 |
|
|
|
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET
Bill Nye slams creationismBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children." "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times. Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back." "Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video. Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days. For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins "The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video. "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said. Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood. The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution. "In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video. soundoff (14,640 Responses)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next » |
  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.  |
|
|
|
What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
Buddy, you prove bozos don't all work for the circus.
@Jeff
What? This is all absolutely true and on point. What argument do you have with it?
Post by 'Jeff' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
I think the universe may have recycled itself many times.
"explode catalytically"??????? Huh?
Aw, that's all just contemporary science. The only 'science' conservatives believe in comes from the endlessly re-interpreted myths of ignorant desert nomads over 2000 years ago.
Jeff, you proved that all idiots like little catch phrases like, dont drink the Kool Aide!!! Small minds love catch phrases...
@ Jeff
Don't play with our emotions. Please explain why he's a Bozo in terms I can understand.
It always saddens me that any discussion about evolution invariably degenerates into name calling – and worse – a polarizing misunderstanding of what evolution is. First. Evolution cannot say anything about the origin of life,..or the stars, ...or the universe. It is a process which explains how plant and animal populations genetically adapt to ever-changing environments. No life = no evolution. Second. It is a an observable process which does not include any supernatural force to make it true. It is science – which has strict rules about what is valid proof and what is not (evolution is a 'Theory' not a theory [ a guess] and only someone who is fundamentally unschooled about science persists in calling evolution 'only a theory'). Third. Evolution is the ONLY explanation for how plants and animals reflect their respective niches. Period. There is no viable alternative (Intelligent Design is not science, nor is it an alternative 'explanation'). Fourth. Evolution cannot disprove God, or a 'grand designer'. So it cannot be 'atheistic' (as much as atheists might beg to differ). Persisting that it is will not make it true. Fifth. Remember, religion survived an earth-centered universe, planetary rotation, and a flat earth. Religion is best served by accepting reality and REALITY IS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. We are forgetting that one third of Americans embrace evolution as God's creative tool (theistic evolutionists). Bill Nye is right; we are dumbing-down our children by failing to teach them science, failing to teach them deductive reasoning, and failing to challenge them to test their world-view by considering all the tangible evidence. We will have succeeded with our children when they do not conflate science and religion. Sadly, we are a long way from that goal....
Jeff, please read the following at-least 5 times.
Some brainwashed kids may believe in fairy tales, and it's OK. However, educated adults believing in fairy tales is downright dangerous for humanity.
So prof mom, If that is the case then Evolution and Creationism aren't even comparable. So the whole video that Bill made is totally irrelevant.
No, the asteroids don't circle us. Both the earth ("us") and the asteroids circle the sun.
I am sick of people saying that religious people are stupid.
One of the most creative and intelligent minds of the 19th century was Fyodor Dostoevsky. He was big on religion and immortality. In fact half of you idiot atheist on this blog don't have the mental capacity to read a dostoevsky novel. Whom educated people worldwide consider the greatest novelist of all time.
"Dostoevsky gave me more than any scientist has ever given me" – Albert Einstein
"Dostoevsky has taught me more than any psychologist has" – Frederick Nietzche"
An argument for, against, and a stumper
For: If an all powerful god wanted to create the universe "in 6 days" and He had the ability to do so, would it be beyond His power to create a planet that had an apparent C14 dating of billions of years old? I mean, if you can create everything out of nothing (conservation of energy?) is it feasible that you can create a rock that is only 6,000 years old but has a C14 of 4.5B years?
Against: Too many similarities between Christianity and other religions
Egyptian God Horus: Virgin birth heralded by a star; no data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30, fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, crucified, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
Attis of Phygia: Virgin birth on December 25, considered the savior who was slain for man's salvation. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, descended into the underworld and after three days, was resurrected.
Roman God Dionysus: born of a virgin on December 25. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual. He rose from the dead on March 25. He turned water into wine, was called “King of Kings”, “God of Gods", the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” "Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb, he was hung on a tree or crucified.
Stumper: If God created the universe, He created the Earth; if He created the Earth, He is not "from" this planet; anything not from this planet is an alien; hence, God, if He exists, is an alien.
For prof-mom : thank you. A very well-said, succinct presentation.
@ Reality Love it!
To all the NT believers, the thing that makes you all so dangerous to me is that you believe that Jesus is coming any day and that the world is going to end and all us sinners are falling into hell. The reason why that is dangerous to me is that if you really believe this then why would you take care of this world? What motivation do you have, and do you think that ya'lls belief in the Apocalypse will someday create one? If Jesus is coming anyway, why would you ever care about dwindling food supplies? Or how much gas your truck consumes? Riddle me that!
Prof-mom, that was very well put.
Dear Bill Nye, You've got bigger problems than worrying about whether evolution will be taught in a few centuries. Like, telling your maker "he didn't build that". I seem to have heard another moron tell business people that same thing.
