 |
|
|
|
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)« Previous 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.  |
|
|
|
One of the big questions that needs to be asked of the literal 6 day creation believers is, What about the dinosaurs. Do you also discount the " fact " that these creatures ever existed ? And if you believe they existed, how do you account for the fact that they existed at different times ?
And what about that Neanderthal DNA dicovered in modern humans. I guess our ancestors did it with the "other human species" at the time.
Don't be asking a believer about that. Most of them will just clam up and run and go p00py.
Question is answered... see the following source from a former evolutionist.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
This is one of my favourite examples of Creationist rationalizations.
It goes a a little like this:
Dinosaurs did exist. God created them when He created all other life. Mankind lived side by side with dinosaurs.
The reason they APPEAR to be from far in the past is because of Noah's flood.
You see, when the planet was covered in water, the heavier animals (like dinosaurs) sank to the bottom. That's why you see geological strata that SEEM to indicate that millions of years passed between dinosaurs and humans.
You cannot deny the evidence for a global flood. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
That Noah guy is silly.. Probably thinks the HPV vaccine causes retardation as well.
@Noah
Evidence for a global flood LOL. Where did all the water come from for one? And answer that your self don't direct me to a website that is only trying to sell a creation "science" book.
Well, I don't claim to have a PHD like the former evolutionist from the site I directed you to. (And the book is published online for free, although you could buy a hard copy if you desired). The evidence is that the salty muddy water came from the fountains of the great deep and burst forth in a violent manor. The water covered the entire earth forming the sedimentary layers and killing all life (minus those on the ark). The water the receded into the present day oceans we now have because of the subduction due to the excess weight of the water on caverns from which the water burst forth from. I cannot explain it all in a short paragraph, which is why I give a reputable source, whereas you have nothing but your word.
Evolution:
The Belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
And nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything
Then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self replicating bits Therefore creating dinosaurs...
Makes Perfect sense
No. Evolution is what happened after life emerged. It has nothing to do whit what happened before.
Apparently, you know nothing about evolution.
Haha, is it legal to reduce the idiocracry of the blind followers of the "Scientific Consensus" in the same way that they do to the blind followers of tyrant gods? Good work.
What you're talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a fascinating field, one which we don't know a whole lot about yet. But we're working on it!
Please do a little research before posting. You sound like an idiot.
Ah. I think we found the problem.
Actually
Evolutionary theory states that through random mutation and natural selection, which is not random, certain organisms will develop beneficial traits, and thus be more likely to survive. These traits will then be passed on to said organism's offspring thus making them more likely to survive. Through this process organisms will diversify, ultimately into the myriad of lifeforms we see today.
Lol... It wasn't magic. Take an intro astronomy class and they can explain in basic terms (using basic concepts in math and physics) how time unfolded and what conditions were – and subsequently why "magical bits of everything" formed in to matter than led to the birth of the dinosaurs... It's ok to open your mind; and perhaps even God was the cause of the Big Bang. I'm sure he wouldn't find your quip all that humorous.
But believing that a magic man in the sky created everything out of nothing somehow makes more sense to you?
Creationism:
The belief that an all-powerful being created the world in a span of six days, resting on the seventh. Yeah, that REALLY makes perfect sense.
What you're talking about is abiogenisis, which is, admittedly, a less strenuously tested theory than evolution. However, it has been shown that organic molecules such as proteins can self replicate without truly meeting the definition of life. There are several likely scenarios under which such molecules could have formed naturally, and once the correct amino acids are formed in these scenarios, life is not an unlikely occurance on the extremely long timeline of early earth.
When attacking a point of view that you don't hold, one must still be educated enough to attack the right parts and to do so intelligently. To attack something when you're too ignorant of the facts (and too lazy to be bothered to learn about the opposing side) to even know what you're attacking only shows how much society has to gain by embracing the scientific method (even if you reject some theories).
The good news is that reality is not dependent on your ability to understand it.
