 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
What exactly is "life"? Typical definitions include consuming something and reproduction. Viruses don't replicate on their own, they need a host. Is a computer virus alive? It consumes, it reproduces, it mutates and evolves. Is a meme alive?
If we have created artificial lifeforms already, with a sufficiently complicated environment for such lifeforms only available for a short amount of time (years), well it doesn't seem that difficult. I have no doubt that given an appropriate environment and enough time and raw materials, life will spontaneously arise. We may even see a spontaneous computer virus emerge in the near future (nasty little bit-torrent packets).
Is this proof by example that it is possible for life to arise without divine (supernatural) intervention?
Life is an ongoing chemical process that started several billion years ago. Nothing more. Nothing less.
When you don't understand math – you can't understand very large numbers. Liters of ocean * chemical reactions per second per liter * seconds per year * billions of years. Number of internet connected devices (processors) * computer cycles per second * seconds per year * 35 and counting.
Y2k you would happily push us back into the dark ages.
y2kpastor: Earlier you stated you were willing to debate. If this is the case, I suggest you call in to a show hosted by a Recovering Baptist who was in seminary. The show is called The Atheist Experience and is hosted out of Austin, Texas...preferably you'd attempt to debate with Matt Dillahunty but the other hosts are just as good. The information can be found here: http://www.atheist-experience.com/. They may not be too eager to debate evolution with you based on the simple fact that they are not the experts but they will debate your god concept.
@y2kpastor, For the record, I too am a recovering baptist who spent 18 years of his life in church and 13 years in a christian school. I'm happy to discuss belief, faith and the bible with you.
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. Atheistic duck this problem which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter intuitive process than Christians put in God. The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
So what made the creator? A creator creator maybe? See where this is going? The buck has to stop somewhere. Why not eliminate all the in-between bullshit and just say life happened on its own and be done with it. We freely admit we don't know how yet, but we will eventually and we're fairly certain there was no creator involved. Why fuck it all up with some mysterious intelligent whatsit that also needs explaining?
So god always existed? How does that work exactly. Oh wait that's not a question you can answer.
WASP & Arthur P
@y2k: ok then here is a simple one; where are the bones of humans mixed with dinosaurs? how come there isn't a single human bone in the la brea tar pits?
What does that prove, You probably won't see any human bones among the those of the elephants either. and you won't see any dynasaur bones among out graves either. As far as my other citations. They are all to be found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament of the Holy Bible. Show me your Bible or Book of Evolution and I will be able to read the citations for the comments you are making as well. Can you prove that the cavemen and Prehistorical Mankind did not live among the Dynasaurs, just because no fossil evidence can be found. Who said that GOD even wanted them to be found. The Unicorn is mentioned in the Bible but no Unicorn has ever been recorded in modern History. Perhaps it missed Noah's Ark. or maybe it is in reality a rhinosteros. That has nothing at all to do with whether or not Creation should not be taught.
Teaching fairy tales about a sky fairy creating everything is ridiculous.
so...what you've just implied with your statements above is that we humans do not chose whether we will be righteous or not; that this is determined by God alone. So why does "all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful" God punish his children for doing what he pre-ordained they would do? Your description of God sounds sadistic! You make no sense. Oh, right, "faith."
"You probably won't see any human bones among the those of the elephants either"
Setting aside the fact that this is probably very easy to find as both elephants and humans share common space all over the world, including Thailand, Africa and even coos and circuses, a little education is in order.
When scientist talk about bones being together, they are not necessarily referring to sharing a region. Most often they are referring to sharing a sediment layer in the geologic table. Just like a tree has rings, the earth has layers that reach around the entire planet with consistency. These layers are unique and tell different stories about weather changes, climate, vegetation and yes, bones of a certain period of time. The consistency means that the exact striations you find in North America can be found in Australia. These striations can be dated using a variety of atomic clocks. Atomic clocks are based on the half-life radio decay of an isotope. It's the same method that the military uses to register their clocks, and when dating, radioactive decay has a 1% margin of error.
The Bible does not support the idea of unicorns as renowned in legend. It does draw an accurate, though limited, picture of the massive and fear-inspiring aurochs, or wild bull, that existed in Biblical times and down into the not-too-distant past. Greek mythology and paganism, not the Bible painted the picture of the "mythical" unicorn. Using the unicorn to prove the Bible as false is illogical. People say that the Bible claims that the world is flat. This is another lie. Unlike myths of ancient peoples, the Bible does not contain the mistaken view that the earth is flat. Instead, it states the scientific truth that the earth is a circular object resting on nothing. (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22. Read it for yourself a "true" scientist would.
y2kpastor
You seem to be quite a few neurons short of intelligence. You can't even spell dinosaur correctly, and you randomly capitalize words for some reason. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? My 11-year-old grandson can write better than you.
You know that everyone on CNN is basically, liberals who are haters, and will be the downfall of the United States of America
As opposed to mouth-breathers like you, who can't even figure out how to use a comma.
@al pastor,
you asked "Show me your Bible or Book of Evolution".
While I wouldn't compare it with a compendium of myths like the Bible, Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is the original book of evolution.
Mike, you nitwit, it's "heathen", not "heathan" – LOL!!!!!