Rick, that won't be an issue because there is no maker to meet. Even if there is a god, it certainly isn't spending time "meeting" dead Earthlings.
Gee, Rick, seems like an awful lot of conjecture. Now, get back on your knees
You are as.suming that a "maker" (other than Bill's parents) exist. Please provide evidence for such a maker.
Huebert, You'll get your proof....not my job. Besides, that's why they call it faith.
You know what's another word for "faith"? Delusion.
Post by 'Rick' is a form of the flawed argument known as Pascal's Wager.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
there's a pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon. you'll meet him when you die, trust me.
Rick, please kill yourself so you can be in my loving grace that much quicker.
Cellular complexity is the nail in the coffin for an atheistic materialism, where you are required to believe life arose from naturalistic processes that are so vastly improbable, they are for all intents and purposes impossible. We're talking about statistical possibilities that are astronomically small, exceeding the number of atoms we even have in the known universe. It is to the point where my agnostic friend would rather be inclined to believe in God rather than concede to the type of world view that an atheist runs with, which is by far the most deluded and unintelligent among them all. Oh, but of course, the most convenient, which is why it's so popular.
Complaining about how you don't see why or how God exists does not change the fact that He exists, nor does any one person's objections change anything. How relevant is your opinion on God when it is hinged on ignorance of Him? Simple, it isn't.
No, you didn't hear "he didn't build that" except in the republican EDITED form.
You are exactly the type of person that he had in mind. Go put your head back in the sand.
I hear in heaven their favorite song is "they blinded me with science"
@DarklyDevine Too silly, start again.
Poor Rick. Fox closed their toilet bowl of a comments section so he has to come to a progressive site to exercise his free speech. Being demoted from echo leader status in to nothing more than a troll in the real world has gotta hurt, so cut him so slack.
Rick – B-I-N-G-O! Good post!
You have deliberately misquoted Prsident Obama to promote your own agenda. Why should we pay the least attention to anything you say.
Between the killing of first-born and dominion over the animals (not to mention the killing of all inhabitants of cities and sowing salt in the ground), I can barely even remember whose daughters were given over to r*pe, etc. No offense, but I think I'll pass on god's supposed benevolence
@DarklyDevine
What?
What maker.
I have two children, one 15 and the other 11. I am an athiest and have taught them my position and also educated them on religion. There mother is Catholic so that was easy.
Given a choice, they did not hesitate to choose atheism. In fact, their friends, by and large, think of me as the cool dad because I am honest about it and as it turns out, they all feel the same.
Given a choice, kids will choose reality over fiction. It is natural. This is what frightens the religious establishment so much. They know.
Free the children.
That's why it is so important to keep ID and Creationism out of our public schools. We have to keep a watch and thank goodness there are organizations that are extremely tenacious in their efforts, like FFFR and others.
"the cool dad"? Seriously? Your point is validated, because you have the kids on your side? Congrats Cool Dad. Everyone, this debate is over.
yeah, but kids choose Bieber, too.... so...
Why can't you believe that a guy lived in a fish, a man loaded evey animal on a boat two-by-two, and that way back 2,000 years ago people lived 600-900 years old? These are perfectly logical events....aren't they?
Given a choice, kids will choose reality over fiction.??
Yea, RIGHT ! LOL
That's why at Halloween, they dress up like YOU instead of their FICTIONAL Hero !
Good One there !
Because your kids are too lazy to go to church on Sunday mornings. Any kid given the chance to choose at age 11 is going to choose to stay home in front of their xbox 360 or computer. You are a bad example and if I found out that you were spewing your rhetoric to my child I would sue the hades out of you!
I have AN 11 yr old that can't wait for Sunday morning and I have a 12 yr old and a 13 yr old that feel the same way. You have deluted your childs mind and I feel sorry for their souls. I let my kids make it their own decission to be baptised and they did so on their own.
Perhaps first you should provide evidence a soul exists before you start worrying.
Repent, and be saved from eternal suffering
OMGosh – I was wondering why someone posting what you are has the name "Christianmingle.com" – then I caught it... well played sir, well played.
Sounds identical to me. My wife is also Catholic and I am an atheist. However, one small difference, I did not teach them my position but instead supported my wife taking the kids to school and through all the Catholic rituals. In the end, each of them arrived at the same point I did. The sum total of all the attempts to indoctrinate my children were for naught. They made their choice based on reason instead of emotion.
Good for you! I applaud people who have enough decency to save children from religious indoctrination. For my own part, I have been known to ask children of religious upbringing if they really believe these ideas. They aren't even my kids, but I feel a moral obligation to at least kickstart their reasoning faculties and get them to at least THINK about thinking for themselves. I'd do the same for a kid being physically attacked-the only difference is that emotional scars tend to heal faster than mental ones.
