home
RSS
June 17th, 2014
02:36 PM ET

'Cosmos': the creationist version

"Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it.

Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping? Weigh in below.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (1,386 Responses)
  1. jknbt

    this whole article & the discussions are lame. If you are really interested in what the science creation people believe, go the the reasons to believe website:

    http://www.reasons.org/

    then take a look at Hugh Ross's great video he produced: "Journey to Creation" .

    the little article and the second rate video they put up here do not do the subject justice. CNN, you did a really sorry job here. If you really want to stir up some discussion, put up Hugh Ross's video & let him write the article.

    well, I am signing off. This is lame.

    June 25, 2014 at 8:27 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      It was just satire, you know. Most people don't take this nonsense seriously

      June 25, 2014 at 8:51 am |
  2. blessed137

    of course he did!:)After the stars, birds, and trees, then he created adam and eve. Which trickled on down to you and me. Thank God he did. I love my life. I love God. Peace.

    June 24, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      comedy gold!

      July 8, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
  3. delevin

    Steve,

    Why do you reject the fact and theory of evolution? The science is quite settled on the issue of common ancestry. That's not going to change.

    June 23, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Delevin,

      The fossil record puts the debate to rest. There should be millions of transitional fossils if Darwinian evolution were true.

      June 23, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
      • delevin

        Truthfollower,

        First, there is no debate to be had. As I explained, common ancestry is settled science. Second, there are lots of transitional fossils, with more being discovered every month.

        June 23, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          When you say lots, what is the estimate would you say?

          June 23, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • observer

          Species Lived where Height Weight Fossil record Discovery/Publ.
          Denisova hominin Russia 1 site 2010
          H. antecessor Spain 5’7” 200 lb 2 sites 1997
          H. cepranensis Italy 1 skull cap 1994/2003
          H. erectus Africa, Eurasia 5’9” 130 lb Many 1891/1892
          H. ergaster East/South Africa 6’2” Many 1975
          H. floresiensis Indonesia 3’4” 55 lb 7 individuals 2003/2004
          H. gautengensis South Africa 3’4” 1 individual 2010/2010
          H. habilis Africa 4’10” 121 lb, Many, 1960/1964
          H. heidelbergensis Eur., Africa,China 5’10” 200 lb Many 1908
          H. neanderthalensis Europe, W. Asia 5’3” 150 lb Many (1829)/1864
          H. rhodesiensis Zambia Very few 1921
          H. rudolfensis Kenya 2 sites 1972/1986
          Red Deer Cave people China Very few 2012
          H. sapiens idaltu Ethiopia 3 craniums 1997/2003

          June 23, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • delevin

          Truthfollower,
          An estimate? If you think about it, every fossil is transitional between an earlier from from which it evolved and a later form that descended from it.

          June 23, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • delevin

          Observer, quite. It's a very strange creationist claim that there are not any transitional fossils. When you drill down into that claim, they are expecting a cartoon version of evolution – a crocaduck – as a transitional form. They don't understand that transitional forms do not reflect an inter-conversion of one modern form into another.

          June 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
      • kmosley2799

        Here is all the evidence you need. Evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation is indisputable. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

        June 24, 2014 at 3:35 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        TF.....how many times must you be told this.....every fossil is a transitional one. The process is slow....there is no half man, half pig. That is a Seinfeld episode, not reality.

        June 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • redzoa

        This argument has already been responded to and it's disingenuous at best to keep offering it as somehow legitimate. Fossilization is rare. Preservation of fossils within strata w/out destruction due to geologic processes is rare. Re-exposure of the strata allowing fossil discovery is again, rare.

        As noted before, literal creationism is confounded by the presence of any transitional fossil displaying traits bridging the alleged specially-created "kinds" and there are plenty, e.g. tiktaalik (fish-tetrapod), archeopteryx (reptile-bird), etc.

        June 24, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      I am not seeing any other obvious "steve" names in this thread, so I am assuming that this post was meant for me. If not, please feel free to ignore this post.

      First, the question is not necessarily about evolution, although it could be. There are four or five creationist theories (maybe more because I am not sure I am conversant in all of them), not just one as those of you who disbelieve any version of creationism seem to think. Actually, only one theory, the young earth theory, portrays the creation as occurring in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. The list and descriptions are too long to describe in detail here. But it may be instructional to note that one of the creationist theories takes the position (not mine by the way) that God did indeed use evolution as a means for creating much or all of the life we see today after he "created the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1. I do not have information on what proportions of Christians adhere to any specific theory of creation, but among the theories there is one main point of agreement. That is the aforementioned Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

      June 23, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • delevin

        Steve,
        It is unfortunate that you so misuse the word theory. Creationists have nothing that could be appropriately described as a theory. They have a set of beliefs, none of which are grounded in evidence and most of which have been directly falsified by science. Your reference to theistic evolution as a form of creationism is interesting, because theistic evolutionists do not consider themselves creationists.

        June 23, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          OH MY!! I use theory in a general sense and guess what? Picky picky, picky. What's next I leave out a comma.