@albert, What's your stance on the story of Noah's ark? 100% true? As a former christian with an extensive background in religion, I assure you that I've read the bible many, many times from cover to cover. It was required in our school. Most atheists out here I've spoken to are from religious backgrounds and have read the bible then and after their escape from religion. I think it's faulty to assume otherwise.
The only rational response to Bill Nye is that he should get his facts straight. No where in the bible, especially in the first few books where he claimed to get his information, does it say that the world is only 10,000 years old. The world was created in six days yes, the world is 10,000 years old no. His comment on the moon making light, as based on his theory of creationism, is yet another way Bill Nye the science idiot abuses words to promote his beliefs. People believe what they want to believe, that what makes us human. If God wanted robots we would all be like Bill deNye the Science idiot...
@Jonathan: : AHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHHAHAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHHAHAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHHAHAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHHAHA
Oh, wait. Were you serious?
@Jonathan,
How do you explain the 45%+ Americans that believe the earth is less than 10k years old? Is it Bill Nye getting it wrong, or is it the people Bill Nye is pointing to that base that belief on the bible who are wrong? I suspect Bill Nye doesn't really care about anything in the bible as it doesn't effect him. But if half of Americans have a wrong belief, doesn't it make sense to bring it up for discussion?
@Jonathan,
Nevertheless 46% of Americans chose this answer in the Gallup survey:
"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so"
So, if they didn't get that idea from some kind o' bible preachin', where the fcuk did they get it from, because it sure ain't science!
@Jonathan,
here's your data:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx?version=print
There are none so blind as those who are blinded by scripture.
Genesis says birds before land animals.
Then bird fossils should be found in rocks older than land animals. They are not. Bird fossils are not found except in rocks way younger that the rocks where the first land animals are found.
Birds were not created before land animals. This is further confirmed via genetics.
Therefore Genesis is wrong. If Genesis is wrong what else is wrong.
"Only a fool says in his heart there is not GOD"- King David
For atheist/non-believers a very simple verse
John8:47-"Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God. But you don't listen because you don't belong to God."
John 10:26-"but you do not believe because you are not my sheep."
John 3:16-"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
It is impossible for the unchosen to believe this, only the elected saints hear this truth and believe it. If you do not believe this it is because you are not of GOD nor do you belong to GOD. If you do not belong to GOD then you belong to satan. According to the word of Christ Jesus not MYSELF, satan and all who belong to him will inherit hades for all of eternity (on going time with no end) May GOD Almighty be with you and may all who are of the light come to the light. Peace be with you
Chuck Norris would kick Jesus's @ss.
Anybody could kick Jesus's ass.
Yeah but that's not fair jesus is dead.
Thoughts ans replies like this are why people leave religion. You have offered no proof of creationism. What you have offered are false misleading texts to try and scare people into thinking your way. Nowhere in the Bible does is say that "bad" people will be tormented in fire for all eternity. The interpretation of "Hades" is mankinds common grave. The Bible uses the word "Fire" to denote everlasting destruction (death). Take a piece of paper (or anything else for that matter), burn it completely, and then try to bring it back. I think you get the point. The God of the the Bible is not the cruel being that you and 99% of so-called Christians make him out to be. If you child did something bad, would you hold his hand over fire for even a second to teach him a lesson? We we not created in God's image? Go ready and actually study the Bible before posting falsehoods.
I'm pretty sure there was a SouthPark episode about this. Local-cable-access-Jesus took on Satan in the boxing ring. It wasn't pretty.
No that would be Sir Issac Newton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M
Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUFUujSNpEU
@ albert there are over 50 verses speaking about hell. I did all my studying i wouldnt just put my faith in just anything. But i did you the favor of getting one of these verses.
Revelation 20:15-"And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire"
SOme of us belong to GOD some of us dont, those who do not will be cast into the lake of fire. (second death)
I think you need to do a little more studying my friend.
I was 7 yrs old when I watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, and every boy in America wanted to be an astronaut. Somehow the love of science was replaced by disdain. Ask 100 children what they want to grow up to be, and I would be surprised if 1 says astronaut (and I would give odds of that being a little girl). My generation was the last that grew up WANTING to learn science, and we are the ones that gave you that device and network you are using. We as a nation are getting left behind on the world stage, and the attack on science is to blame. We need to excite our children about science and math. I mourned Carl Sagan, I mourned Jacques-Yves Cousteau, I am still mourning Neil. There are technologies and discoveries on the horizon that are really exciting – fusion power, nanotechnology, biology, ... you name it. At one point in our history we pledged to go to the moon and return safely before we even knew what we were up against. To deny science and all we have learned in the last 50 years (my lifetime) is completely insane. We can lead the world again, but we need to invest in education and make learning exciting and fun. Creationism is simply un-American. Show some patriotism and support the education of the next generation – after all if they can't make a living in the future, there won't be anyone to fund your Social Security.
@littlehero: i salute you (salute)
pride in american know how made this country, now i fear that pride has been stripped away and left behind.
i weap for what is to come.
Fabulous post. I, too, salute you! I wish more intelligent people would voice their opinions.