And Baby Jesus rode on one of those dinosaurs. Your an idiot. Your mom should have had an abortion.
Hello folks. Everyone is cordially invited to visit – thestarofkaduri.com
You should all enjoy chips. now and in the afterlife
The chips in Hell all contain Olestra.
Satan "may cause an/al leakage".
An afterlife full of chips is not one I would object to. Unless they're sour cream chips. Ugh.
It amazes me how, when articles such as this are published, the conversation degenerates into an either/or proposition. Either I'm right and all you are wrong or vice-versa. How bout this.. God created the earth AND evolution was his method of creating Man and Woman. Amazing how many 'Christian Evangelicals' have a direct line to God's mind. Amazing.
How about you provide evidence for god before you claim he created anything.
83Hawk..... was it YOUR god that did it. Mohammed, Alah, SHiva, Thor. Please be more specific, cause I'm confused. And then explain to me why no other god but your god could have pulled it off.
"We're all atheists, I just have 1 less god than you do"
One statement has actual evidence behind it, one does not. I will leave it to you to figure out which is which.
Huebert – I don't believe that a god exists; however, I do recognize there is neither evidence for or against a supreme being. And while the burden of proof should be on those who maintain that a deity exists, I can at least appreciate a proposition like 83Hawk mentioned. His proposition implies that he discards most of biblical propoganda while still believing in some sort of deity. People with such views are usually not the intolerant fundamentalists that lack basic logic and as such are a danger to society.
No direct line to God, but I have Shiva on speed-dial if you have a question.
@Rynomite
I can understand Hawk's position, however I can give it no more respect than I would give any unfounded belief.
I think our children should be taught both "theories" and let them come to the conclusion in which they believe. In the "science" world don't you go through all possible hypothesis to come to your grand conclusion? How can they make an educated decision if only one theory is taught. Let them decide if we cam to be from some cosmic explosion by chance or if we were designed by a Creator.
Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[
That is why evolution should be the only one taught.
One is a religious story with no basis in fact other than faith. The other is science, based on hundreds of years of facts. There is a difference between the two, and Creationism should be taught in a religious class. It IS NOT science.
What's you response to that, Sara?
Neither creation nor intelligent design are scientific theories, they are religious beliefs. Which is fine – it means they belong in church. In science class, we should teach science.
SARA, do you take your kids to a doctor or a shaman when they get sick? Think about it.
The difference id that evolution is based on facts (fosils, prior extinct animals, the evolution before our very eyes with microbes, etc) and creationism has absolutely no evidence whatsover and is based on fantasy and magical thinking and has no place in science classes.
It is ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public school. I rest my case.
First, creationism is *not* a scientific hypothesis or conjecture, It is not falsifiable or testable via observation, experiment or predictive ability. Evolution is all of these. Second, you are misunderstanding the use of the word *theory*. Theory as used by Science, is *not* guess. It is as the word *theorem*.
This is not something that's even up for debate in the scientific world. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. Physics, chemistry, and geology don't work without the concept of deep time. Creationism is just wrong, and is no more a theory than Santa Claus keeping a naughty or nice list. Evolution is one of the bedrock ideas of science. You can't kick it out of place without getting nonsense in return. Just because a significant portion of the population is ignorant about science (and I mean that in the nicest possible way), doesn't mean they get to dictate what is involved in science. So no, children should not be allowed to choose the facts. If you want to incorporate this debate in a debate or philosophy or political science class, have at it, but it does not belong in a hard science class.
@SARA
And exactly what test can a scientists do to address the hypothesis of "god done it"?
@Sara
So how many Creation myths should be taught in science class?
Just the Abrahamic one?
How about Norse, Shinto, Inuit, Aztec, Inca, etc ad nauseum.
Imagine your biology teacher has a class one day where they teach a chapter about Shinto creation.
at the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.
Do you find that story to be just as credible as Genesis?
Sara, Should we teach children the stengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity to? Scientific debate is not done in the public schools.