To pick up on Vocal Atheist's point, here are 10 Commandments that every child should be taught. We should spend less time telling them what to think and more time assisting them to learn how to think.
1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a parent, priest, rabbi or minister tells you that you must. They can’t all be right.
2. DO NOT think that claims about magic, miracles and the supernatural are more likely true because they are written in old books. That makes them less likely true.
3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues.
4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is. Only those selling junk cars want to prohibit you from looking under the hood.
5. DO decouple morality from a belief in the supernatural, in any of its formulations (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.). One can be moral without believing in gods, ghosts and ghouls and believing in any of them does not make one moral.
6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should you believe them in what they say? How many translations has it gone through? Do we have originals, or only edited copies of copies of copies– the latter is certainly true for every single book in the Bible.
7. DO realize that you are only a Christian (or Hindu or Jew) because of where you were born. Were you lucky enough to be born in the one part of the World that “got it right”?
8. DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation “your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,” “God is outside the Universe” or “God moves in mysterious ways” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief. A retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool.
9. DO understand where your religion came from and how it evolved from earlier beliefs to the point you were taught it. Are you lucky enough to be living at that one point in history where we “got it right”?
10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, mind-reading god is behind the whole thing.
If we first taught our children these simple guidelines, before sp.oon-feeding them any religion, I expect that any such belief would be quickly dismissed by them as quaint nostalgia from a bygone era. They sure as hell would not believe the "talking snake" crowd. I hope we get there as a species.
Atheists spend their time in front of the TV watching Jerry Springer dumbing down America. Proof how the atheists were made.
Who the F is Jerry???
Colin
To me that makes perfect sense and I would offer this sentiment to any believer for their "critical analysis" of its message. Therein lies the problem as the believer has already been damaged by indoctrination and all they will see are words not meanings.
I know there are organizations (like the one for ministers that quit believing) that go through a "de-conversion" process (I don't like calling it de-conversion because of the conversion attribute) or a debriefing counsel but I have never seen any docu*mentation on just what the process is.
If anyone knows anyone that has gone through this process it would be really informative to hear just what the process is as it may be helpful to believers on the cusp.
Jim, what IS it with you imbeciles and Jerry Springer? Are you another sock puppet for HeavenSent? She's always bloviating about Jerry Springer. Is that what you watch? I know I haven't watched but 15 minutes of that show, and that was a decade or so ago.
If that's the extent of your understanding of atheists, you deserve ridicule and scorn.
Atheist = destruction. There's your sign.
Curious – how do you educate yourself on the history of life on earth?
@Jim
You wrote "Atheists spend their time in front of the TV watching Jerry Springer dumbing down America. Proof how the atheists were made."
Jim, atheists, as a group, have higher IQs and greater levels of scholastic achievement than do religious people. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God. A Pew survey showed that among scientists in the US only one-third believe in God, as opposed to 83% in the general population.
Just look at where religion is strongest in the U.S.: Mississippi is the most religious U.S. state. It's ranked at the bottom for education and income. So if you want to have a better picture in your mind's eye of the slovenly, stupid Jerry Springer viewer, make sure you envision the Bible on the table next to the Cheetos and the tacky picture of Jesus over the TV.
and is one of eight states where Gallup classifies at least half of the residents as "very religious." Others in the top ten included Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina. Vermont and New Hampshire are the least religious states.
@ Jim and Atheistarefools:
I assume that you are in fact adults, but instead of intelligent replies disputing the "commandments" made by Colin, you have only silly ad hominem remarks reminiscent of arguments on an elementary school playground. Your behavior supports the view by atheists like me that folks like you have nothing to say worth listening to.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.
Sadly, it probably won't stop existing but will, ironically enough, evolve.
+1
so much win!
It has been close to two hundred years that we have been teaching the theory of evolution in our universities, yet still almost 50% of America don't believe in it or believe God is involved. Is this something time will change? Or will the irrational beliefs of the religious just dig-in and grow stronger?
It does start with children, as Nye stated. I propose a new law placed into the existing child abuse laws that would make teaching religion and a belief in a God before the age of 21 a crime. The crime would of course be psychological abuse with intent to cause mental illness, diminishing critical thinking and conspiracy to block a child's ent*itlement to a full and wonderful life.
Amen.
TVA, I support that.
Why do you support violating human rights?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 26 (3)
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
@J_L_B
"Why do you support violating human rights?"
You don't get it do you? That's what I am fighting for, human rights you dummy! Religion takes away our human rights, get it?
@TheVocalAtheist
Yes, I "get it." You complain about parents indoctrinating kids into religion, yet have no qualms about using the barrel of a gun (which is after all how government enforces laws) to enact your view of what is correct for society.
Tell me how is your plan not different from that of Chairman Mao's or Comrade Stalin who know what was best for society and imposed it by force?