We stopped being a producing economy and became a consumer economy. We won't even fix the roads and bridges. My grandfather built roads in rural Wisconsin, and no he didn't build that business by himself. He had government contracts to build interstate highways and turn dirt roads into paved roads, and plowed them in winter. He also dug foundations for peoples homes and provided gravel and fill for other businesses and municipalities. He worked very hard (and died much too young), but the government did have something to do with his success and all of the other businesses down the chain. Critical thinking is at a new all time low (great for a consumer culture) and so are science, economics, math, history, ...
Agreed. The posts on this blog are proof.
Nice.
thank you for your valuable insight. i hope the hopeless will wake up some day, or just shut up.
If you take the narcissistic and egotistical position that the truth is inside of your personal belief, you will find yourself in a never-ending struggle to either deny facts, create conspiracies, or try to make those facts fit your personal story. This is a very stagnant position as you have as your center of truth is a regurgitated story that you are forever condemned to breathe new life into for it to have meaning. Look and see this for yourself if you can. When you are in doubt, you look for ways to strengthen your faith to create new "meanings". How tiring this must be. It's no wonder that you feel so persecuted, because life will repeatedly present information that will cause you to doubt the shaky ground you walk on.
Should this burden become too heavy to bear, I can tell you from personal experience that there is a better way. Accept truth, no matter what form it comes to you or even if it's inconvenient to your story. You will find a fresher view of the world around you where you story fits the facts. New discoveries everyday will keep your views fresh. That they are grounded in verifiable observation and tests will give you confidence that and freedom as you will no longer have to be finding new and creative ways to defend your position.
Don't worry. Science is not trying to scam, trick or manipulate you. Everything it presents, it gives supporting evidence for (otherwise it's just conjecture). Reason it out. If one man is telling you he wants to sell you a house and says you just need to trust him that it's a great house, and the other man is willing to take you there and show you the house, which would you be wise to trust? Which is more likely trying to scam you?
Let the story fit the facts, instead of the facts fitting your story. The universe and the evolution of life is an extraordinary story. It's beautiful and magnificent. It's humbling and awe-inspiring. Tacking a magical being in the sky who spoke it into existence doesn't give it more meaning. It belittles it.
I respect your view, but it is very narrow minded. What you wrote against creationism can easily be used against evolution. Also, Science has it's fair share of "Gods", and "Prophets". One huge example is that scientists claim that there is life on other planets. They say this with absolutely zero proof, zero evidence. But some scientist will have you think you are incompetent or stupid if you do not believe that their is other life. Then there is the fact that there are scientists that, given the same proverbial "mountains of evidence", believe in God and in creation. Sorry, but you logic is narrow minded and flawed. Science can easily be compared to an imperfect, and flawed religion.
Are you trying to hypnotize me or are you just attempting to subtly implant subliminal suggestions of reverse psychology, like the serpent did in the Garden of Eden? It is not working.
@albert, I don't know of any scientist who claims with 100% certainty that there is life on other planets. Can you cite your claim? As for "proof", there is something called mathematical proof. Often when we don't have a visual representation of something, such as atoms of DNA an image is derived from a mathematical proof. They may be inaccurate but they are founded on probabilities. I encourage you to research the Drake equation. BBC put together a really nice graphic that you can play with that makes learning fun. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120821-how-many-alien-worlds-exist
y2kpastor, While I'm certain it wasn't your intention, I'm flattered by your comparison to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. To me, he is a reoccurring unsung hero of the bible. Whereas god wanted to keep Adam and Eve prisoners, if not of the garden, of their innocence, the serpent helped them discover "the knowledge of good and evil". I for one want to know of good an evil. I want to understand the full range of human possibility and capability. Yes, we are capable of great evil as shown in our history, but it is juxtapose to such good that it inspires us to further greatness. For every Napoleon, there is a Beethoven. For every Hitler, there is an Anne Frank or Schindler. The message is clear. In the greatest darkness shines the brightest light. Being innocent and unaware of this dynamic range of existence is paramount to slavery to me. I wouldn't want it for my own children, so I find it appalling and insulting that god should want it for his.
Well said, GodFreeNow! Of course, the "faithful" won't understand your point at all. Albert here is a great example of that, completely confusing the goal of science with that of religious absolutism. Hey, Albert, scientists don't insist absolutely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. They merely state the obvious likelihood that is does–try reading up on basic probability sometime. The goal of science is to seek to increase our knowledge and understanding of ...anything and everything that is observable in any way. It does this by the scientific process of observation, hypothesis, scientific testing, and interpretation of test result–otherwise known as theory. It never claims to provide the final word on any specific subject, because it acknowledges that further information is bound to come to light. Theory isn't simply either right or wrong. It is instead a model, or attempt to explain what has been observed taking into account all the observations and test results that currently exist. Those examples of scientific "Faith" you refer to? That is not faith; it is merely the pragmatic response of operating under the assumption that we can treat facts as such if they have been repeatedly verified by the scientific process as long as nothing comes along to demonstrate it was wrong. If startling new information does arise through science, the scientific community responds by attempting to understand it and adjusting scientific theory accordingly. This profoundly differs from fundamentalist religion, which tries to explain the unseen/unobserved, weaves it into a narrative to dictate how we all must behave, and then claims the right to slam the door on further discussion or debate. By the way, one can be spiritual without being so darned afraid of knowledge, but only if you give up your silly notion of absolute final definitive "Truth." Try it sometime. : )
@GodFreeNow, ah yes "mathematical proof" "Proof" of God could very fall under that as well. it is interesting that when scientists "invent" something, it is based on something found in nature. It is obvious (and rightfully so), that these inventions due to their intricacies, have a builder or creator. But what inspires these "creations" doesn't? Sorry, no logic there.
