. When I die, I no longer exist in any place except in the memories of those whose lives I had touched. What an incredible challenge, to know that I am in control of how I am remembered. But, on to the subject, evolution is the way we got here, and that's that.
Most likely nobody will ever know you existed in 100 years.
And that's okay.
If you theory is right. Which it probably isn't.
at least Great Dogs will be remembered as a sane an intelligent member of the human race. Prom will be remembered ad a gullible cultist who talks to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I know which legacy I would rather leave.
Thanks for your words BD.
Thank you for sharing, Great Dogs, and know that you are not alone by a long shot. I think there are a goodly percentage of rational humanists like us out there, who are probably less vocal than the radical religious types due to persecution. Its a shame these things typically devolve into nasty posts, and that people can't respect each others right to believe (or not believe) as they see fit.
I'm not religious, you dumb dog. Major fail on your part.
Great Dogs is religious, actually. Secular Humanism is a religion. And dyslexic Dog just pretty much called him a cult member. :)
I'm not religious either but it's funny you feel sorry for religious people because I'm pretty sure they would say they feel sorry for someone like yourself.
I feel sorry for him. He sounds like an arrogant d-bag.
How am I arrogant? I should be allowed to profess my set of world truths just as anyone else can. I am not arguing faith, I just have none. And, yes, I am considered a good person by those who know me.
That is arrogance. Why don't you demonstrate you are a good person? Instead of trash talking religious people and insisting you are so much better?
Thanks for popping in to let everyone know how great you think you are.
I shouldn't have made such a broad statement, I feel sorry for some religious people. I know religious people who only do the right thing because of a fear of punishment in the afterlife. Would these people not be better off if they chose to do the right thing because if benefits others around them? I have known "religious" people who do the wrong thing, and it amazes me, their complete hypocrisy.
I feel sorry for some a-theist people. I know a-theist people who only do the right thing so they can tell others they do the right thing and then imagine that makes them better than religious people.. Would these people not be better off if they chose to do the right thing because if benefits others around them? I have known "a-theist" people who do the wrong thing, and it amazes me, their complete hypocrisy.
great dogs are more powerfull than cats,same with the way animals think. but if the dog is raised in violent environment it will be a big problem for the owner than a small cat in the same environment, a similar analogy but in an intellectual level,you have to consider the dispositons of the faithfulls in impoverised economies and societes where they dont have the privilege of religious freedom and liberation as you have,in poor countries ,physical survival is paramount and to find solace in religion is the easyiest way for phsycological hope,where you in oppulent countries does not need
Very we'll put :)
Atheism is an absolute statement which you can onlky make if you declare yourself to be God. If noyt then you default to agnosticism, meaning y9u are ignorant and cannot declare a true statement of purpose regarding the being nor non being of God. Choose your poison
I doubt very much this debate will be fair or equal! If it is fair Bill Nye is going to look like the complete fool he is!!! I give him much respect for making himself look stupid. Look for Mr. Nye to not give direct answers or none at all to many basic questions. Look for him to try to outwit Ken with his big words and "passing the shell" or buck from various science disciplines. But all the non-believers will come out still as "lost" as ever.
Post by 'Almight3201' consists mainly of multiple instances of the ad hominem fallacy.
Blah, blah, blah...blahh... blah
The lack of substance in your reply seals the deal, Alstupid one. You don't have a case, so you attacked the person.
Keep blah-thering if you like, but your delusion's time has passed and your religion will die out.
I have so much substance that the moderator of the Noahs ark blog deleted almost all my blogs, because I quoted so much scripture to back my argument that the evil world we live in wouldn't even let my opinion stand! Typical prejudicial hate mongering against us Christians. Christians now are persecuted in this country when we used to be revered.
Really, that's silly. Nye is not trying to force his beliefs onto you but you are onto him. I myself am a Catholic but I don't believe that the Pope and the Church are infallible. Genesis is more of a parable guiding my moral compass than a definite proof.