          Here's a valid definition of theory as I used it. No, it's not science. But did I EVER say this was a "scientific" theory? Answer: NO.

          the·o·ry
          ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/
          noun
          noun: theory; plural noun: theories

          a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
          "Darwin's theory of evolution"
          synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More: opinion, view, belief, contention
          "I reckon that confirms my theory"
          principles, ideas, concepts;
          philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
          "modern economic theory"
          a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
          "a theory of education"
          an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

          So, what I would suggest is that you get a life and not be quite so arrogant.

          As for your note about theistic evolutionists, I made it very clear that I was (a) not conversant in all of the theories and (b) that I did not have space or time or interest enough to explain all of them in detail. Get over yourself.

          June 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • jknbt

      all your list of fossils means is that God likes diversity....Subtle differences are due to genes being turned on or off, not speciation. The 300 or so breeds of domestic dogs out there are all genetically identical to the southern asian wolf. The differences between a great dane and a chihuahua are due to genes being turned on or off. If a "palenontologist" of sorts were to dig in a pet cemetery a million years from now, he would no doubt announce that he had found 300 new species of dogs since the great dane obviously evolved from the chihuahua.

      so I don't think it is fair to announce yet another missing link because someone digs up some hominid bones where there is a slight difference from a similar fossil found in the same strata a year before.

      Also, the old testament is the account of Adam's family. It does not say anything much about any other families living at the same time. Seth had to marry somebody. The bible is silent at this point. There may have been other "humans" living at the same time as adam & eve.

      June 24, 2014 at 11:21 am |
      • delevin

        jknbt,

        you are extremely poorly informed on both the fossil record and on genetics. You clearly do not have a grasp of the relevant science if you think that various dog breeds are genetically identical to each other and to the southern Asian wolf. In fact, dogs are genetically derived from the grey wolf through at least 15,000 years of selective breeding. If they were genetically identical to wolves, they would be wolves rather than dogs.

        June 24, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • jknbt

          do a google search for DOGS GENETICS WOLVES

          you will find hundreds of scientific papers supporting my assertion.

          perfect example of arrogance here, you didn't bother to do 2 seconds of research on the matter before refuting my point...

          wanna go on? there are only 100 points of genetic difference between you and any person on the planet. That's how closely related genetically we are as a species. (Incidentally, that is also evidence of a relatively recent origin.) Genes turn on and off by the thousands. That is what makes up human diversity.

          so no more of your patronizing crap, please...if you are going to do patronizing hypocritical crap, pls do a little research first and earn the right.

          June 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • delevin

          jknbt: "perfect example of arrogance here, you didn’t bother to do 2 seconds of research on the matter before refuting my point…"

          I'm a geneticist at a major research university. I know a little something about dog genetics. For example, the short legged morphology of basset hounds and dachshunds is the result of a dwarfism mutation in a gene encoding fibroblast growth factor, the most common form of dwarfism in humans (called achondroplasia).

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

          "wanna go on? there are only 100 points of genetic difference between you and any person on the planet. That’s how closely related genetically we are as a species."

          Seriously? You are way out of your depth. Any two humans differ from each other by roughly 1 million mutations. In fact, roughly 60 NEW mutations (not present in the parents) arise in each new human simply as a consequence of the production of sperm and egg. I teach this stuff to medical students. You could learn something from people here who actually have a grasp of the science..

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

          June 24, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey jknbt this helps with the mass for your ass – maybe it might help you ?

          New evidence bolsters Higgs boson discovery: Confirmation of particle responsible for mass

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623121004.htm

          June 24, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • bostontola

          A father's age influences the mutation rate (older fathers have a markedly higher mutation rate):

          http://phys.org/news/2014-06-father-age-evolution.html

          June 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • delevin

          bostontola,

          Yes, that was an interesting paper.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • bostontola

          The problem with denying evolution is you have to deny genetics, chemistry, physics, and even mathematics to make it work. The strange thing is, all those fields work just dandy in all applications where there is no religious dogmatic conflict.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • delevin

          bostontola,
          What I find most perplexing about science deniers is that they actually seem to believe that they hold a greater understanding of the science than do the scientists. This guy, jknbt, actually knows less than nothing about the subjects on which he opines. He is filled with anti-knowledge.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • bostontola

          delevin,
          I don't get why they can't be satisfied with faith, they have to make up pseudo-science that jibes with their beliefs. Creationism smacks of reason-envy to me.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • redzoa

          "wanna go on? there are only 100 points of genetic difference between you and any person on the planet."

          This is patently false. On average, a child bears ~ 100 mutations not found in either parent. But beyond this, there is a substantial array of distinguishing genetic characteristics, e.g. VNTRs, SNPs, etc. This mult-itude of differences underlies DNA forensic testing, genome wide association studies, human population migration studies, immunological/disease susceptibility studies, etc, etc. While it is true that genetic regulation controls much of the phenotypic diversity, it is not true that humans are distinguished only by "100 points" of difference (whatever "100 points" is supposed to mean).

          June 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • redzoa

          Correction: My 100 novel mutations in children is based on some older predictions; delevin's 60 novel mutations is the correct current average . . .

