 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
I wanted to comment on this article, but realized that trying to make logical arguments to the devoted is like trying to sell ice cubes to an eskimo. They'll usually just buy a couple to get you to leave them alone and throw it away as soon as you turn your back.
Something external to the universe had to create it, internal to the known unverse we have E=MC^2 and this conservation of mass/energy means that all of the mass/energy in the universe had to exist since the begining. So there was this ginormous singularity that lost stablity and exploded to form the universe as we know it.
The question is how did it get there and how did it kaboom? Science can't answer that question (seriously) so something outside our universe had to set it off (as it would have been internally stable like a black hole). I'm not saying that the xchan fairtail book is right but there HAD to be some mechanic to start it all off.
Now if we (by we i mean the whole universe we) exist in something' version of CERN, and the existance of our universe is a microfaction of a second in their time, or we're the result of a deleberate creation. No one will ever know the answer, but it's always fun to speculate.
But for the xchans out there, if "god" exists it is outside the universe and if it gives a damn (see what i did there) about us one would assume it would want us to be questioning, intelligent, and generally nice to each other. And with certainty it didn't mate with a 12 year old jewish girl, then preform a blood sacrifice of it's offspring to itself so that it can forgive our sins.
What if causation is merely an illusion and the universe actually caused itself, but because we only experience time in one direction, it looks like it started from nothing?
Wrong. There are coutless other possibilities.
It could have been a recurrence from a prior universe, it couls have been a massive black hole implosion .
Whatever it is, ot was, the universe is NOT intuitive. So you logic paradigms are not operative.
Come back when you have evidence. Untill then, "we don't know yet" is all ya get.
If that's not good enough, the cure for an'al retention is in the laxative isle.
@antonio
There isn't an infinite amount of energy in the universe so time can only go in one direction due to entropy.
They say Creationism is junk science. It is not. It's just junk.
If the god(s) caused the universe, that implies causality was already in place.
Ask who caused causality ? -> Infinite Regression.
So sad too bad. No gods.
something external to the unicverse had to create it?....you clearly don't have a grasp on the latest theories of physics. Quoting E=mcc shows you don't have a clue what that means , because it has little to do with it.
The most likely (at least by theory) is that two or more of the 11 dimensions collided, creating a big bang, that this was not the first nor the last, could happen again and again, and since one of those dimensions is time, it could happen at anypoint along along, and theoretically, another big bang could happen, wiping out this entire time thread.
To think that there HAD to be something before, or it was acted on by an "outside" force shows you do not understand M theory in the slightest. You are thinking linearly, along only the dimensions you can perceive. You won't get anywhere that way.
Can you observe those 11 dimentions? Putting you FAITH in a theoretical framework is the on par with blind faith. Besides on the MACRO level the universe IS liniar for the most part behaves like an ideal gass. It's at the micro scale that things get complex and outside human experince.
I find your lack of verifiabe experimental or observational data disturbing.
God made the stardust that everything and everyone is made from. Why is this so hard to accept? God's subjectivity to time may not be the same as the living organisms subjectivity to time in the universe. This belief is 100% consistent with the Bible. He who created the stardust is responsible for creating everything - the timeline does not matter, who cares how long it took?
Who create God?????
Which God are you talking about?
CNN Loudmouth's God.
Solid evidence would be helpful.
There's nothing wrong with poetic or metaphysical interpretations of the Bible that allow you to keep your faith (a private matter, which I respect). So long as religious claims are not used to deny scientific truths.
Speaking of a faulty "scientific" conclusion: According to Mr. Nye: Creationsist believe that God created the earth and everything on it, therefore, Creationists are not scientifically literate, are not informed voters, and are incabable of being engineers and cannot solve problems. Bravo, Mr. Nye, that's quite a logical leap. I guess I am just so greatful to all the athiests who have helped us creationists afloat over the past few thousand years. And I suppose those scientists who did believe in God i.e. just to name a few: Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstien had nothing to do with progress and were not problem solvers. Here is another theory: Bill Nye = Tool
Creationist cretins are dumber than the proverbial bag of hammers.
You're an idoit. Religion and science can be one in the same if you were just to do a little research. But I guess you are to lazy to learn the truth and want to stick with a version of "God" that man wrote in a bible thousands of years ago. There is a reason some scientists hate on religion, because people take the bible way to literally and fail to realize it is just something a man wrote. Afterall, there isn't anything that says God didn't create the universe, with Earth in it.
Just because great people believed in a god doesn't lend any evidence as to whether a god exists or not. Belief is not reality.
Eric – nowhere did Bill Nye state that believing in God equated to Creationism. Secondly, his valid point is that people who deny the scientific physical evidence about the evolutionary history of the Earth \ Universe cannot then be vaild scientists, as they would then be picking and choosing which physical laws to believe – that's not how science works.