"yet have no qualms about using the barrel of a gun (which is after all how government enforces laws) to enact your view of what is correct for society."
Show me where I said anything about guns? You can't because I didn't, you did. I'm not going to argue with you, I stated my position and then you veer-off into another direction with guns. All done here, thanks for you input. One last question:
What religions teach is a disrespect for human rights and control of human rights. Do you think that is the right thing to do?
JLB, that's a bull argument. The mere existence of government means that laws are enforced "with the barrel of a gun". It wouldn't be any different that the Christian eliminating a woman's right to choose "with the barrel of a gun", which I don't hear any fundamentalists complaining about. Your argument is totally hypocritical, because to people like you, it's ok to enforce laws you LIKE using extreme force, but it's "unjust" to enforce laws you DON'T like in the same way.
Try again, though. It was a good effort.
"Show me where I said anything about guns?"
"I propose a new law"
How do you think laws are enforced on the "uncooperative?"
"What religions teach is a disrespect for human rights and control of human rights. Do you think that is the right thing to do?"
No, but I believe that people should be free to believe and express any idea of their choosing, even those that recommend a system to oppress of free ideas.
@Jack Kieser
"Your argument is totally hypocritical, because to people like you, it's ok to enforce laws you LIKE using extreme force, but it's "unjust" to enforce laws you DON'T like in the same way."
There's nothing inherently good about a law because it's a law. My argument is dealing with something on a higher level: rights. Rights are inherent to individuals and cannot be violated by government. I oppose enforcing laws that violate human rights, and support enforcing laws that recognize those rights and protect against their violation.
50% of Americans don't know much about anything that hasn't appeared on E! or ESPN or been printed in PEOPLE or US magazine.
That is the best idea I have heard yet. My wife said that before she met me, she had never questioned her born into religion, however she now understands how ridiculous organized religion is and has greatly reduced her time at church. Though religions had a place in history, that time has passed and we need to look to science and technology as our future. I hope to one day see the day when religions are looked upon as something of the past and we see ourselves as humans not different religious affliliations.
@ JLB Rights are not inherent to individuals as you suggest. Rights stem from government. Your right to free speech? Government. Your right to the pursuit of happiness? Government. You right to pursue the religion of your choice? Government. Laws are not inherently good? Well, duh, they are not supposed to be obligated to a judgement of "good' or 'bad'; they are supposed to exist to (wait for it...wait for it...) protect your RIGHTS!
You are simply making a thinly veiled anarchist/libertarian argument that all laws that you don't agree with are bad, which is typical of a fundamentalist ideology.
Look at the uneducated religious people in the middle east? Do you think they will be able to reason anytime soon?
@Artifex
"Rights stem from government"
I assume you mean the PROTECTION of rights stem from government, which is fine.
"Laws are not inherently good? Well, duh, they are not supposed to be obligated to a judgement of "good' or 'bad'; they are supposed to exist to (wait for it...wait for it...) protect your RIGHTS!
You are simply making a thinly veiled anarchist/libertarian argument that all laws that you don't agree with are bad, which is typical of a fundamentalist ideology."
And when we pass laws that FAIL to protect our rights, and in fact infringe upon them, are we fundamentalists for wanting them repealed (or not passed in the first place?), or must we assume that every law passed is in futherance of the protection of our rights (which is obviously not that case).
Science at this point can't explain or prove why we are here other than a guess. So it really means nothing when an atheist tells us how stupid we are and that the Bible is fiction. Prove evolution, or admit that you also rely on faith for your beliefs. I believe in science when science can prove itself, but when it comes to the origin of the universe or how man came to exist, it can only guess.
Oh Robert, proof is for math and good whiskey, not science. Science deals with evidence that then establishes a theory that explains said evidence. Also who is 'us' Robert, do you have a tape worm?
uh oh....
let the flood (of criticism) begin.
If you want to see the full face of Christian lunacy, check this out:
The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.
That place is an educational Chenobyl for the Midwest.
The website alone scares the living cr@p out of me.
@Colin,
well phrased! Kudos
Atheists are ignorant fools that never learned what scriptures teach because they're only concern is their bellies as they grab for the last piece of pizza bought by someone else.
@Jeff
"Atheists are ignorant fools that never learned what scriptures teach because they're only concern is their bellies as they grab for the last piece of pizza bought by someone else."
Actually Jeff, you are the ignorant fool, as the statistics prove, Atheists and Agnostics know more about religion and the bible than Christians. I'm lactose intolerant.
Look at the explanation of how stars being born is disputed: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/08/20/what-do-they-really-see/?utm_source=cmfacebook&utm_medium=faceboook&utm_campaign=cmfacebook08202012teachers
there is no hope. There are too many fools in charge...
They will do anything to make a buck and who is more gullible?
Doesn't it say Adam and Eve got kicked out? Is there no truth anymore?