I would like you theists to just ONCE use your idea of teaching children the "stengths and weaknesses" of something and apply it to your religions. (not such a good idea now I bet)
@Sara
Should we also let our children choose between chemistry and alchemy, or between astronomy and astrology, or between physics and magic?
Sara – would you let your children be taught every religion; there are probably only a few thousand. They could learn about a new one every day of the week while going to school, then let them decide which one they like. Would you let an atheist teach his beliefs and let your children decide? I kind of doubt it. Creationism is not a scientific theory it is a religious belief.
Teach them provable facts in school. And yes the 'theory' of evolution has been proved. Teach your fairy tales in church where they belong.
Sara...??
Hello...??
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. People hear the word theory and incorrectly assume that it means that the proof is lacking to the point where there is some doubt that evolution incorrectly describes the natural processes going on hear on earth and likely all over the universe. The theory of evolution accurately describes how life changes over time. Are there a few things we don't understand? sure. Does that mean all the stuff we do understand is not valid? absolutely not! You do not doubt the theory of gravity because if you fall off your chair you are given some immediate feedback that gravity exists. Do we know everything about gravity? Nope, we don't. Does the fact that we don't know everything about gravity invalidate everything we do know about it? Absolutely not! Science does not answer the question of Gods existence. It answers the questions of how things work.
Creationism is a failed concept because if taken to its logical conclusion it gives Man dominion over God.
Creationism negates the laws of physics and chemistry.
Therefore God has to perform each and every chemical reaction Himself. God gave man free will so he does not know what Man is going to do. So if I start a process that requires a chemical reaction God must come and do it.
I force God to do my bidding. I have dominion over God.
Evolution isn't faith, and therefore is not in the realm of "belief". It's a theory proposed by Darwin based on his observations of the natural world. The theory still holds sway because all the evidence since produced by observation and study in the field confirms it. In science, when evidence turns up that's inconsistent with the theory, then the theory is reconsidered, and modified if the inconsistent evidence is confirmed by observation independently.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. Instead, it's a biblical story that demands whatever degree of belief that's prescribed by one's faith and by one's inclination to believe in biblical accounts. So, you can "believe" the creation story, but it's just a story, not substantiated by independent, repeatable observation of evidence. It's an article of faith.
All Nye is saying is, the future successful development of America and the world depends on people who understand the distinction, and who can relate to and interact with the natural world scientifically and objectively, without being constrained by belief in the creation story or any other explanation of the world not supported by facts and evidence. If someone believes in the creation story to the extent that they reject scientific inquiry, they're not well-equipped to conduct the research and do the work needed in the future to benefit and improve the condition of and ensure the survival of the earth and its human and animal populations. That's it.
Creationism is myth, just like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Apollo, Zeus, etc. I've read The Origin of Species, and I'm guessing (from the half-baked comments here) that most people that posted on this page have not. It's not about "chance". It's about variation and struggle for survival. Read the book before you comment on things you don't know anything about ... and grow up America. Creationism is not science, it's a bed time story. Idiots.
do you always insult people who disagree with you? does that make you feel better?
No I do not (and it's a fair point), but I do insult idiots who try to "sell" myth as science – it's truly insulting ... and damaging to the youth of this country who are taught this absolute distortion of the truth
Miike, I have no problem in telling you that you are wrong. To believe in a magical being that cares for you and only you, with no evidence at all, is indeed idiotic. Let me ask you, do you believe in Vishnu? Tezcatlipoca? Do you feel those people who do are "idiotic" for worshiping something that doesn't exist? Then you understand why your baseless claims about religion are ridiculous to those of us who are impacted by such nonsense. Religion is not some neutral nonsense like the tooth fairy that everyone except gullible children believe in. Religion hurts people constantly. Is it idiocy to keep hurting people? I think so. Until you can show that your god is real, it remains in the realm of myth, just like very other religion does. Until you can show your god does anything, especially anything beneficial for mankind, then your god is one more impotent figment of the imagination.