@HeathenMike, you are simply playing with words. "They merely state the obvious likelihood" Seriously?!? That play on words doesn't steer minds into believing that scientist believe that there is life other than on earth? "Oh but mathematically it is possible" The bottom line is that there is zero proof. And yet you claim with a certainty that there is no God. There again you have zero proof. Please explain to us why there are scientists that believe in God and creationism?
@albert,
I have presented the mathematical evidence that supports the idea of life on other planets. Will you now present this mathematical proof of god to undergo equal scrutiny? This is the world of science. It's not just about making claims and conjectures. It's about opening theories to criticism and trial.
"It is obvious (and rightfully so), that these inventions due to their intricacies, have a builder or creator. But what inspires these "creations" doesn't? Sorry, no logic there."
I can only assume that you are referring to the watch analogy. "The watch is so intricate that it must have a watchmaker". Correct?
This kind of reasoning is based on a few flaws in logic.
1) Assumption: Things are in their perfect or final state. Fact: There are many flaws in nature including the eye being built backward which leads to a blind spot where the nerve bundle is. Incidentally, this is exactly how nature would "build" build the eye as it starts with simple receptors and builds up from that. But for a designer it's shoddy work. For other proofs of shoddy workmanship, research the vas deferens, and the va.gus nerve... (both follow exactly what you would expect from evolution over time and point to a mistake by a creator). ALSO 99% of the life that once existed on this planet has gone extinct. Much of it due to its inability to cope with its environment. This doesn't sound like a great creation to me.
2) Assumption: No part can work on its own independent of the other parts. Fact: This is completely untrue. Even the eye can still have limited functionality if you remove parts of it. People in the world live with this experience, so just do some research. You can function with one kidney, part of a liver, stomach, intestinal tract, muscle, tendon, arm, tongue and even part of a brain.
3) Assumption: Things are so intricate that they could never have formed on their own. Fact: Leaving aside the very simple math that can create extraordinarily complex fractals... you find it impossible to accept that complex things can form over time without a creator, but you have no problem assuming that an incredibly complex being existed to create it, without ever having been created himself. Think about that for a moment if you can. You believe this because someone told you that it's true. The idea of this should be outrageous to a person who doubts complexity arising from nothing, yet you blindly accept it without requiring any evidence to support it. I hope you will do some deep introspection on this one.
Bill Nye just removes it and spreads the message.
ArthurP
y2kpastor:
Be there right behind you.
Math 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Math 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Math 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Brother Arthur.
I do not want you to be behind me, I would prefer you were beside me. I am glad you read your Bible, but you do not seem to understand it. Jesus was not saying NOT to judge, but that if you DO judge do not be surprised if you ar judged also. And WHEN you judge be sure that your MOTIVE is pure and that you are not EQUALLY GUILTY of the thing you are judging. Read it again and apply that PRINCIPLE..
That is why I said what I said to you. I do not, not CAN I judge you. Read your own words again and you will see that it was your own words and nothing I said which pronounced your judgement.
Look if the Bible were that important then God would have made it so any one could understand it and everyone would discern the same meaning of its words and be free of contradictions.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
So I have it right, you have it wrong. See you in Hell, I'll bring the beer.
Hey, you wanted to debate. So why have no not answered my question? Why no bunny rabbit fossils mixed in with the dinosaur fossils?? Neither Bible nor Origin of Species can be used for citations.
This sounds like a big barrel full of pots and pans rolling down a mountainside.
Stunning level of ignorance and misinformation.
The evolution cult has many sects, divisions, and beliefs.
Pseudo religious, god surrogate.
You sound like an idiot.
@ 633: what's that old saying? oh yeah " the empty can rattles the most."
now let's take that into perspective shall we?
religious don't bother to understand much outside their own comfort zone of biblical reality
atheist studies everything they can get their hands on to help understand everything around them.
hmmm i would say the person that truly shows interst in how the universe truly works instead of relying on a horrible bed-time story to tell them how everything works would have far more interesting and enlightened things to say as opposed to " god did it"
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son I am in good company.
Oh? Are you in bed with justsayin?
@WASP
Ok, your brilliance convinced me, how did life begin?
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son No, just you and your "brothers".
@@WASP
Did evolution play any part in life coming about?
Stupid azz, no one is claiming to KNOW how life began, only that species have evolved.
You haven't learned anything on here, have you?
That's okay; morons rarely do.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Nice, so you are a boy.
Infantile, teenage intimidation, typical of your ilk.
Nasty and misinformed.
No, you brainless twit. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, as you've been told repeatedly.
A boy? No. I'm a woman. My moniker is just a line from a nursery rhyme.