Liar. Einsten did not believe in god. So what ? So one person did believe in god. 85 % of the National Academy of Science does not. Give us something current, or STFU.
Eric, you are on a slippery slope. Careful with your next move...
There's a difference between believing in God or a creator of some kind, and believing in "creationism". There are some mysteries about evolution still, but that the basic mechanism of evolution explains all biological life in its present form is incontrovertibly true and obvious. Anyone who denies this simply has no interest in learning anything about biology and is an idiot.
MXD, Bill Nye is insinuating that creationists cannot be scientifically literate voters, taxpayers, and engineers that "can build stuff and solve problems. That is the problem. His whole point is that teaching kids that God created the earth makes them incapable adults. If you want to accept evolution as fact, that God didn't create the earth, be my guest, but don't tell me that those who believe can't "build stuff" and "solve problems."
Real Lucky: Einstien did belief in God. You should probably educate yourself before posting. read Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstien's "Question to Einstien, do you believe in God.?" Granted Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, but was taught creationism as a child. Thus, again disproving Mr. Nye's ridiculous claims.
I guess I should be thankful that the people who wrote the bible didn't specify that the sun and other local planets orbit the flat earth or else we'd still be fighting those notions as well.
Evolution, that is a crock, so are lightbulbs, cell phones, TV, airplanes, medicine, cars............
"But don't make your kids do it."
Key word 'YOUR'....My kids are my kids. If I want to teach them that babies are made by pixie dust being dashed over a woman's forehead and pink lemonade powers our world, I can do that. I wouldn't tell others how to raise their kids...have some respect.
rd, have some respect for your kids.
Pretty sure he is simply saying "let them decide what to believe on their own".....
...let the blind lead the blind, awesome! Way to look out for your kids future!
you say have some respect but you don't respect your kids enough to want them to have the best knowledge base they can have?
Did you think before you posted that or do you not know how to think?
When they've matured they'll see you as the pea-brained parent who held them back.
No. Children belong to society as well. The parents claims are stronger, but it is not an absolute claim at all. You may not just do anything with "your" own kids...
You Sir, are moderately retarded.
You are correct. When they enter the school system with the knowledge you bestowed, they will certainly look like the idiots you have raised them to be.
Lemonade? I knew it!
How is creationism even close to valid in some peoples heads?
The insane have a totally irrational concept of the world and what is amenable to our senses. We should have as much pity for the creationists as we do for the insane, neither can help themselves.
If you can show me proof that EVOLUTION is real, then I will believe it. There is no magical "missing link" God created everything perfect, and since the fall and evil was introduced into the world everything is getting worse. Nothing is getting "Evolving" it is just adapting.
@Cindy: take a trip to the local Natural History Museum and then come out asking for proof of evolution. If you can't find it there, then there really is no hope for you.
Again, evolution is a false conception based on some truth with some assumptions that is not grounded..
A pure scientists have to accept that facts and evolution does not hold water..
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
David R, evolution does hold water and is supported by mountains of evidence and hard science, unlike the site that you are being a shill for.
And many geneticists (which I did for a living) would tell you otherwise.. Information theory would state the same thing.. The PROBABILITY that Evolution is true is 0% That is why it is still theory after HOW MANY YEARS? We have more information to prove it or disprove it and genetic shows evolution is religious ideology of a false god (or lack of) and that it is all random.. Like you and I... Please, if evolution is so true.. It should be law by now... The HARD EVIDENCES you are talking about keep failing to support the theory or in many times.. contradict it completely!
For EVERYONE who believes in Creationism – 1)You need to study up on what a Scientific Theory ACTUALLY MEANS before you argue against it. 2) Nothing in the Theory of evolution states that "we came from APES"; it shows that we SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR with them. 3) Genetic mutations occur to everyone/ everything's DNA and 90% are of NO consequence (what do you think a mole or a birthmark is...?), 5% may be detrimental, 5% may be beneficial. Giraffes did NOT get their long necks by stretching over and over for thousands of years; they got longer necks because the ones with the genetic mutation that carried a trait of elongated neck structures could reach more food on the tree, it survived, did it with another Giraffe, passed on its genetic code, and so on down the line until they all generally have long necks.....HENCE; SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!!! Yeah, that is a glimpse of how this SH!T works....!!!! Bill Nye is right....the contents of many of these posts point out exactly what he is concerned about....Creationism is just plain denial of FACTS!!!!!!!!!
You and Nye are to be pittied.
do you mean the villain in the latest spiderman movie actually was based on evolution theory? pretty cool. lizard man terrorizes NYC. ha! incredible, and yup we owe it all to FACTS. rotflmao
Pity me all you want; I am not the one rejecting reality....!