If people more read about the speices of the earth and how we all are p[art of each other, they would truly be amazed .. There are library filled with books, written by great men on the subject, but alas religion has only one passage in one book, in one chapter to use as scientific evidence.
Terry, I agree with both of you. I understand that anger and insults are not warranted when disagreeing, but the frustration when dealing with creationists is ... unfathomable to some.
46% of people in this country either do not believe their own eyes, or do not have the mental capacity to connect those sights together. They are taking their stupidity to the Kentucky Legislature and attempting to force other students to be as d umb as they are. As Mr. Nye is attempting to point out, this is damaging to EVERYBODY: you, me, my children, their children, and all children yet to come. 46% of the people on this planet, when some asteroid shows up to destroy the planet will, instead of trying to come up with a solution, sit down, fart, and pray to God.
In more immediately frightening issues, we risk falling behind technologically as a nation. And trust me, with all the "love" the rest of the planet has for us, not being #1 may be extremely hazardous.
Watch out, Billy boy. Keep it up, and they'll try to eliminate PBS funding.
Oh wait......
Why are relgions and creationism still alive? It's big business that prays upon the fears of the individual. Some folks just like to believe they will have eternal life after the current one that sucks at times. I call that the ostrich syndrome.
Bill Nye has been saying that in many different ways for decades. Anyone who watches his shows (which I like but as a christian I follow creationism) knows he teaches evolution heavily. It is very accepted in secular society so I don't have a problem with my kids watching his shows but we still do our Bible studies too. I have to follow Jesus who offers life after death, not scientists who say just die and that's it. but I still like Bill Nye.
We need more Christians like you. Teaching both sides to give them the knowledge to decide later on. Thumbs up.
Gavin: one side represents fact determined from the scientific method; the other side is personal belief. You just can't compare them or teach them as equal.
Everything reality has as evidence shows that your Jesus never existed nor offers any magical prize after death. If there was no Adam and Eve, no magical "creation", then there is no need for any Jesus because "original sin" is makebelieve. Since we have no evidence of some god creating anything, much less the universe, there is no reason to thnk creationism, young earther or old earther, happened. And there is no reason to think that your and only your favorite god did creation at all. That's the usual willful ignorance and arrogance that Christians sadly have. All of the physics and chemistry that Bill Nye demonstrates shows that the primitive creation stories about eggs and clay men, as well as magical floods, etc NEVER HAPPENED. IF you want to make believe your god hid all of the evidence that would show a magical creation or a flood, then you may as well make believe we were created last Tuesday and your god hid the evidence of that too.
herp a derp
The truth is that no one, past, present, or future, will ever "know" the true origins of the universe. Scientists need to take a step back and admit that the evidence for evolution and the big bang is quite weak. Christians need to learn to acknowledge the difference between "believing" versus "knowing." No one knows. No one ever will know. What we choose to believe, or not to believe, and how we live our lives and treat others we share the world with is really the most important thing of all. What each person believes in and takes to the grave is that person's reality, and it should be respected.
The evidence for the big bang and evolution is actually quite strong, for both theories. No other theories explain the observations we've made about the world.
I understand the instinct to blame both sides and meet in the middle, but one side of this is clearly, clearly incorrect.
So you "know" that we will never "know" something? You don't have much faith in humans.
JJ, you say "the evidence for evolution and the big bang is quite weak." No matter how weak you may believe it to be, it is far stronger than any evidence for a GOD or gods, of which there is none.
Scientists are quite aware of the weaknesses of the evidence supporting various theories, including evolution and the big bang. We've been debating them for years. For those who weren't paying attention in High School biology, Darwin's theory was not the only scientific theory put forward regarding evolution (e.g. Lamarck's theories).
The major difference is scientific theories have supporting evidence that has been debated and analyzed. Religious myths have ancient books that are quoted as if they were unquestionable fact merely based on their existence.