          June 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
  4. eflows

    This is just troll-bait. Creationists will never believe science, and fact-based humans will never consider mythology to be science.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:17 am |
    • jknbt

      go to the reasons to believe . org website and learn a little about science.

      your personal mythology is the religion of Scientism. Science is good for cataloging and describing the natural world, but inadequate for a personal religious & moral belief system.

      June 24, 2014 at 11:24 am |
  5. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    LET’s Religiosity Law #9 – If you think the bible is historical fact of the creation of the Universe, Earth or Mankind and believe without a doubt that some Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh, drink of his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master; so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a sinful woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree! Then you are an award-winning retard.

    June 23, 2014 at 8:47 am |
    • ragansteve1

      Says the guy who uses Lucifer as his name.

      June 23, 2014 at 9:39 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Lucifer is NOT my name, learn how to read... also, look up where the name Lucifer comes from.

        June 23, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Well, if you're his twin, then it follows that your the same. And whether you use the Hebrew version, the re-translated modern version, or the Canaanite version, you're still the fallen star, morning star, or the virulently anti-Christian Satan's twin.

          June 23, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          You say that like it's a bad thing... Lucifer is not the name of your Satan.

          Also, you are not asking the right question.

          June 23, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Depends upon where you look. There are many sources I HAVE read that say it is. But I am sure you can educate me with your "credible" sources.

          June 23, 2014 at 11:03 am |
      • chrisnfolsom

        So you can't argue his point, but his id? What next, a grammatical error? Argue his points or this discussion is even more pointless then most of us probably know it already is.

        June 23, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Not wanting to appear paranoid, I am going to assume that your comment was intended for me. If not, feel free to ignore this post. But, having said that, there are really only three points that I even wish to argue. One, I am not a retard. Retards seldom achieve PhD status. Two, I haven't won any awards lately, although I have won several in the past. And three, I would argue that his tone is unacceptably rude, crude and sarcastic. That latter point makes his former points inaccurate by implication. But, otherwise he is fairly accurate.

          June 23, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
    • rosethornne

      What?!?
      You mean the cannibal zombie-worshippers got it wrong?
      Nooooooooooooooo

      June 23, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
  6. jknbt

    the article & the little video are dumb. The comments bantered back and forth are lame. CNN, why did you put this up in the first place? lame, lame, lame......

    If you people out there on both sides of the fence want to learn something, google and go to:

    reasons to believe . org

    the little video here is dumb. Look at Hugh Ross's video, "Journey to Creation" if you want to learn about what creationists believe.

    June 23, 2014 at 8:27 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      jknbt...I know everything about creationists that I care to know. The earth is not only 6000 years old, the story of Noah did not happen, Adam and Eve were not real people, and the Red Sea did not part. Most religious nuts are crazy....creationists are insane!

      June 23, 2014 at 8:36 am |
      • jknbt

        the RTB people believe in long day creation, meaning they believe the universe is 14 billion y.o.

        the flood happened, all paleontologists agree that there was an ecological catastrophe about 12000 b.c. In north america the sabertooth tiger, the american cheetah, and the giant elk died out. In south america the giant sloth died out. look it up.

        geneticists have proven that there was a unique human male ancestor and a unique human female ancestor. I call them adam and eve. you have dna in you traceable back to our original human parents.

        they have found artifacts on the bottom of the red sea typical of 18th dynasty chariots and weapons. there is still the pillar there that solomon put up on the western side of the red sea. on the eastern side, they have found artifacts of the camp the children of israel made when they worshipped the golden calf. once again, look it up.

        you just blast away with your refutation and bigoted opinion without any consideration for the facts of modern archeology, paleontology or genetics. your mentality has more to do with the thinking current in 1914 rather than 2014. so shut up and do a little research before you blast away with your opinions, okay?

        oops, that's right, your a liberal humanist. objective thinking based on current research is beyond you.

        June 23, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Jknbt....actually, you are the one that needs to do some research on this subject. No competent geologist agrees on a worldwide flood event at any time (which is why no university in this country teaches such nonsense). The silt on the bottom of the Red Sea would have made it impossible to traverse with chariots, beside the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a large body of water to divide.

          Creationists make all kinds of excuses to support their beliefs, but the bottom line is, no reputable scientists believes any of the concepts of creationists, and no reputable school in this country teaches your nonsense.

          And for the record, I don't have to shut up..,,this is a public forum.

          June 24, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • jknbt

          there is a lot of evidence out there for the flood event. It is not taught openly because the scientism religious thought police will destroy anyone who dares teach this truth. That's why I recommend looking at the RTB website.

          more evidence of the flood: the mammoths of siberia and n. america all died off at the flood event of 12000 b.c. There have been some mighty ridiculous "scientific" reasons why this happened. The current scientific myth has to do with the new native migrants to n. am. eating them. A version of that was on cnn two weeks ago. They credit the first generation of hunting dogs for the mammoths demise. Nope, didn't happen. If the mammoths knew how to defend their babies from grizzly bears and wolves, they knew how to handle humans with old stone age weapons and untame dogs. But this is the sort of myth the paleontologists and anthropologists are teaching this day. If you say the flood killed them off, they will strip you of your credentials, fire you, and not let you have a job at the college at all. Tenure is another myth. I taught college for 7 years so I should know that.

          look on youtube for videos of the artifacts they found at the red sea crossing point. They are at the 180 foot deep level. There are chariot wheels and weapons in clear evidence. Nope, can't imagine how God did it, but it happened. Pharaoh & company became fish food.