I prefer Harry Potter. Much more entertaining, and the villains are nowhere near as evil as the chief character in the Babble.
still finding my way... if you read through these comments the "christians" seem a lot more judging, mean spirited, and do more name calling than the atheist
I don't blame any atheist for not believing in Creationism. It would be completely against their worldview. However, for those who the sovereign God of all creation has saved, there is no excuse. Arguing over the beliefs of atheists is just useless. "Science" is their faith. Even though you can't do real science on a historical, non-repeatable event.
DP
It is apparent that you do not know what an atheist is, please educate yourself and then comment.
DP, say hi to Dino for me. Good boy Dino.
DP
It is also quite apparent that you don't know what science is or how it is conducted.
Typical response:attack the person, not address the issue.
moron.
DP,
Isn't is about time that you go toss a virgin into Mt. Ranier to keep that god in there happy?
Without the discoveries from science, you'd still be there.
I'm not attacking science. Just saying there are limitations. No one was there to see it happen. Most people don't even understand the difference between micro-evolution (like the one reference to lactose intolerance), and macro-evolution: from goo to you via the zoo. There is no proof in changes from one kind to another.
@DP
Here are three of your statements that stick-out like a sore thumb that stop me from even considering having a conversation with you:
" Arguing over the beliefs of atheists is just useless. "Science" is their faith."
"Typical response:attack the person, not address the issue."
"ost people don't even understand the difference between micro-evolution (like the one reference to lactose intolerance), and macro-evolution"
That might be due to the fact that the micro/macro evolution is not a distinction that exist in science. It is completely made up by creationist because they can't argue against micro evolution because it is continually happening right in front of them. and their is evidence of speciation, one species braking off to become another one. this will be a good introductory reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
@TheVocalAthiest
I suppose you are right, the fact that I continue to respond is in direct opposition to my premise that " Arguing over the beliefs of atheists is just useless".
I guess I hold out hope that it isn't true. But the name calling and debasing of others for what they believe is ridiculous. Most people on this thread have never done their own research or have been in the labs or the field. Most are only spouting back what they have been indoctrinated with (as Christians are being accused of). When discussions are cut of summarily through ad hominem attacks, and strawman debates, there can be no discussion.
So go ahead and rub each other's egos and think you are winning the discussion, proving my initial points.
DP, you missed a letter in your name. Insert an "i" in the middle, and it'll be correct.
DP
You are the one that posted, not I. What is your point anyway?
Check-out what else you say:
" But the name calling and debasing of others for what they believe is ridiculous."
"So go ahead and rub each other's egos and think you are winning the discussion, proving my initial points."
Is this debasing?
TVA,
point taken. I apologize for the generalization. I've not noticed you calling names or debasing.
@DP –
Understanding science is not indoctrination since there is no faith required.
DP,
Thousands of years ago one god or another was responsible for everything that goes on here - from lightning, thunder, rain, floods, to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, to plagues and famines - you name it. We know differently now. Your god is getting smaller and smaller and farther and farther out of the loop. It went from living in volcanoes or under the ground to being up in the sky to out there somewhere... fading, fading, fading. With enough splashes of reality and scientific problem solving, this god is saying, "I'm M-E-L-T-I-N-G...!!!!"
1. It's, " for those WHOM the sovereign God of all creation has saved," Learn to speak English properly.
2. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. Show me the evidence for creation.
3. In science, the therm "theory" is reserved for a system has stood intense experimental scrutiny and has successfully explained all of the data. A proper theory must, by construction, be falsifiable. Creationism cannot be falsified (nor can it be verified) and, therefore, does not merit being considered as an alternative to evolution.
@DP
"TVA,
point taken. I apologize for the generalization. I've not noticed you calling names or debasing."
Absolutely, it's hard not to name call and debase, you've just experienced yourself, we're only human and emotion trumps reason if we're not aware of it.
DP, you obviously have no idea what science is. Science is self-correcting mechanism using evidence to recalibrate. Theism has no use for evidence.
"There is no proof in changes from one kind to another"
That statement would probably be a lot less funny if I were not married to a molecular biologist.
You have to understand that atheists, agnostics and humanists alike are sometimes jaded as a knee-jerk reaction to creationists. We have to deal with the people on the sidewalks with their bible's and pamphlets telling us how horrible we are, how without god every human is inherently evil. I try to lead an ethical and moral life to me and to those around me, and I don't need fear of punishments or an expectancy of rewards to do so. I know I try to treat everyone with respect until they prove to be unworthy of that respect.
I have a hard time respecting a group that goes out of their way to tell me what a horrible person I am, regardless of me generalizing or not. Either distance yourselves from those who claim to share you values yet don't, or accept being labeled in the same category.
DP No one was there to see it happen. you just proved that creationism is not real. no one was there when your god created the universe and everything in it so who knows how long it took or if your god actually did it.