The evidence for evolution and the big bang are not weak. How do you think bacteria become "resistant to drugs?" (evolution) Ever eat a white and yellow ear of corn? (genetic cross breading for better traits, evolution) Your cell phone would not work without Einsteins observations of the universe being correct (Big Bang). I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. Most scientists believe in God, btw (higher percentage than the average population).
Well said. I recently had a similar discussion with a coworker and expressed the same points that you've made.
No, you are part of the problem. Evidence for the big bang and evolution is not "weak." Evidence for evolution is very solid and is the only explanation that accounts for all of the evidence. We even use these principles when it comes to doing research that involves manipulating cellular organisms to evolve into what we want them to (since generations can pass in days instead of 100s of years for cellular organisms). The idea it's "weak" is something considered only in America and only because of the religious extremists that live here.
Joel, Pat, and sqeptiq. I am a physical scientist by profession, and identify myself as atheist. I should clarify that even if we could provide unequivocal evidence of the big bang, the next big question we'll want t know is where did all the matter in the universe come from in the first place? I personally find this too abstract of a concept to understand. It is simply my opinion that pursuing answers to such a question are so far beyond humanity's current level of comprehension and, again my own opinion, are somewhat futile. Having settled into a comfort zone where I acknowledge my belief that one one in our lifetime is going to answer this question, I have chosen to live life accepting of others' views, even if I disagree with them.
Most likely when you die there is nothing, you just cease to be. If you need a set of consequence to justify being a good person then most likely you aren't one.
Another sad truth is Pascal's Wager.
But what determines whether or not you are a good person? If morality is truly relative, then anything can be justified.
"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. This quote is quite revealing about the foundational concept of evolution. If I replaced the words "deep time of billions of years" with the words "an Intelligent Designer" I would have accurately shown the difference between one side and the other. And that's the point – both sides have faith in a creative force – to evolutionists this is "time" and to creationists/otherpeople this is "intelligence." Which one makes more sense?
Well since their is no evidence for your "intelligence" and we know that time exist, I'm going to have to go with time makes more sense.
Of the options you present, "Time" fits the observed evidence better.
Post by "Desperate" is an instance of the Begging the Question fallacy.
You are too easy. "Time" doesn't exist as a real item that can "do" anything. Time is a method of measuring the sequence of events as they pass. Adding more or less of it doesn't make the theory more believable. Saying "time" created something is like me saying that "measurements" made my muffin. Measurements of what? And why? Those are the questions that you can only answer by faith.
my vote is for time
When you are talking about ultimate reality, you have to beg the question. Nye does it in the article above. Why can't I?
“Time" doesn't exist as a real item that can "do" anything”
Neither does “intelligence” dumbass!!!
who said time created anything?
jeez....
Apparently I was under the mistaken impression that "intelligence" exists. I am sorry for the error, which has been corrected not only by Nye's comments above, but certainly verfiied by these discussion threads. Hypothesis = theory = law? Perhaps. by the way, what is SETI for?
"Create" is a loaded word. It is closely related to Creator which in turn suggests "intelligence". I don't think time creates anything. Things emerge and change over time. Given a choice between "intelligence" and "time", I'd go with time. No good evidence supports intelligence at work in the origin of life. It's easy to see things change over time and there is lots of evidence for big changes over "deep time".
Tom I respect that, but even as you say that, you assume that "time" had things to work with. What exactly changed over time? How did it arrive? Where did it originate? I know I have the same quandry when it comes to God, but then again, I admit – my theory is based on faith. Is yours?
One again the religion of "science" as opposed to the practice of the Scientific Method is being preached by a self-appointed apostle of what is best for kids.
Bite me. Bill Nye has out lived his usefulness by supporting bad science in the Global Warming religion.
Creationism is a theory and article of faith–and not wholly inconsistent with the scientific method.
More importantly having faith is not a hallmark of bad scientists either–many of our greatest minds were seeking God in thier work.
There was a time when science held that the earth was flat, that women only needed to incubate a baby which was implanted by men, that women were less capable than men, that there was nothing smaller than an electron. We know now that those notions are wrong.