          June 24, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • delevin

          jknbt: "there is a lot of evidence out there for the flood event. It is not taught openly because the scientism religious thought police will destroy anyone who dares teach this truth"

          Nonsense. There is no evidence from any reputable source that would support such a conclusion. You are wizzing in the wind.

          "more evidence of the flood: the mammoths of siberia and n. america all died off at the flood event of 12000 b.c."

          Again, no evidence that the extinction of mammoths was connected to a flood. And if this was the case, why weren't virtually all animals extinguished at the same time? Why only a small number of species that are known to have been hunted by humans? In addition to your insidious science denial, you are a truly uncritical thinker.

          June 24, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Delevin....,did you see the part where this person taught college for 7 years? I weep for the youth of this country. He really believes a 600 year old man built a wooden boat and floated an array of animals around for a year, never even considering the logistics of such a thing. How in the world do people get this delusional?

          June 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • delevin

          gulliblenomore,

          Clearly, he was not a science teacher.

          June 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • redzoa

          "look on youtube for videos of the artifacts they found at the red sea crossing point. They are at the 180 foot deep level. There are chariot wheels and weapons in clear evidence. Nope, can't imagine how God did it, but it happened. Pharaoh & company became fish food."

          Funny, to my knowledge, and despite significant efforts, zero archeological evidence has been discovered to support the Exodus out of Egypt . . .

          June 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • delevin

          redzoa,

          This is the nonsense to which jknbt refers.

          http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm#.U6mp5v1OV2s

          This guy has to be one of more credulous creationists I have run into recently.

          June 24, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • otoh2

          jk,
          " Pharaoh & company became fish food."

          Precisely **which** Pharaoh was that? They all had names and quite a bit of written history, you know.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          delevin,

          "This is the nonsense to which jknbt refers."

          Well, as soon as I saw the reference to Ron Wyatt, I knew I could stop reading. I'll never understand how creationists can embrace such an inconsistent and unreasonable degree of doubt in mainstream science, yet manage to suspend all critical thinking with respect to their alleged evidence.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:06 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Redzoa....because the religious fanatics lives here on earth are so incredibly poor that they desperately need to believe in a better afterlife that they suspend belief in reality in order to maintain that illusion. Or, they are just nuts.

          June 25, 2014 at 8:19 am |
      • otoh2

        jk,

        Chariot wheels in the Red Sea?

        Rather than youtube maybe you should read some other facts about that "discovery".

        http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm#.U6mlPbGIVKI
        or
        Snopes . com

        June 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • jknbt

          here is a better site for chariots on the red sea floor....actually it is the gulf of aquaba....

          http://www.godswayisbetter.info/RedSea.html

          warning: patience required for the long running power point.

          this is what science is about...one of the biggest rules is CHALLENGE ALL ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.... so my challenge is against your closed minded scientism...and if the conclusion takes us in a profoundly metaphysical direction once the evidence is in, then so be it....

          June 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Jknbt....I refuse to take any 'science' information from a website name 'godiswaybetter'. That is insane.

          June 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • delevin

          gulliblenomore,
          That's evidently where he gets his "science"...

          June 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • jknbt

          once again, with great bluster and bravado, you both missed the discussion and refused to deal with the points:

          the studies out there on the genetics of dogs vs south asian wolf deserve a look. you did not look, you just blasted away.

          again, there is clear photographic & other evidence of the 18th dynasty egyptian stuff on the floor of the gulf of aqaba...did you look? no, you poo poohed the whole idea since it doesn't seem to fit in your worldview.

          truth is truth, pal, regardless where it comes from....truth doesn't depend on consensus or majority vote....truth is not a matter of definitive proclamation statements or speculations. When one of you experts speculates or makes a definitive proclamation, we lay people are all supposed to bow down in awe to such profound "Science". This is "science falsely so called" as the good book calls it.

          and you take offense at me pointing out the amazingly closed minded arrogance here...get real!

          you people are the ones who are being unscientific. the first rule of science is to challenge standing assumptions. I did that ..you never dealt with the actual issues...you made personal comments and rejected what I had to say out of bigoted closed mindedness.

          once again, oh grand high geniuses, I challenge you to look at the video/power point about the aqaba artifacts and learn something.

          and how about a definitive paper with exhaustive evidence on what exactly did become of the n. am. mammoths? figure that one out and claim your nobel prize! just don't mention the flood. They will excommunicate you for that.

          June 24, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
    • igaftr

      considering the fact that most of the articles on there start by creating a strawman of the opposing view and then attack it, this site offers nothing of value. It is the same as all creationist sites. They have nothing to go from except for the proven wrong bible.
      these guys have dressed it very nicely, but they still are not practicing valid science.