Given the tone of your posts, sounds like you specifically deserve to be not only persecuted, but locked up. FWIW, I'm not an atheist, and I still think you're being a jerk.
Everyone here has had their posts deleted, Almighty. It's nothing personal.
If it makes you feel better to think you're being persecuted, okay. It's not true, but, whatever.
Carolyn – no offense, but it's time we took a stand for Jesus Christ! Do you believe in GOD? Well quit trying to be politically correct and take a stand!!! People are dying and going to hell every second and as Christians it's ourt job to help the lost. Obviously in our society today no one wants to be held by the hand, they need to be hit hard!
"it's time we took a stand for Jesus Christ! "
No problem, just take your stand on that side of the wall of separation.
Al-not-mighty, 'nuff about the Jeebus nonsense already. It is foundational to your supersti.tions, and it is nonsense. Think about this: how is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
" because I quoted so much scripture to back my argument "
As if "scripture" backs an argument.
Scipture only means that a MAN wrote it down. This too is scripture, since you can read it.
Quoting from what other men wrote down, with nothing to verify it, is a fools errand.
Jahtez – you have no idea, I refuse to start quoting scripture to prove my point anymore. All my sound arguments were deleted! people just cannot hear TRUTH anymore in this world....
An atheist complaining about ad hominems? Well, now I've seen everything.
Why would you assume that Fallacy is an atheist?
Because this isn't my first day on this blog.
I've seen him call out both sides on their fallacies. A fallacy is a fallacy, no matter who is committing it.
Topher for you from Thomas Jefferson
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reasons can act upon them, and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of jesus.
As true today as it was then. You are a walking ad hominem target and so justly deserve the attacks.
FYI creationist believe in science and chemistry and all the other various disciplines therein we just don't accept your scientific dogma! Further the word Science means knowledge, and it therefore has nothing to do with what you think "science" is!
How would you teach creationism in school without using the word God and the Bible?
I'm genuinely curious.
Translated: "We creationists believe in science when it doesn't contradict our religious beliefs. If it doesn't – man, these guys are smart and do well supported work! If it does – man, these guys are such fools, their work is not up to standard, and worse yet, it is a lie! We are quite happy to enjoy all the benefits of science but it is honorable to pick and choose what we accept or don't accept."
I still haven't had an answer to my question. If they want it taught in public schools, I'd like to know how.
Jahtez – interestingly, I would teach both options and let the child or student decide. I would simply offer that there are two schools of thought on the origin of man and our overall existence. No matter how much evidence we gather, evolution still leaves many things unanswered, and some of these things will never be answered. Now arguably one might say the same about creation, and I actually totally agree. Leave it to the individual. We will NEVER see a monkey turn into a man. Before any hate mongers jump on this post, I know I know it takes millions of years... precisely my point...not ever observable or provable!
But there are more than 2 sides.
Virtually every religion has a creation myth.
Should children be taught each and every one of them?
Creation mythology is a subject for a comparative religion class, not biology.
" I would teach both options "
And since there are more than two options , instant fail.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with creation. Also, since there are SO many creation stories, would you teach them all?
@Doc – It's simple, firstly it's not a myth any more than evolution is to you. 1 account 1 story God created everything.
No, it (Christianity) is a myth. And not even internally consistent with itself. It's on its way out. Get used to that. Your religion is on its way down and out. Evolutionary science won. Now there are just a fading number of clingers to the old Christian fables.
You failed to address the salient point.
What about the myriad other creation stories?
Better flag Gary for the ad hominems.
Yes, it is ironic, and regrettable.
I don't know much about Nye, but I don't have much faith in him either. So what? Debates don't decide truth, and truth is not the only factor in winning or losing a debate. It sometimes plays little to no factor. We could set YOU up in a debate with say, Richard Dawkins, and you would get smoked, and it would be unanimous. What would that prove?
then there are those who throw the word "truth" around like it's the sand on the beach that they can feel under their feet. Some people are awfully certain about some "truth", but when asked for evidence of a "truth", they are usually lost for words.
I guarantee I could smoke any evolutionist if given fair and equal opportunity! I mean ANY one!