ChokeOnYour Bible: 1) Again, your point? I am using that VERY basis and evolution is flawed in their theory and concept
2) Again, you make the wrong assumption but that is what was preached in evolution CLASS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.. That is the very trial that was discussed (Scopes Monkey Trial – historical event with William Jennings Bryan).. That trial was what news and media created man came from apes.. Secondly, common ancestor still fails because you do not have proof on the matter.. It is assumed.. Not proven.. Assumed... 3) Genetic variation is acceptable and I concur .. There is no issue on Micro-evolution (changes within a species) but EVOLUTION IS STATING IT IS A MACRO-EVOLUTION.. That is a BIG Difference... Even Survival of the Fittest has been proven to not be factual.. Again, the assumption is the environment plays a "fair" game and again, you somehow know the playing field even time period to explain why something would be extinct compare to another? Again, you are making assumption.. Natural Selection is based on this assumption: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection) .. The two parts that GENETICS REFUTES IN MACROEVOLUTION.. This would imply that all mutation has to be PERFECT AND RIGHT with no DETRIMENTAL EVOLUTION ( could reproduce and survive) to allow a chance for macro-evolution.. That is FAITH and not Scientifically based.. Lastly, BIll Nye and yourself can't do any investigative work to see what is factual or not... Assuming everything is true is as crazy or naive as you would call Creationists do... Again, this is not Creation on Trial but Evolution that is supposed to be truth but can't hold ground...
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html –> Have fun reading this one.. They make my points time and time again.. Geez, evolutionist are as zealous and religious to this idea.. They talk about Creationists as crazy...
I think we are confusing evolution with adaptation. Species change over time as they adapt to their environments.
I don't think that is the same as evolution.
I've been reading quite a few posts about dinosaurs, fossils, etc... – my question is – does science have proof that one species actually evolved into another (ie – a reptile into a bird, etc...)? Or is their proof centered more around a species changing as it adapts to its environment? We may share similar DNA with other species of animals, but wouldn't that be expected? I have yet to find anything that shows that science has actually proved that one species has evolved into another type of species.
You must differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Evolution simply means "change". You have evolved since you were a baby (unless you still crawl and wear diapers). Humans have evolved – we have gotten taller over the last couple of hundred years. Creationists believe in microevolution – that there are small changes over time within a species. You can prove this type of evolution. The problem comes when you say that microevolution PROVES macroevolution – that now extinct fish turned into reptiles which then turned into birds, etc....
Now for the Big Bang and Macroevolution to be PROVEN, it has to be observed. If this happens over the next 10,000 or so years and completely new and differnet species develop from other ones, then creationists might have to change their tune.
And Americans believe less in creationism than 100 years ago. Compared to other countries, we sure do not have any good scientific, medical or technological discoveries in that time. It is sad how far behind the rest of the world we are Bill Nye. (hopefully you catch the sarcasm)
Darwins Finches are the first look at a species changing....! It is a a PROVEN process called SPECIATION of which there is no doubt that it happens. When we grow....we are not EVOLVING, we are aging and there is a HUGE difference. And yes, species can, have, and will continue to EVOLVE into different species. We and many other organisms have VESTIGIAL organs. WHY else would WHALES have HIPS AND LEG structures if they were MAGICALLY put in the ocean...???? Where does CREATIONISM address NEANDERTHALS, DINOSAURS, ETC. And btw DAVID R, judging (yes, I am judging) by your terrible grammar and poor excuse for a source that you sited, I would suggest that you get a very sound and structured education in this subject before you continue arguing!!!
ChokeOnYour Bible: LOL.. I present better than writing btw.. But that does not change the argument on my end.. OK, let's talk about the vestigial organs... Wouldn't evolution tell me that species should GET RID OF IT? Not JUST KEEP IT? Again, your argument fails to point out the very premise of EVOLUTION! Darwin Finches do not show any proof.. They are observation with an ASSUMPTION.. GET your fact straight.. Second, You still DID NOT PROVE MICRO EVOLUTION TO MACRO... Where is the proof? There is none! Hip and Leg structure could be present in whales but do not make them evolutionary as much as my nose to a beak of a bird.. If so, then there should be humans with beaks and fossil records for it... There isn't.. You are betting on chances and again, NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... And sites you want to argue is just because you accept Evolution as LAW as if it is .. Really, you think you really investigated? Being a former evolutionist, I beg to differ (and yes, that is my view of you).. So again, if you can't your own mind, there is nothing that will disprove your belief.. That is as much faith as a Creationist... OK.. Lastly, Dinosaurs and Neanderthals existed but do not prove evolutionary... Again, you assume something and does not mean it really is...