      June 23, 2014 at 9:04 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Just a couple of questions–not trying to start another useless argument. Who said our beliefs come from "valid science?" And if you read the post just above yours, who is setting up straw men?

        June 23, 2014 at 9:44 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      reasons to believe . org "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." – George Carlin

      June 23, 2014 at 9:52 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      reasons to believe . org "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." – George Carlin

      June 23, 2014 at 9:52 am |
      • ragansteve1

        What absolute arrogance and intolerance.

        June 23, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • eflows

          Except it's true. Thus: creationism.

          June 23, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Because I don't wish to be oppressed by delusional cultist... you consider that intolerant... that is amusing

          June 23, 2014 at 11:25 am |
      • chrisnfolsom

        I agree – I am sick about polls being used as "fact". IF polls are so good for making long term policy decisions to complex problems then let's get rid of doctors and just put out polls for treatment. You can't mix professionals/scientists with popular opinion sometimes – yes we all make mistakes, but being open to new ideas using fact based reasoning is more important then sky gods and old books. Unless you are against tech and "fact" in all things stop mixing things up and diluting "real" facts with fairy tales. I understand why people do it, but stop, please stop as we need to use our brains and then our hearts, not the other way around.

        June 23, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
    • jknbt

      if you want examples of why I keep using the word "Lame", just look at these replies. You people style yourself as some sort of superior intellectual elite, but you close your mind like a shut steel trap to anything that seems heretical to you...you are no different from the thought police of the inquisition.

      so open up your closed mind and learn and grow. you don't have to change your beliefs, just try to understand with some depth and consideration what the other fellow is thinking for a change!

      this goes for people on both sides of the discussion by the way.

      June 23, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
  7. Salero21

    You don't have to be a Nobel prize winner, you don't need a Ph.D neither to be the smartest person in the world to know and understand the Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE of atheism/evolutionism/cultism/communism/idolatry et at. Neither to know and understand that atheists are extreme hypocrites and compulsive pathological liars. They take all the necessary time and effort to demonstrate it all the time, anytime and Forevermore. They do that here, there, anywhere and everywhere.

    June 23, 2014 at 2:25 am |
    • Reality

      Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are atheists.

      June 23, 2014 at 6:16 am |
      • Salero21

        And you're a Compulsive and pathological Liar.
        Atheism/evolutionism and idolatry are Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE and you're a PRIME example of it.

        June 23, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • skyguynick

      Could you be a little more specific? Is it comparative anatomy? Genetics? Anthropology? Geology? Chemistry? or something else? (all of the above maybe?) that you object to?

      The Catholic Church has made peace with evolution and cosmology – all-be-it by pointing to the hand of God as the ultimate cause, fine tuning the universe for our eventual arrival 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang. But that addendum is to be expected.

      June 24, 2014 at 1:43 am |
  8. Dalahäst

    According to NASA – leprechaun charms are among the most common personal items taken into space.

    June 22, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
  9. 19covenant19

    Great MIRACLES have been discovered in the BIBLE.
    It will change the World forever!

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
    BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES 1 & 2

    June 22, 2014 at 6:25 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Breaking commandments again...using CNN to advertise your blog is theft of advertising space.

      June 22, 2014 at 7:02 am |
    • Reality

      Not only is it stealing, said "miracles" are simply pure fiction invented by scribes promoting their religions for economic gain.

      June 22, 2014 at 9:37 am |
    • kudlak

      Is that the headline on this week's National Enquirer?

      June 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  10. ragansteve1

    So, at the risk of more ridi cule, to which I have become accu stomed, why is it that maybe a dozen or a score of people with funny made-up names to h ide beh ind spend so much time te aring apart and den igr ating som ething they do not believe in?

    June 21, 2014 at 8:11 am |
    • igaftr

      Because the psychology of baseless belief is fascinating, and these beliefs get legislated creating laws that negatively impact those who do not believe, so we must remain vigilant and attack ignorance where we find it. Is that so difficult to grasp?

      June 21, 2014 at 8:23 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Certainly you have the right to lobby against any law that you feel is unfair. You have done that effectively with the separation of church and state, the use of public property for religious purposes, and so on. I don't fault you for that. But I don't go around attacking you on websites for your opinions and beliefs. Generally I do not even respond unless someone asks a question or prompts me in some other way. Your opinion about "baseless beliefs" of course is at odds with mine. Just because you do not recognize the basis of my beliefs does not make them any less rational.

        But thanks for responding.

        June 21, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • igaftr

          What attacks are you talking about?
          And your beliefs. What base is there. There are no indications of any gods. No one has ever shown any of the supernatural claims of the bible or any other religious texts to have any validity.
          When I say baseless beliefs, it is because no one has ever shown any valid basis for the beliefs.
          A base of smoke and sand is no base.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • ragansteve1

          My friend, this entire video and article is a blatant attack on my beliefs. The vast majority of the posts are filled with ridicule and disparagement. If you can't see those attacks then I can't help you. And don't give me that "Satire is funny" line. That only works for selected victims. Christians happens to be one of those groups.