If all of mankind came from 3 breeding pairs of humans in which all the males were 1st order relatives a mere 4,000 years ago – how can you account for all the ethnic diversity in our species?
How did those 6 people manage to avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding, the founder effect, and genetic drift?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....the only way you could smoke the science backing evolution is to roll it up. Are you sure your name isn't Don Quixote, because you are sure tilting at a huge windmill there...thanks for the laugh.
I'm serious as a heart attack!
"I'm serious as a heart attack!"
Sounds very Austintatious...
I too am serious.
Please address the question I posed, Mr. Omnipotent Myocardial Infarction.
Seeing your last few posts make me a little unsure on whether you'd be able to successfully debate an evolutionist. First, you'd have to avoid referencing your scriptures, as that source of information has no bearing on scientific knowledge. If you wanted a debate on the authenticity and relevance of your scriptures, that would be a whole other topic. Next, you would need to take the emotion out of your posts. There's no way to tell how calm you are behind the computer, but with your generous use of exclamation marks and caps lock, it's hard to believe that you're in a sound emotional state. And finally, you'll have a hard time not using fallacies such as the burden of truth and straw man arguments without being able to use your scriptures as a source. Give us empirical evidence, take emotion out of it, and don't rely on a shaky source, and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to debate with the big boys.
there is no god.
all the rest that we argue about is just noise.
the noise enables christians to duck and weave and dodge and obfuscate and lie and pout and whine and threaten and flee
when all we need to know is that there is NO evidence for any god. not one iota. never has been, never will be. zero. nada. nothing!
all the rest of the arguing about the stories in the Christian story book is just noise.
Have I used this one yet today?
1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
As often as things are inappropriately reported as abuse I've started saving a text file so I can report.
Alias have you read the verses you quoted? I don't think so or you would that what you are trying to prove a inconsistency in the Bible that doesn't exist.
Do you think I read these?
2SA 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census.
1CH 21:1 Satan inspired the census.
2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.
That's why it's called faith Einstein! Evolution is faith too, but you cannot see that because you choose to not think for yourself. If you examined evolution to it's fullest capacity not only would you render it a "religion" in and of itself, but you would totally disagree with it.
Post by 'Almighty3201' presents a form of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy.
And that should have been "its", not "it's", stupid!
"faith": believing something without a single shred of proof.
it amazes me that religious folk see this word as a badge of honor while any logical thinking person sees it as a mark of foolishness or insanity.
quite a disconnect.
It amazes me how you cannot see how faith is required in evolution!
I'm not amazed. Most atheist trolls on religious blogs are not that intelligent. doG probably uses more faith than average men and women, yet doesn't even realize it.
...are not that intelligent
Exceedingly-high irony alert.
What is so ironic? Do you think atheist trolls are intelligent? Or like most people, do you think they are idiots?
God Created science it is clear you have no understanding what religious people believe but what the Media would have you believe...
"There is no God" is your opinion and belief. Sorry doggy.
"There is no God"
Zeus doesn't exist.
Vishnu doesn't exist.
Thor doesn't exist.
Osiris doesn't exist.
Adad doesn't exist.
Tezcatlipoca doesn't exist.
Apistotookii doesn't exist.
Your god doesn't exist.
Right, you have no evidence. Just a big opinion.
Evolutions VS. Creationism? Um.. Ya.. It's the Chicago Bulls VS. The Green Bay Packers in the World Series!
Creationism attempts to explain how everything got here (god made the universe, basically in it's current form ~10k yrs ago). Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not attempt to explain the origins of life. Darwin's book was The Origin of Species, not origins of life.
How these two things are even able to be debated is a bit tough to understand, if I assume the debaters actually understand the topics. Ken Ham seems to think that evolution attempts to explain the origins of life, which it doesn't. Ken Ham seems to think that evolution is something that you believe in, or don't believe in. It isn't. It's something that you accept or don't accept. Ken Ham seems to think that "considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution". It doesn't.