And you? What does your screen name have to do with you?
@633: hmmm i don't know pick a hypothesis, any of them would seem more plausible than magicman in the sky.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Better tell your other parishioners skippy, cause they think that is what is being said.
Childish, but brilliant.
That is why I say those who believe in evolution are the exact representation of their so called christian buddies.
Get back to me when you grow a brain, get sober, and figure out how to make sense, jit-bag.
You gotta be a woman, you yap like one.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
A little online bully, sound like a wanna be thug.
Name call, so you do not have to answer any questions.
@Luke
Proves that you zealot evolution supporters are as about as smart as the wanna be Christians I am use to.
Evolution is a cult, a god surrogate for the disenfranchised, rife with its on group of mindless crusaders.
Evolution is dead folks, find a new religion.
Did you miss it, sh!t-for-brains? I answered your question. The fact that you don't like or understand the answer has no significance whatsoever, because you're an azzhole.
Actually 633, the comment was aimed toward the other yappy woman.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Got ya thug.
It's "used to", you dumbfvck. Not "use to".
Dropped out of high school, huh?
@Luke Sorry Luke, I was dealing with some boy who stole a computer and is trolling...
Reminds me of the rednecks from a church I visited.
Not bright, yet just smart enough to realize it...
Angry.
Amusing that you can't even figure out who's on your own side, bozo.
GodFreeNow
So you're saying the things in the bible are 100% true, because the bible says they're 100% true. Convenient.
And, then, are you saying The Bible is NOT 100% true, even though and because, even in your life time archeology and scientifice data, is constantly revealing and echoing, commentary of Biblical discoveries?
And where are your citations of that?
@y2k: and harry potter has real life places as well, so do most good fiction and fantasy novels. it's a means to allow the readers mind to accept the unacceptible otherwise; if there isn't anything in a novel for you to relate to you lose interest in the whole novel, but if they can put in real places and names that were commonly known to you, then you can be enthralled by every page and seeking the climax then the decending action of the novel.
just choose any great playwrite in history, all of them use that same tactic so nothing new that the bible which is just a bunch of stories thrown together at the will of an emperor wouldn't do the same.
You mean like the battle of Jericho happening during a 200 year period when the location of the city was not occupied. That is probably why the walls fell down. No maintenance.
The bible cannot be 100% true just based on the fact that there was NO worldwide flood. Geological surveys disproved this. There is NO way 2 of every animal could have been placed on the ark. There are over 1million species of beetles alone. There is NO way that fish would have survived a great flood which would have made the water brackish. There is NO way, Noah could have got the animals back to their natural habitats such as polar bears in the Arctic and penguins in Antarctica as his boat was wrecked and even with today's technology would be an endeavor that would take longer than a man's life, let alone the life of the animals involved.
Sorry, but you've been lied to. I sympathize with you because I've been there too. Nobody likes being scammed, but pretending you weren't scammed doesn't make it not true. Denying truth is equivalent to a child plugging their ears and covering their eyes to make themselves invisible. Ignorance may be bliss, but willful ignorance is stupidity. I encourage you to open your eyes to the light of reality. I know it's scary, but we are here to help you on your journey so you're not alone.
exlonghorn
I believe there has been a mixup in postings, I do not recall responding to any of your posts.
y2kpastor
hawaiiguest
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Blind assertions do not EQUATE to being right. But no blind assertions have been made. Every assertion that I have made are confirmed by the Bible. If you do not accept the Bible that would be a "blind assertion" on your part and not mine. Should that make you right?
And the bible is 100% accurate always. So much for you searching for the truth.
So you're saying the things in the bible are 100% true, because the bible says they're 100% true. Convenient.
Hey, you wanted to debate. So why have no not answered my question? Why no bunny rabbit fossils mixed in with the dinosaur fossils?? Neither Bible nor Origin of Species can be used for citations.
@y2kpastor
And why should I care what the bible says?
Using a single data source 'The Bible' is equivalent to a blind assertion. In a scientific discussion you require at least three sources in order to confirm your data. So your other two sources are ?????
We can debate creation all we want. The only truth is we will most likely never know. But debating something that is impossible for us to understand is pointless. And i don't think kids should waste time at school learning about pointless things.
catholic engineer::
You are part of an oncoming chemical process that started billions of years ago. You, as an individual, are as insignificant to this process as a single skin cell is to a person. You are born, you live, you die. The process does not care.
Grow up, deal with it.
I hope you have dealt with it because, in my opinion, you have sealed your fate, Those were your words from your mouth to GOD's "ear".
Hey god you out there..........nothing but crickets.
y2kpastor:
Be there right behind you.
Math 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Math 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Math 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
ArthurP
If you are asking me to debate with you about why there are no bunny rabbits found in dynasaur bones or fossils, I can not. I do not know nor do I want to know. You will have to take that subject up with whomsoever told you that.
@y2k: ok then here is a simple one; where are the bones of humans mixed with dinosaurs? how come there isn't a single human bone in the la brea tar pits?
ArthurP
Using a single data source 'The Bible' is equivalent to a blind assertion. In a scientific discussion you require at least three sources in order to confirm your data. So your other two sources are ?????