Atheism is a NON-belief, a LACK of belief, it is not A belief. It's also apparent that you have no clue what "real science" is. Interesting that you dismiss science on the one hand, and then proceed to castigate atheists for not doing "real science". Critical thinking? Not your strong point.
"Science has its limitations." Unlike religion, which, in the name of faith, can make up whatever it wants.
Honestly man, the number of people I've seen attribute a well-timed rain shower or instead-of-ticket police warning to god's benevolent intervening is appalling. I'm pretty tolerant of people and their religions but I agree with Nye here. Children should not be indoctrinated with Christianity. If they want to choose a religion eventually, that's naturally their right. And how do you explain the majority of people in America being christian simply because their parents were? Because that was god's choice? Ergo the rest of the world is doomed and misled? UGH–I'm getting out of the CNN Faith section. It's way too incendiary.
Quit telling us how to do science. You don't know the first thing about it.
@DP- I think deep down you are afraid. I think you are afraid that you may have spent much of your life believing something that just isn't true. I think you may even recognize this on some level, hence the hostility and anger. Many religious folks accept evolutionary theory because they know they can't argue against factual evidence. The next best thing is to try and find a way to square it with their religious ideas so they can keep on believing and not be "afraid." So, I think fear is the main driving force behind religion-fear of death, the unknown, not existing anymore, never seeing dead loved ones again, not having a "purpose" in/of life, etc. Fear is a great motivator as all churches know. Unfortunately, it's a tough one to overcome. Peace.
To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism/intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.
First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.
The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.
The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?
Lions, tigers, bears, and wolves eat a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. This is not to mention the thousands of species of meat eating dinosaurs, all of whom ate carnivorous dinosaurs which were, themselves, bigger than busses – and they, too had to be fed!
A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark, nor the 400,000 species of beetles, nor the gnats that live for a few hours, nor for that matter, human beings! If Noah and his family were on the ark, where do black people come from? Or Chinese, or Ja.panese, or Australian Aboriginals, or the 100s of other races.
Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).
Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.
Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.
Fifthly, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.
Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.
Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.
I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).
In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.
Thanks for posting that, Colin. A lot of great points. Hopefully a few people will actually read it.
I hope so Bob, especially teens brought up to believe the garbage of creationism by their parents.
Colin, excellent and thoughtful post. I hope you post this everywhere so more people can see it.
There were no other races other than Caucasians when the Bible was written.
We have a complete DNA map of Neanderthals which shared 99.9% of genes with us. From Neanderthal's DNA we could extrapolate the time of divergence. We shared common ancestor with Neanderthal approximately half a million years ago. The fossil record supports it in heidelbergensis and rhodesiansis. There is no way creationism can explain all that.
Isn't a thousand million the equivalent of 1 billion? If so, wouldn't three thousand million years equal 3 billion years?
Colin, nice try but you can't reason anyone out of a position they weren't reasoned into. Theists will believe that prayer cures cancer no matter how many people die of cancer even after massive prayer.
"Lions, tigers, bears, and wolves eat a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. This is not to mention the thousands of species of meat eating dinosaurs, all of whom ate carnivorous dinosaurs which were, themselves, bigger than busses – and they, too had to be fed!"
God waved the magic god wand and made all the carnivores unhungry for a year. Don't you know god can do that. Oh, and you forgot about the arks solar powered greenhouses. That' where they kept the plants.
@Rumulan, you forget, their evidence is this book says it didn't happen that way (we'll be polite and not refer to it being a book written down in the age of the babylonian empire and heavily redrafted during Roman times)
@think for yourself, in most systems now 1000 million is a billion, historically in some systems 1 million millions was a billion, 1 thousand millions was a millione. i think colin is using the more modern system
You sound very convincing however you gloss completely over the problems with evolution theory.
First, explain the Cambrian explosion. There is literally no fossil record before this point. Science hasn't the foggiest idea of where and how life truly began.
Additionally, there is a huge problem with contemporaneous fossils. You seem to leave out the fact that at the time early hominids were arising in Africa, they had already arisen in Australia. The fossil record really isn't as consistent as you've made it seem.
Fossils of certain types certainly are found together in strata, however this strata is not uniformly deposited. Not to mention the problem of trans-strata fossils that are found. Perhaps you could mention the KBS Tuff at Lake Turkana? If you look at the research involved in the dating it becomes quite clear that things are not so neatly layed out as you suggest.
Secondly, you are using circular logic regarding fossil fuels. The important point is the time it takes for these deposits to form. Multilple studies have been conducted showing that current state of the art dating technology can't independently date any given piece of strata. Scientists use fossils to assist in dating strata, then they use strata to assist in dating fossils. Again, look at the KBS Tuff research and you can easily see that dating is not as rock solid certain as you make it out to be. As has been demonstrated, take a piece of rock, give it to a university lab and ask them to date it. The first thing they will ask is where did you get this rock. If you don't tell them, they can't date it accurately.