          "Valid" is the same as having a "basis" for our beliefs. You are not likely going to accept my basis and so argument is truly useless. But, I did get a couple of rationale responses to my question. So, I am satisfied with those.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:33 am |
      • RayEm

        Political atheists have created laws that non-atheists and atheists suffered over. More people have died in the name of politics than religion this century.

        June 22, 2014 at 6:25 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          What is a political Atheist?? The word Atheists only defines a disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:59 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Just my opinion, but I would say a political atheist would be someone like Stalin who ran the one time second most powerful nation in the world from an avowedly atheistic perspective. He pretty much persecuted all religions but particularly Jewish people. Mao might also fit as would Castro and maybe Che.

          Clearly there has been a lot of killing on all sides. This is a human condition, not specific to religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Truth,

          "What is a political Atheist?? The word Atheists only defines a disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more."

          To clarify, atheism is the view that there is no God. It is not merely “the absence of believe of any deity”. If you are an atheist, you should be prepared to give support/evidence to validate the view.

          June 22, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          tf, Can you provide evidence that there are no leprechauns? You're the ones making the claim of a god – you need to provide the evidence beyond the circular logic of religious texts. We have natural explanations for what those texts attribute to gods.

          June 22, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Creation itself is one such evidence of a Creator.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF...no it's not. Creation is evidence of creation only. Any guesses on creation are pure speculation at this point.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Creation itself is one such evidence of a Creator."

          Calling it "Creation" creates a bias towards belief in a creator...

          June 22, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • Akira

          TF, are you redefining what the word atheist means again? You should clarify that to you atheism means there is no God, instead of the actual definition. Because you have misrepresented that repeatedly.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "Any guesses on creation are pure speculation at this point."

          Only by the skeptic. You may even get some who believe it's possible that something could just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing as Doris on this blog does. It's mind boggling the lengths to which skeptics will go to deny a Creator.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF...its even more mind boggling the lengths believes will go to in order to convince themselves that not only was some god a creator, but their particular god.

          June 22, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "are you redefining what the word atheist means again?"

          I have represented it appropriately.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I spend 6 to 8 hours a day arguing against leprechauns on the CNN Leprechaun Blog. My state const.itution actually mentions leprechauns. There is a national World War I memorial that has inspiring words about the soldier's trust and confidence in leprechauns. Heck, the first man to walk on the moon believed in leprechauns. Not believing in leprechauns is not any different than not collecting stamps but talking about stamp collecting all day long.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • Akira

          I have represented it appropriately.
          You have represented your definition of it, which isn't appropriate at all, as your definition isn't what it actually means.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Akira,

          What would you say is the difference between an atheist view and an agnostic view?

          June 22, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          It's a Belief Blog, buddy and, unless you can somehow prove that nobody believes in leprechauns, you're still just dodging the question of how that belief is any different from your own belief in God. So far, all you've suggested is that your belief is more popular, at least in the USA, at this present age.

          How do you know that the first man to walk on the moon didn't believe in leprechauns? President Truman had a horseshoe over the door of his office in the White House. Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't like the number 13, and Reagan apparently followed his horoscope religiously. People do believe the oddest things.

          June 23, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
      • delevin

        Exactly. This is particularly true when it comes to religiously-driven science denial. When creationists assert that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that God created all living things at that time essentially as they are today, or that nearly all life on the planet was extinguished in a recent global flood, it must be called out for the nonsense that it is. The objective evidence tells us that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that there has been no recent global extinction, and that evolution of life on earth over the past 3.8 billion years explains the great diversity of life-forms we see today. Those are the facts and they will not yield to irrational belief.

        June 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • delevin

          TF: "What would you say is the difference between an atheist view and an agnostic view?"

          An atheist is one who, in the absence of evidence supporting the existence of a god, finds no reason to believe in one. Note the distinction from a positive assertion that no gods exist. An agnostic, as the word suggests, does not know if any gods exist and holds no position regarding the possible existence of gods (i.e. maybe yes, maybe no; generally accompanied by a shrug of the shoulders).

          June 24, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
    • saggyroy

      It is very tough for some atheists to come out. Some lose jobs, family or friends. Religion is seen as the "norm" in America. I am a civil servant, and my boss has holy cards, and a statue of the "virgin' Mary in her office. She also believes in virgin sightings, and miracles of statues crying etc. Not sure how to challenge that without risking my position. We have to pick our battles. I think my mom suspects I am an atheist but is in denial. "...he doesn't go to church".

      June 21, 2014 at 9:08 am |
      • ragansteve1

        I am sorry that you feel the need, and I believe it is real, to stay out of sight in the workplace and even with your mother. There re bigots everywhere, and that is unfortunate. Yours is the best and most "real" answer I have seen.

        Thanks,

        June 21, 2014 at 11:12 am |
      • RayEm

        My mom argues with Christians online. Steve would feel uncomfortable coming out as a believer to her. If he had any religious items on his desk at the company my mom owns, my mom would find a way to fire him.

        June 22, 2014 at 6:29 am |
    • ragansteve1

      Hmm, I just checked back two and a half hours and nada. As the liberals on another thread are fond of saying-- whatever that means.

      June 21, 2014 at 10:46 am |
      • James XCIX

        Did you somehow miss the reply from igaftr?