A child can have good observation skills that allow for excellent Scientific Method to be applied (Unlike Global warming science) where experiements are welcome and results shared and results verified by other scientists. He can also believe in the wonder of God. It does not confuse the issue–in some very important was it helps him to explore the frontier and ask better questions.
Get it right then continue. Creationism in NOT a theory PERIOD (never have been), it is a statement of Belief.
Are you a climatologist? Do you actually know what global climate science says? I mean what the actually scientists are saying, not what media agencies are saying the scientists are saying. Have you actually read a scientific paper about climate change?
Do you actually know what the scientific method is? You speak of disputed and disprove hypotheses in science. You realize that creationism is one of those, right? You realize that such has not happened with global warming?
hasn't seemed to do you any good....
RE-POSTED WITH PRAGRAPHS FOR EASIER READING - Easier on our miraculously "evolved" eyes...Thank you for the suggestion...
Briefly Back by popular demand.... "COMMUNICATION" IN ANY FORM, SUCH AS CREATION, LANGUAGE, or MATHEMATICS, EVIDENCES AN INTELLIGENT BEING....I dare you to prove this statement true by replying...Though some may argue that your reply may very well evidence a lack of intelligence
Colin...Very nice "statement of faith" (back on page 98) unless you personally did all the "objective research" yourself, which, in part, you would have had to trust in one or two "man-made" instruments for your so called "objective" testing. Instruments made by us evolving apes that may or may not reflect the absolute truth of the matter. Did I say "absolute truth"? There's another problem for you as an evolutionist. Without an "Absolute Source" of truth, there is no absolute truth, yet you argue herein as if there must be, and you want us to "believe" that there is while arguing out the other side of your mouth that there isn't. You are quite the oxy moron. So not only is your biased, subjective ignorance showing but so is your hypocrisy. You want to use a montheistic worldview to develop and support your premises and propositions while at the same time curse the Hand that made you. Your "faith" is showing too!
Don't "believe" everything you read. Oh, but that's your argument against us Christian's isn't it? You've blinded yourself with so called "Science" to the point of willful ignorance..You don't really think that what you have written has not been addressed by greater minds than you, do you? Just search the internet and you will find your answers. But then you will be in the same position of "faith", won't you? Having to "believe" in the writing's of others – subjecting yourself to the reliability of their so called "objective" testing, research & propositions, no? And round and round we go...
NEWSFLASH: The "theory" of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse by the very Scientist's that you have placed your "faith" in. If you and I are alive for the next 5 years we will both see it. If not, I will be with JesusNotReligion and you will be....Where? And if I have "believed" in vain I will end up where?Your faith is illogical, not to mention a Biblical manifestation of your willful sin and hatred of God (Romans 1:18ff)...If you can at least believe in that Biblical proposition that we are ALL born BORN HATING THE GOD WHO CREATED US and wanting to be god there may be hope for you yet. And if, by the way, we could get our prideful, arrogant hands on Him I am certain that we'd nail Him to A cross! (Ponder that for a moment)
In the meantime, I offer you (and all other worshippers of the natural creation that evidences a Creator whom you have, for all intents and purposes, crucified) the opportunity in print to, as Jesus said, "repent or perish", and to change the direction of your "faith" from trusting in God-hating man (ultimately yourself)and trust in Jesus not religion. Who do YOU say that He is? (Matthew 16:15)...Be careful now, your answer will require "faith" either way. My apologies for any typos. My less than evolved thumbs may have hindered perfection.
Still pointless.
Pointless like evolution! Pointless like Athiesm? Pointless like your existent without JesusNotReligion? Which one Mulehead?
I love the fact that you trash science while using the internet. Go to hell. If it exists. Or whatever.