Ken Ham said: "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone." – um.. hello? We also "arbitrarily" define the number 2 as 1+1......
Great post, x1plus1x. Many good points. Right on. I hope a lot of people read and appreciate what you said.
Ham is probably a liar. He is not unintelligent. He knows these things. But deliberate disinformation serves his purposes.
It's true that evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. But evolution and creationism CAN be debated together because they clearly conflict. Creationism says all humans are descended from two people and that those two people had no other ancestors. Evolution says something quite different.
Get the L out of here.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!
Looks like doggie got out of his cage again. Bad dog! Bad!
go to L
Didn't I smoke you in the back of my Benz?
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.
So what's your problem with those verses?
And atheism IS a religion according to the Supreme Court.
Only as it relates to free speech. Why the misrepresentation?
I'm curious as to why it's such a big deal to consider whether athiesm is a religion or not.
It's only a big deal if you think not believing in ghosts is a religion.
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.
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.
So are we going to talk about those verses or continue to go down this rabbit trail?
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.
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.
So, what you're telling me is that you haven't read the narrative then...
How about Solomon's stables, Larry? Why the conflicting number of figures?
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.
Then you won't mind answering the questions, since they're so easy for you.
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.
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.
And as soon as you schedule that psychiatric eval, I'll take typing lessons.
Ths one is very clear:
JG 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.
JG 5:25-27 Sisera was standing.
I suppose you'll know for sure one way or the other when history reaches Revelation 20.
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..."
In one version he was asleep, in the other he asked for a drink.
I see you did your research on this one!
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.
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.
Does not interpret scripture he just tells you what every verse means, pay attention the Saint has spoken.
"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.
Let's atleast be honest about this. In this country "creationism" equals "The Christian story of creation".
Which atheists are emotionally attached to leaving out all other non-Christian religions. I find internet atheism laughable😃
You have an internet reputation for foinding even the the most basic facts laughable.
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.
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.
L and the video that started it ALL ?
Evolution is taught in classrooms because the science is sound. There is no mention of any god in teaching evolution.
a ridiculous accusation, L. Just what is your concept of "atheistic evolution" and please, by all means, show how this is being taught.
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.
L if you would like there is 2 links here for you to watch for free ?
Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight
February 04, 2014 8:20 AM
"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.
I would like to see how it would be taught without mentioning God or the Bible.
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.
And I give them just as much respect as scientologists.
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😄
The bible was written by men. There is no sign any gods were involved.
Atheism is a unproven man-made concept and you're telling me I'm the one that's wrong?! LOLOLOL. Atheists are hilarious here!
Simply stating a fact. Men DID write the bible, and there is no evidence of any gods.
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!😃😄😀
"God cannot be proven using the scientific method "
Decent evidence for God hasn't come from any method.
Your trolling and ad hominem doesn't change the fact that I stated.
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.
".. 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..
just your opinion. That's what makes Christianity the easiest target. All the different sects that say their opinion is the right one.
As do atheists. Atheists generally are the same way.
based on what, your opinion only?
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.
Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.
Where is this word found? What do you refer to?
Bible based. 2tim 3:16
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?
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.
List 1 Reference for all that garbage propaganda you just spilled?
–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."
"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."
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.
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.
Unless you're talking about L4H. Then, I tend to agree.
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.
Nice to have a fan following all these exchanges, but what's your point?
you continue to post the same BS even though your "point" has been whittled down to nothing time and time again.
Your fan following is about the same as Hitler's fan following, not sure if I would be proud of that one.
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?
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.
She does it knowingly. She doesn't care.
@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.
Discovery Inst-itute and Ken Ham and the ICR ?
I like how you atheist belief-bloggers now quote each other to make an argument against Christians. Talk about an appeal to authority fallacy.
:-D :-D Atheism is stupid, but Topher takes the cake!!!!!! :-D :-D
Please Topher, shut up! :-D :-D
You are creating more atheists thanyou are saving!!!!!!! :-D :-D:-D :-D:-D :-D
That was for L4H ?
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
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.
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.
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.