        June 21, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Yes, sorry about that. I revisited the page without reloading it. So, I didn't see it.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • James XCIX

          Steve – FYI, in case you're not aware, whenever you log into your WordPress account a little "speech box" or whatever it's called appears next to your public display name in the upper right corner of the screen. If the box is yellow it's indicating someone has replied to one of your comments.

          June 22, 2014 at 10:21 am |
      • bostontola

        Wow, now that reflects self importance.

        June 21, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Just reflecting from those who taught me the word.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:10 am |
      • igaftr

        You appearently went blind in 2 and a half hours.

        June 21, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • ragansteve1

          No, just a little technologically in-adept. Sorry.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:14 am |
    • bostontola

      steve,
      I'm sure each atheist has their own reasons. I am active locally to make sure school boards don't infect science and history curricula with belief. I spend time on this blog because it's good to hear the diversity of thinking on a topic of interest to me. It is a pet peeve of mine that some people regard their opinions as facts.

      June 21, 2014 at 10:54 am |
      • ragansteve1

        We share at least a disdain for assuming that opinions are facts. I have found few "facts" in life. In almost 70 years I have seen many so-called facts, religious as well as scientific, change dramatically over the years. Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of "settled science."By its very nature, science is never settled.

        For example, it was not long ago that the Big Bang Theory was totally discredited. Then last year a group of scientists doing research in Antarctica found some evidence that might support that theory. This year there are scientists re-interpreting the data and coming up with an alternate theory for the original data. My point is not whether the theory is right or wrong. My point is that science is a process of discovery, not a ending point.

        Thanks for the thoughtful response.

        June 21, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • bostontola

          steve,
          Many people don't understand the scientific process, atheists and religious. 'Settled' science doesn't mean it is complete, it means that element is convincingly demonstrated. Newtons laws are settled science, in the range of conditions they are valid. If you go outside that range, it doesn't apply. Science models nature. It finds ways to describe it in certain ranges. You can test it. If the model is consistent with nature, it is valid in that range. Those are regarded as scientific fact.

          Some science has so much objective evidence, and the models interrelate with models from other disciplines in a seamless way, and technology derived from those models works exactly as predicted on a daily basis, that it is all but certain to be right. Some of those models and technology can be applied to other realms like cosmology. The Big Bang has much objective evidence. The recent tests you referred to were not testing the Big Bang, they tested Inflation and gravity waves. This is new science that is not 'settled'. It's not appropriate to compare settled science to new science, that creates fallacious arguments.

          Religious belief is all opinion, there is no objective evidence supporting it. Each religion and even each sect disagrees with the opinions of the others. There are no facts regarding God or religion, there is faith. That is ok with me, but I irks me when faith is confused for facts.

          June 21, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • ragansteve1

          If I am reading your post accurately, I probably agree with about 90% of what you are saying. What I was reacting to in terms of "settled science" was the politicians using science to further their own agendas and presenting the term settled science as "fact." Even scientific laws change from century to century. You mentioned Newton. True, most of that is settled science, but the limitations were placed on his "settled science" by scientists coming after him. Hence, science is not fact, except perhaps for a few basic laws, like gravity.

          And I understand that they were not testing for the big bang theory, but their hypothesis, in the article I read, was that their results might have implications for the big bang. No one in the article said it was settled. And neither am I.

          Where you and I will likely always disagree, and from my end at least respectfully, is the issue of knowing. I believe (yes, opinion and not fact) that there are other ways of knowing than objective, shall we say modern, modern science (or perhaps it is post-modern science). Unlike some, I cannot ignore my experience, even if it is subjective and some would say psychologically based. (Others would say worse.)

          I don't believe in coincidences, and particularly not in a sequence of coincidences that all point in one direction, even if they are not something that you can measure and weigh.

          Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.

          June 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • bostontola

          steve,
          I think we do agree to a great degree. Something for your consideration:

          Personal experience is much more flawed, inaccurate and distorted, than we realize. Controlled scientific tests have demonstrated how easily our senses, brain processing, and perceptions are. In short, we can't trust our personal subjective experience fully. That is in fact the basis of the scientific method, recognition that our flawed senses and judgement must be cross checked. That's why experimental results must be repeatable by independent scientists, and other scientists criticize the methodology and analysis of the results.

          Your example is perfect. The measurements of the gravity waves was met with fanfare. The media fell into step and lauded the experiment. Other scientists did their job and have made vigorous criticism of the methodology and analysis.

          Personal experience is great for forming opinion and belief, not for objective absolute truth. It's your right to do so, but I will criticize it if you do. It's not personal or an attack.

          June 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          I agree. That is why I labeled it "subjective." Unfortunately, many of the Biblical issues raised in this thread are not repeatable because they happened long ago and cannot be repeated. Just as the gravitational waves may be measured, the method and results criticized, but they cannot be repeated for comparison. For that we observe what is there and draw inferences. I would posit, in this latter case, that there is no such thing as true objectivity. We are human after all and have our preconceived ideas to bring to the "facts" before us.