I have three (3) The (Word of ) The Father, The (Life of ) The Son and The PRESENCE of The Holy Spirit/Ghost.
y2kpastor:
You you are saying that there are three God's in the Christian religion. Funny if I remember correctly there is only one. Mind you he did have a split personality.
Exidus
20:1And God spoke all these words, saying:
20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Believing in three, well you would have to if you are using then in scientific argument, looks like you are on your way the downward staircase bud.
Go to facbook and look for "Real World" on Donald Logan's timeline.
Why are there no bunny rabbit fossils in with the dinosaurs fossils?
Why do bird genes contain dinosaur DNA?
Proofs with citations please. The Bible, your book, does not count and to be fair neither does the Origin of Species, our book, will not be counted as valid sources of citations.
People like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan point out that the vast universe doesn't care about our tiny, self-centered selves. I don't know what size has to do with it. A virus can kill a scientist as dead as it can a Christian. But if I hand Dawkins a small pebble and say 'this little rock doesn't care about you because it has no brain", he'd offer me a smirk. But in a few moments he'd expound that an entire universe of rocks and gas (without brains) doesn't care about us, some of would stand up and applaud. Never mind that a billion tons of rock is as stupid as an ounce. Do scientists ever discover that a two-year-old human can out think every star in existence? I'd say that makes us pretty unique and significant.
You're stretching again.....
You're equating the living organism with the universe, which like nature, is neither smart nor dumb or anything else other than just.... being. The universe does not care about us, because it doesn't care. Same goes for the pebble you apparently think Dawkins believes does care about is for some reason. Why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that we matter as much to the universe as a higgs boson matters to the planet earth. Being aware of our surroundings doesn't endow us with importance.
We think that we are significant because we are partial to our selves. When Sagan said that Humanity is insignificant he meant that, ultimately, we can do nothing about the eventual fate of the universe, and that if an asteroid struck our planet and vaporized it tomorrow, outside of this planet, nothing would change.
@Chuckles "Being aware of our surroundings doesn't endow us with importance." Well, Sir, I simply have to disagree. If consciousness itself it unimportant, nothing is. So both science and religion are futile persuits. And the best I personally could say is "into what has man evolved? A freak!"
@CE
Here's the thing. If we look at third party, objective perspective, consciousness does not matter, humans don't matter, earth doesn't matter, our solar system does not matter, all of it doesn't really matter. Now, since we are aware of such abstracts and the idea of "importance" we can give something importance. We give our computers importance, ourselves, our families, pets, planets, etc... . We make stuff important because we say it is. Something can be important to one person and not to another, does that mean that object is important or not?
And how do you know that no other intelligent beings exist? Have you traveled to all those star systems? You assume we are unique but you don't know for a fact.
Christian Fundamentalist: Life only exists on Earth. God made it so.
Scientist find life on another Planet.
Christian Fundamentalist: Intelligent life only exists on Earth. God made it so.
Scientist find intelligent life on another Planet.
Christian Fundamentalist: Intelligent life with a soul only exists on Earth. God made it so.
Alien missionaries arrive to save the souls of the people of Earth by spreading the word of the True God who's only son was born, preached, and died on their planet.
catholic, you are an insult to your claimed profession.
>EnjaySea
I guess you could argue, that since there was no universe immediately before the big bang, that the initialization of the big bang itself was a "non-natural" event, since there was no "nature" yet? But using the word supernatural is a stretch indeed, since we tend to reserve that language for the actiions of deities.
Since there is no evidence of a deity, it's logically unsupportable to credit the big bang to one of these mythical creatures.
All we know so far is that it happened. Speculating on how it happened is pointless.<
I am a fair debater, I listen as well as speak. My first impression of your post was to say "truche" then I thought to be radical is one thing, and to be rational is another. Speculating on how it happened is pointless, but then knowing that it happened is a point well taken. Our dispute is not that it did or did not happen, but HOW. Evolution says that 'material bodies' collided together. Creation says the etherial or vaporous gases, perhaps hydrogen, oxygen or some other flammatory ignitors caused sound and light to emerge from the silent darkness of deep outer space. Is that an opinion you can live with?
Actually, our dispute, if we have one, is not over how it happened, because due to a lack of evidence, I have no position on that question. Rather, our dispute is over whether or not one should invent an answer to the question, then insist that the answer represents fact.
Possibly you're not doing that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It just sounded like you were sure, and I can't imagine how one could be.
As for your last question, I've never heard evolution described as anything but a way of describing the development of biological species. Evolution really has nothing to say about creation. It only describes a process that occurred once that creation got going. I really have no opinion on either of your descriptions of how things got started, because they are, by nature, just speculation.
EnjaySea
>our dispute is over whether or not one should invent an answer to the question, then insist that the answer represents fact.<
There is no dispute there; You have just put into words my sentiment regarding the Theory of Evolution.
As for you concern: "As for your last question, I've never heard evolution described as anything but a way of describing the development of biological species. Evolution really has nothing to say about creation. It only describes a process that occurred once that creation got going. I really have no opinion on either of your descriptions of how things got started, because they are, by nature, just speculation."