Go away. You are scary. Please do not talk to anyone anymore.
lar9166...Perfect love casts out fear, so fear not WITH GOD's PERFECT LOVE in Jesus. Is that a message to be afraid of? The message of Jesus is FORGIVENESS but to qualify for it, and to personally receive it, you will one day have to admit by faith that you need this forgiveness that He purchased on the cross, and that He truly is who He claimed to be, THE ONLY TRUE LORD AND SAVIOR, Who alone is worthy of all worship and praise! I can only hope and pray that you will one day believe and receive Him because I certainly can't convince you to trust in JesusNotReligion >
Same goes for you Alex...
"COMMUNICATION" IN ANY FORM, SUCH AS CREATION, LANGUAGE, or MATHEMATICS, EVIDENCES AN INTELLIGENT BEING...
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist.
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
imbecile, thy name is lolol
So if someone says, "God bless you" after I sneeze, is it alright for me to express disbelief?
If there were no fairies, there would be no disbelievers in fairies.
Aw, lolol, poor thing, you have to repeate a lie in order to try ot make people shut up about things you don't like. Alas for you, the reason that atheists talk about gods and religion is that they are harmful. They cause people to think that they have a right to lie to others, to deny them the chance to make a informed decision on their own. They cause people to hate science but be pure hypocrites when they use it as long as it makes the comfy. They cause people to kill each other over whose imaginary friend is the "best". They cause people to threated with death some poor girl who *may* have burnt pages from their holy book, or threaten death to those who don't agree with them, like when anti-choice people murder doctors and blow up clinics. I talk about your religion and your god because they both are based on lies and lies are rarely ever good for anyone.
Great post with the fewest words! No one is proving evolution – only rantings against proponents of God. We're keeping these blogs going for them. I guess, for them, it's better than watching the Cartoon Network in order to find the meaning of life. Beep! beep! That coyote's after you...And that "BIG BANG" was from the "Acme Corporation" (Ref. The Roadrunner cartoon for you kids under 30)...Big fun...I made myself laugh at that one 🙂
Atheists do not "rage at Gor." They don't waste their time raging at a nullity. They certainly rage at the man-created idolatry that is religious belief -christians assert that "god" created man in his image; the reality is that man created "god" in his image, warts and all.
sqeptiq...That was a wonderfully "crafted" piece of "creative" writing...Hence, you have proved that you are indeed "made in the image" of the God who CREATED you...Your post reflects (and demands) creationism...unless you are now going to tell me that those words got there by "accident"...?
"COMMUNICATION" IN ANY FORM, SUCH AS CREATION, LANGUAGE, or MATHEMATICS, EVIDENCES AN INTELLIGENT BEING...
Trust in JesusNotReligion
Creationism isn't good for kids since it's a baseless LIE. Even creationists can't agree on what their god supposedly did when, where and how. They can't even agree on what god did it. We hear about Christians here in the US, but why not go with Vishnu, or the spirits of the Native Americans? Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs?
Since no theist can show that they have the "right" answer, and they cannot explain why their lies about creationism, the magical flood, etc cannot be supported by evidence, they only have lies to rely on, lies used to spread false "exceptionalism", fear and greed. Please who here thinks lying to a child is good? The only lie that I can see as good is telling the Nazis "No Anne Frank isn't here". Telling them myths about how special they are because they magically have the "right" religion is a farce.
God*
I have never understood why the two go hand in hand. Obviously, Christians believe that God inspired humans to write the bible, but they were still humans subject to their interpretations. A person living 2 thousand years ago would have described something like the beginning of the world like the story of Adam and Eve. To attempt to make a religious interpretation (essentially a story) and ignore hundreds of years of undeniable science is ridiculous. I cannot believe people still argue this.
Actually, the creation of the earth was not literal days, but creation days in Gods eyes. A creation day is 7,000 year long. A "quote normal" day in Gods eyes is 1,000 years. So, what man might think of as a long time, in Gods view it was only like yesterday. Now this update in information is from the Bible, and since you do not believe in the Bible, as the word of God, then you can disregard it as well and believe you your fish, slapping up on ground, becoming a liqard, then becoming a rat, then a monkey, then an ape and then neanderthal man, then humans as we know em.. How absurd is that?