Thirdly, you're assertion is incorrect on cosmology. Light is red-shifted signalling an expanding universe. If the Big Bang is true, visible light would have traveled away from a central point in space. Your assertion implies that you have first hand knowledge that this did not occur while at the same time I suspect you agree with the Big Bang Theory. If true, with the law of cause and effect, what caused the Big Bang?
Fourthly, nonsense and I think you know it. In fact, you state that no one source is accurate. If no other reference is available to date a particular geographic formation for example, dating techniques are wildly inaccurate and this has been demonstrated repeatedly by analysis of known age samples.
Fifthly, you're missing the biggest problem with the theory, if creation was random why are there no silica or boron based life forms? The analysis you claim as seemingly independent based on DNA alone, is not, but rather based on other disciplines already stated references.
Sixthly, communication is not biological. Speech patterns and words change over time. Are you suggesting this somehow has an effect on the origin of species?
Seventhly, I'll refer this to my Native American friend the next time I see him drinking his big glass of milk at lunch. He may be surprised to learn he is lactose intolerant. All mammals have milk, apparently only cow milk allows for lactose tolerance in humans? Presumably, goat herders have no chance at becoming lactose tolerant? Perhaps you could explain how genetic selection works on the Sickle cell? Per your assertions, humans in the cradle of humanity have been affected by Malaria for millions of years yet somehow, this negative trait is never bred out of the human population.
I'm sure you could go on, and on, and on. However until you have a grasp of what the real problems of the theory are, you'll never convince anyone who knows the real problems.
I'm not a creationist. I just wanted to point out that disinformation of the sort your pushing is a real reason why it is so difficult to win anyone over.
great, though provoking post.
i hope you don't mind me taking a copy to share with others.
First – publishing a book on a blog doesn't make your case stronger.
Second – your comment: The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?
– Doesn't state that 1) it's false. and 2) nearly all the fossils you talk about are scattered haphazardly in the Cambrian. Explain that smart guy. (but don't write a book about it here)
Pretty compelling Colin, but haven’t you heard that Satan strode to all corners of the Earth, as well as the Heavens, planting false evidence supporting the theory of evolution? God doesn’t have the corner on working mysteriously. So technically, Satan, thought up this whole evolution theory and Darwin pieced it together 5-6 thousand years later. It must be pretty frustrating to see your ambitious treatise, which only scratches the surface of the body of evidence, summarily discounted with the effortless retort, “Satan did that.”
pre-Iron Age goat herders.
@DougC
Eighthly, lighten up. (Gosh that's an ugly word. Only the Anglo-Saxons would come up with a word like that.)
Ninthly, are you sure you want to get into a discussion of the origins of the Big Bang? You won't like it. I can tell you want all the t's dotted and the i's crossed on any therory before you'll believe anything. You know no one was around back then. Right? You realize that all we have to work with is the math. Right? And, man, is that stuff boring, or what.
I must have missed this in your post. Where have these scientists proven that one species has evolved into another separate and distinct species? I think they have proven that species adapt – but I don't see where they have proven that any species has evolved into another.
Excellent post Colin, thank you!
The truth is what it is. Everything you say Colin is based on your belief that the things you believe are true. Carbon dating is a great example. Several studies exist that show carbon dating to be woefully inaccurate, dating rocks that are created by man and known to be 70 years old to be millions of years old. Extrapolate that out and 6,000 years can turn into billions of years.
If evolution were real, where is it occuring today? How did life spontaneously start. Science has never been able to create life out of amino acids etc. There is too much information needed, and information requires a source, it does not evolve. If you want to have a scientific discussion of creationism look into some of the answers in genesis writings. I know several scientists and they have a hard time arguing against any of the findings because evolution is not observable as Mr. Nye claims. Evolutionsts themselves say it happens over millions of years and must therefore be inferred. Last time I checked science was based on observable, testable, repeatable processes. Evolution is none of those.
Go back and read the article. 36% believe that the history of the Universe was directed by God. You have made no case to refute that belief.
i love it when intelligence is forced to speek out so openly against ignorance propergated by to say the least parents. stop taking your children to a "church" and start buying them telescopes and microscopes so they can see the world that you refuse to see.
Instead, stay home and watch Jerry dumb down America. The atheists are indoctrinated in being and staying the fool.
Indeed. See Colin's post above for more about what telescopes and microscopes can show us, as well as what can be seen by the unaided eye plus a properly functioning mind.
Most intelligent people spell speak this way, not "speek". I guess you haven't fully evolved.
James/HeavenSent/truth be told wrote:
"Instead, stay home and watch Jerry dumb down America. The atheists are indoctrinated in being and staying the fool."