You have brought us back to the real reason for this whole discussion. Bill Nye is saying that it is wrong to talk about Creation and Evolution in the same forum, or if he had his 'ruthers" not to talk about creation at all. If we do not discuss it how will we EVER learn what is truth? Thank you for debating with me.
Somehow everything evolved from nothing?!?! really? and you and your followers think this is an intelligent explanation for the 'theory' of evolution? what bunkum!
no one is claiming it came from nothing, bahn....you are either being disingenuous, or you are stupid. choose one
Evolution starts with a life form. The from nothing you are referring to is not part of evolutionary theory it is part of abiogenesis, which is a completely different theory.
Life didn't evolve from nothing. Life is made up from the elements available in its environment. These elements were here for maybe 8 billion years before life started. This concept is so fundamental, yet you religious nitwits just can't seem to grasp it.
Hubert
Correct, thus evolution cannot and does not address the issue of creation, Creator or First cause. Evolution cannot answer why we exist or the purpose of our existence. Believers tap into the spiritual side of man which by empirical observation has existed for all modern man by the vast majority of the population. Non believers who are statistically insignificant represent a sub set that for unknown reason cannot comprehend the spiritual. Both non believers and believers go to great lengths to justify their positions in that which all agree is outside the boundaries of known science.
Athy
Sorry “8 billion years” would assume these base elements arrived after the earth heavy bombardment period. That period ended 3.75 billion years ago and we have isotope records of life 3.75 billion years ago. That leaves Zero time for your base elements to evolve so you can forget that idea. That also leaves very little time (margin of error between date of isotope records and heavy bombardment)for abiogenesis.
fred, you just made that box even smaller. Your god is really gasping for space now. Not really room in there for him to exist.
And don't you get tired, chasing your tail like that?
@Bahn
Does that Red Herring tase good?
@Huebert and Athy
Fair warning, don't respond to him.
Evolution doesn't address the initial cause of life abiogenesis does. As of right now we don't know how life came from non living components but we may find out eventually. As far as why we are here, well that is a question for philosophers.
Also 15% of the U.S. population are non-believers so I wouldn't say we are statistically insignificant. And the reason we don't understand your "spiritual" matters is due to the fact that you, believers, are yet to provide any evidence for this spirit you claim everyone has.
@HG
I was already responding when you wrote your warning, but thank you for the warning.
Bahn
As ... h a s ... b e e n ... t o l d ... t o ... y o u ... i n ... t h e ... p a s t ... e v o l u t i o n ... d o e s ... not ... e x p l a i n ... t h e ... e m e r g e n c e .. of ... l i f e. ... I t ... e x p l a i n s ... t h e ... d i v e r s i t y ... t h a t ... c a m e ... a f t e r w a r d.
Was that slow enough for you, did any of it sink in. Sorry that I used some multi-syllable words. Maybe you can get an adult to help you with them.
@hue: evolution puts forth many hypothesis' about how the start of life began. experiments done before showed that if the correct materials are present and a large surge of electric power (lightning) can cause the basic building blocks of life to fuse, given nothing more than a "primordial ooze" was the result of those test, but that is the great thing about science we can admit we don't know, but we will keep trying to find the answer. religion however difinitively states "god did it" there is your answer; then i ask you this, if god did everything and god has a plan, then why struggle to live? why go to a doctor when you get sick? why take your child to a specialist when they have a terminal illness, it's god's plan that they die, you taking your child to a doctor is defying god's will and throwing his whole plan to reclaim that pure soul to go to heaven; who are you to refuse his will?
you see the problem with religion? you taking your child to a doctor, should be proof enough that he isn't real because if he was why would he allow a lowly human to disrupt his plans by saving a childs' life? don't give me that whole "it's his will that they get sick and we hela them" then why make them sick in the first place? it makes no logical sense what so ever.
so if god did everything and you are bound to wait for his return, then just sit quietly and wait for his return, if you become injuried or sick do not seek a evolutionist, aka doctor that understands how microbes adapt to medicine because it is god's plan for you to get sick................and possibly join him again. 🙂 enjoy heaven, the party will be great in hell
Huebert
The best estimate is that 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of man. We have evidence that Neanderthal worshiped and no reason to expect otherwise. It has only been in the last 200 years that a push for “no god needed” has generated all sorts of ideas that would result in an atheistic outlook. Your 15% is a current static number not all time which is certainly significantly less than 15%. Actually I am not aware of a successful large population of peoples that did not have some spiritual side in their culture.
Over half of the population of the Netherlands are atheist, and I am only referring to living people. The dead ones keep their opinions to them selves.
Huebert
The number of atheists in Netherlands is more like 30% not 50% today.
Religious practices historically for the Dutch were Christian and prior to that a mix of Germanic paganism including Norse religions. Regardless of historic belief pagan or otherwise it was spiritual in nature involving various gods and or God.
With 17 million people today and 30% with no belief today in the Netherlands that is a drop in the bucket of 100 billion people.
Intuitively the number of atheists out of 100 billion people is less than 5%. Today there are less than 1 billion atheists in the world. Either way it is a very small percentage.
Well, then, freddy, why are you so threatened by them?
@fred
HG is right their is no point in talking to you.