          True, some explanations are more logical than others. And when multiple sets of observations lead in the same direction without contravening data, then we can repeat measurements, perhaps. But that is about all. And my guess is that is the case with the gravitational waves. Even computer models are programmed by humans and can easily have bias introduced.

          June 21, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
  11. bostontola

    Are there a significant number of creationists that recognize that the earth and cosmos are billions of years old?

    June 20, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Not "creationists".

      Religious yes.

      June 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
      • bostontola

        I'm curious if there are people that accept old universe but not evolution.

        June 20, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          There are several creationist theories that accept the notion that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Only one, young earth creationism, maintains that age. Personally, I don't think the Bible would support a 6,000 year time frame if a close reading of the Hebrew texts were provided. But, I am not close-minded on the topic.

          At least one "old earth" creationist theory also accepts evolution as the method employed by God to create life. I do not subscribe to that theory.

          June 20, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • igaftr

          steve.
          There are no creationist theories.
          They do not have enough evidence to support any theories. All they have is hypothesese.

          June 21, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • delevin

          Bostontola,

          Yes, they are called old-earth creationists. It's a minor concession to science that allows them to continue to deny evolution.

          June 23, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
    • otoh2

      bostonola,

      I'm not sure if it's a significant number who believe that way, but apparently enough to have a Wikipedia entry about them:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism

      June 20, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      Define "significant." There are many including me.

      June 20, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
      • bostontola

        I'd say if more than 10% of creationists accepted an old universe that would be significant. It wouldn't surprise me since many Christians do not believe the bible is literally true.

        June 21, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • chrisnfolsom

          "literal" is the key issue. I know of few who believe everything is true and will start to split hairs. The "interesting" conversation is between a bunch of diverse Christians as they have a hard time talking about specifics as they all have their own interpretations – it's easy to shut out atheists, but not your "brothers".

          The new Christian issue of "literal" interpretations is a trap in that you could tell all the sheep that in the old days as was done for millennia party by having the bible only in Latin...while priests and scholars ALL knew differently. Now that most people can read and question religions took the "low" road and stuck to their guns – now the cracks are all over the place. When you use absolutes you almost always get your clock rung. Even in science as how many "absolutes" have been found to be just one layer of the onion of truth?

          June 23, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
    • sealchan

      An interesting book I read The Science of God: The Convergence of Science and Biblical Wisdom makes a decent argument for seeing both as compatible. Although I am surprised now, I can't recall anything in it that was scientifically incorrect. I think he took some sort of day = age approach that solves the six day problem.

      June 20, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        He probably used the indeterminate definition of the Hebrew word for day (Yom) as his basis for concluding the earth is older than 6,000 years. There are four definitions of Yom, just as there is more than on definition of our English word day.

        June 20, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
  12. Science Works

    Hey fred your creator got banned eh ! SC just addressed the anti-evolutionist too !

    UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/20/uk-bans-teaching-of-creationism-in-any-school-that-receives-public-funding/

    June 20, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
  13. Alias

    I realize that this video is trying to be insulting and make the bible look foolish, but can you christians at least understand that your beliefs do seem questionable to someone who is not familiar with your religion?

    June 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • Athy

      Actually, the bible is perfectly capable of making itself look foolish on its own; no help needed.

      June 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • chrisnfolsom

        No evolved being should be smug about the folly of others. While I don't believe in a deity I do believe in the lessons of thousands of years – almost all the lessons hold true through all the mysticism which of course was only thing you could have 100's or 1000's of years ago to convince uneducated people to do the good for the people – and be taken advantage of – of course... Still, I take no pride in someone else's loss of "innocence", only to guided them to truth and find that what we have in "reality" is worth as much awe and astonishment as any god.

        June 23, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • delevin

          Truthfollower,
          An estimate? If you think about it, every fossil is transitional between an earlier from from which it evolved and a later form that descended from it.

          June 23, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
  14. jknbt

    the article and video are superficial....superficial people are impressed (both for and against)...all seems kinda lame to me....

    for those of you who use your forebrain, go to this website after a google search for it:

    reasons to believe . com

    there are some interesting videos, articles, books, discussions on long-day creationism...

    so check it out, you might learn something!

    June 20, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      jknbt....there is nothing I want to learn about creationism. Anybody....and I mean anybody, that purports that the earth is only 6000 years old, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, believes that a wooden zoo, with 2 of every animal on the planet, floated around for a year, believes in a talking snake, or that the Red Sea parted, is out of their crazy mind.

      Read just about any science book....if you want to learn anything true.

      June 20, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      And if you want to see why that website can be demonstrated to be complete bunk you can check out talkorigins.org.

      June 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • Akira

      You do realize that this clip isn't a docunmentary, right?

      June 20, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        The Flintstones is not a doc-umentary either, but the creationists watch it as if it was.

        June 20, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Akira

          Nah....don't they disbelieve in dinosaurs?

          June 20, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          No....they believe in them....they just call them 'big animals' and believe that men rode around on them.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      [about how the Earth was created] "And then there are fossils. Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it took place in seven days, I reach for a fossil and go "fossil!" And if they keep talking I throw it just over their head." – Lewis Black

      June 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.