I know you're trying to break out of the Pat Robertson Enlightened Fortune Cookie expression pattern, but you've really only stuck your foot in your mouth, HS. If anything, Springers show would involve Christians.
By all means give your kids telescopes and microscopes so they can see the beauty, handiwork and uniqueness of the Creator! Let them come to their own conclusions.
yeah right... next your going to say the earth isn't flat and the sun doesn't orbit our earth... what the hell are you atheist thinking!!!
@James- Can virgins give birth? Can dead men walk after a couple of days? Can water be turned into wine? Can believing in certain people grant you immortality?
You're calling those who watch reality television dumb (and I can't say I disagree much) but what is your honest response to the above questions?
If you're watching The Flintstones as if it were a doc-umentary, you're doing it wrong.
Chance human reptile descent is a grotesque lie. Mr. Nye is part of the deluded Moronocracy. By his own admission, he is not intelligently designed. Why should anyone listen to him? http://www.themoronocracy.com
@bob johnson
Bob, you are too funny. Great job. LOL
"Chance human reptile descent is a grotesque lie."
What the hell is chance human reptile decent?
Human-reptile descent?? What the hell is that?
"Chance human reptile descent is a grotesque lie."
Not really. Michele Bachmann is living proof.
*descent
well and Arizona governor Jan Brewer is another good example of a ho'mosapien displaying her reptilian ancestry.
That website HAS to be bogus. Really do people actually believe this way?
"""The thirst for truth can never be quenched by the empty and seductive words of Plato, Socrates, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Joseph Campbell, or any of their deluded, fawning disciples.""""
In other words, don't listen to smart people! Though the website should be a parody, it appears to be real. I don't doubt that the folks attracted to it are as stupid as can be. After all, someone has to place on the low slope portion of the IQ bell curve. These are them...
Right on Bill Nye!!!
I used to love the show segment that he did on the Seattle late nite show Thicke of the Night. Great show.
Good for Bill Nye. Thanks, Bill Nye, for having the courage to stand up against the aggressiveness and non-reason of the religious (especially Christian) hordes in our otherwise great country.
Creationism is not science. It is often wrapped in scientific language, but it is not real science, and should not be taught in science class.
"Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as 'just one theory,' they often embrace other fields of science and technology."
Not hard to understand - this is merely the inverse of denying all other gods but accepting only theirs.
That made way too much sense.
We can hope his forward looking beliefs are true.
Because a world centuries in the future with iron-age beliefs constraining their wordlview to such myopic possibilities by a sizable segment of the population is disheartening.
And a translation for the creationists that even they can understand:
If, centuries in the future, there are still creationists believing in the looney idea that their god made the universe in such a way as to be intentionally deceptive towards the inhabitants it will make baby jesus cry.
You athiests with your smug hatred towards our loving Jesus will learn the hard way. My glad bags full of feces are blocking the front door and the dogs are almost in. I hope you like worms because you will spend an eternity in your father's kitchen, hell. Your father is satan and hell is hot.
Amen.
Heavensent, you're a hypocrite. If you truly believed in a god and your "loving Jesus," quit spreading hate around like chlamydia.
@Meandnooneelse
You can try to treat me bad and spread the lies of the talmud, but Jesus knows you and is watching you. I checked again today and I still can't find my lady parts. I hope you like worms because you will have your own personal worm eating your fat drippings in hell for eternity Scotty.
Amen.
I love Heaven Sent!
I'm sending someone around to help with your lady parts.
I haven't yet become fluent in Crazy. Could someone explain,"My glad bags full of feces are blocking the front door and the dogs are almost in."?
Atheists worship Jerry Springer. Proof that dumbing down America worked.
@James
Who??
Atheists do not worship anything. Apparently the dumbing down has worked well on you.
Isn't Jerry Springer like your Sunday worship James? All delusional crap???
James/HeavenSent/truth be told/(Carrie's mama)
continues to show stupidity with such a remark.
The Springer show is somewhere where you are more likely to see Christians who probably a lot of other Christians would say "they are not really Christians", so you are just highlighting this characterisic of Christianity that we hear about all too often which exposes the conflicted nature of that bag of garbage sold to men by other men long ago.
Cue crazy creationist comments in 3...2...1...
@Huebert
The Bible is 100% true. Genesis is the story of creation as given to us in God's letter to us, the Holy Bible which is the truth. My camel-toe has now claimed the lives of seven of my cats. You athiests are so prideful and selfish your are blinded by satan's lies and you will burn.
Amen.
LOL, I missed you too <3.
Ah look Huebert the grandest delusional one has come out of her cave!
No HS, The buybull is not 100% true and by claiming this you are 100% a liar!!
@Truth
Read HS's comment a little more closely.
Huebert: The HS troll is out to play. 🙂
"Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."
The blog world is being heard! For better or for worse.