Tom Tom
If it were not for one man Saul of Tarsus we would not have the Church. If Abraham simply kept his hands off Hagar he would not have made a little Ishmael and there would be no conflict between Muslims and Jews. One man whether you believe in Gods existence or not can change the world as we know it. We have observed what our world is like under the influence of God (real or not) but we have no idea what a godless world would like.
I prefer the devil I know over the devil I don’t know.
@fred,
what's with all the references to dead people?
If there are 1B atheists in the world they would represent no more than 14%. What's the point of that argument?
Why are Christians so afraid of people who don't believe in God?
@fred the idiot: that wasn't an answer. Don't bother with another attempt. You're completely worthless.
Huebert
Huebert
“the reason we don't understand your "spiritual" matters is due to the fact that you, believers, are yet to provide any evidence for this spirit you claim everyone has.”
=>that is not necessarily the only reason some people cannot understand “spiritual” matters. Believers and non believers alike suffer from a range of mental and or neurological abnormalities. These abnormalities manifest themselves in various ways.
=>There are many reasons a non believer will not or cannot believe based on life experiences just as there are many reasons a believer believes more readily or strongly based on life experiences.
=>Just as there are believers that reject evolution or geologic evidence there are non believers that reject that which Thomas Jefferson said was self evident, endowed by the Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World.
=>If you are as you claim to be of normal mind then as a scientist you should eliminate all the other possibilities for your non belief and see what is really stopping you from understanding what 95-99% of mankind since the Neanderthal knew.
@fred,
you say: "there are non believers that reject that which Thomas Jefferson said was self evident, endowed by the Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World."
While Jefferson largely claimed credit for the DOI – particularly in later life, since he was in France during the framing of the Const'tution, it's not clear that the 'creator' reference was actually his.
His original draft said:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent & inalienable among which are the preservation of life & liberty & the pursuit of happiness;
This draft was then reviewed by the 'committee of five'. So who do we attribute the 'creator' reference to? We don't actually know for sure. It was one of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston or Roger Sherman. I don't claim that it was or wasn't him – we just DON'T know.
Either way – there's no "God" in the Const'tution, and that is irrefutable. (Please don't try the "year of our lord" as a reference!)
GOPer
Regarding reference to dead people the point is historically 90-99 billion people worshiped and or had spiritual foundation. Over the last 200 years we now see say 15% of the people of the world do not have spiritual foundation. This is a significant cultural change that has not resulted from any scientific evidence rather a change in what information is given to subsequent generations.
We are moving from what we have known since 55,000 BC to what we do not know in 2012AD. That is a grand experiment with real consequences based on temporary notion of no god needed.
Even those who framed our const-itution were well aware of the danger to a society from temporary movements:
“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
@Bahn I have heard more recantations here than the inquisition.
They only confirm this, evolution is responsible for nothing, answers no questions, and truly serves no purpose.
It is in fact a religious surrogate for the disenfranchised, pseudo religious superfluous clumsy noise.
God or no, evolution and its crazed adherents offer no explanation for how life began.
Further, they talk of all these amazing things around them never seeing them as evidence of anything, and all came about by some mystical chance..yet not one of them has ever written, invented or created anything original.
How do I know this?
Because anyone who has ever created something even remotely difficult has respect for other complex things.
Science is amazing.
Evolution does not deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence.
Ok, bring it on disciples, I know you are starting the fires up right now...
@fred
cultures without our 1000s of years of written history and developing science all have creation myths and create stories of the supernatural to explain things that they observe but do not understand.
We just don't need to make that stuff up anymore.
GOPer
Non believers will hold tight to biological evolution (man evolving intellectually) and social evolution yet when it come to core sense of presence outside of ourselves they toss their own theory aside because it does not fit their predispositions. I have never heard a good reason for this contradiction.
Let us consider biological evolution. If we claim we are now more intelligent with greater comprehension than the Neanderthal as the result of evolution then our understanding and comprehension of God would become more intelligent with greater comprehension. We moved from a pregnant bull to a lightening throwing god then God creator symbolically represented to Christ God with us who manifested the spiritual then the Holy Spirit that actually dwells within the believer. This spirit is not matter but substance that has defined properties.
Let us consider social evolution. Man advanced from hunter to agricultural then industrial and small tribes to scattered tribes to a centralized stable government. The God of the Hebrew was with the nomadic tribes in smoke and fire guiding them bringing the chosen through the floods of life to safe high ground. Jesus was the full representation of God for the entire world not simply the Hebrew and required a stable government and system of roads etc to so that actual vision could be carried throughout the world. There at the center the cross was raised dividing the symbolic God of the past with the real manifestation of God. Stone tablets and stone temples gave way to physical real manifestation. The civilization was ready to turn the other cheek and grasp the concept of love and truth. Man had evolved where Moses with a stick, the arc and talking snakes gave way to internalization of the knowledge of the Spirit.
If the theory of biological evolution is good enough for the Non believer when looking at an ape it should be good enough when looking at a believers understanding of God. If the theory of social evolution is good enough for the non believing anthropologist it should be good enough to explain the progression of the revelation of God.
@fred,
it would really help if you would separate your paragraphs with a blank line. That mass of text makes my eyes hurt.