@David R
Actually, since our vesitigial organs do not give enough of a negative to impede reproduction, we wouldn't expect natural selection to have put the pressure on humans to get rid of them. Also, keep in mind that, like the whale remnants of legs, they once had a use. Evolution is not a prescriptive science, but a descriptive one. For someone who used to be an evolutionist (or so you claim) you really don't seem to understand the way it works.
hawaiiguest: Again, you are making an assumption... So how do you really know that natural selection did just that? So again, using someone's argument.. Natural selection would naturally (the word to emphasize) get rid of giraffes that have short necks (since short necks should not impede their reproduction).. But using natural selection, short giraffes would die off because it is a not a desired trait for survival... By natural laws, even a vestigial organs would be eliminated (like a deep fish getting rid of their eyes by natural selection.. Don't hurt them but they got rid of it... Using your argument).. Why do you keep them? You have to explain to me SCIENTIFICALLY WHY it would accept one thing as natural selection to remove but not vestigial parts? Again, you being a evolutionist should be ABLE TO PROVE THIS.. Again, the basis of scientific research and method!!!! Even a descriptive science has to be CONTEXTUALIZED to understand and Evolution GENERALIZES IT!! THAT IS THE PROBLEM
@David R
"By natural laws, even a vestigial organs would be eliminated (like a deep fish getting rid of their eyes by natural selection.. Don't hurt them but they got rid of it"
Oh but using energy for functioning eyes when it can't be used to see would be a definite negative for a species wouldn't it?
"Why do you keep them? You have to explain to me SCIENTIFICALLY WHY it would accept one thing as natural selection to remove but not vestigial parts?"
You're kidding right? Are you trying to say that you would expect the pressures of natural selection to treat negatives and neutral traits the same? Really?
hawaiiguest: But again, you are making an assumption... How do you know that it is that very reason the deep fishes got rid of their eyes and vestigial organs are saved? You are making an assumption.. That is my point! Evolution are observing the data and making a hypothesis (that I concur).. But what I am ARGUING is that it does not make it FACTUAL! You need to make assumption to make it understandable and THAT IS THE ISSUE (because that y does not necessarily make it factual).. There are some deep fishes that still have eyes but some don't.. They are not needed as you stated but why do some fishes have eyes and some don't? How do you know one trait is negative or neutral? You are assuming...
Yes, you have to prove it scientifically (or else it should not be in a science class!!!).. This is why Evolution is so CONTESTED! It is trying to prove to me it is scientific FACT when there are no substantial facts.. Evolution is based on assumptions... Just because I talk about Jesus does not make my religion Christianity.. Even Muslims believe in Jesus but they don't believe in the same Jesus as I do.. It might point to some things as logical but the whole concept fails because many points can't be proven, was disproved, or has to be re-investigated. I could generalize things too but it does not make it scientific either... Again, the scrutiny is not Creation but EVOLUTION.. It has to be proven in its own realm of Scientific Principles.. That is the ISSUE!!! And again, you are using assumptions to make deductions.. That is my whole point why evolution fails.. It does not even question their own premises.. I could make postulates about things as facts in Creation but you would reject as being ridiculous but how many evolutionists really do that in their own belief? And historically, many don't even question it and assume to be correct without due diligence to investigate.. Call me Plato-istic but the concept has to have weight before we go Aristotlic on natural evidences.. Evolution's premise and ideology is flawed, not questioned, or fully investigated. And we give it a free pass on scientific critiques..
@David R
You're not getting it. Evolution, at its very core, is simply that things change over time. That's it, tha's all end of story. The "reason" doesn't matter, the time frame of change doesn't matter.
You want reasons why it changes, like there is some driving force wanting things to be a certain way. Well sorry but that is something completely seperate from evolution.
You assume that for evolution to be true we must, for some reason, KNOW why certain changes occured, which is irrelevant to the fact that changes occur.
hawaiiguest: That statement is absurd.. Then you should not have evolution in a science class... This is not history class but a science class that talks that evolution is some natural force that help evolve beings into new and better beings without CONCRETE EVIDENCES and PREACHED LIKE IT IS LAW! The statement I wrote prior about natural forces is That is the VERY PREMISE AND CORE OF EVOLUTION.. So your statement is naive on what Darwin and many modern evolutionists are talking about it.. Terminology is important and your definition of evolution and those discussed here is different.. And that is SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT.. It is like stating Biblically speaking, just being good gets you to Heaven when the Bible (as the point of reference that I pointing) states that you have believe in Christ as Savior and Lord (repentance and faith in Him) to be saved (and go to Heaven).. The two statements are not the same as much as your statement of evolution is about change over time.. The change over time has TO PRODUCE SHOW THAT CHANGE.. The issue is that it hasn't!!!! Secondly, the driving force is a significant argument on behalf of evolution.. Or else, it is PURE SPECULATION! That is whole point..
Your last sentence seems a bit short-sighted.. If I am a criminologist (evolutionist).. So it does not matter how someone died (natural selection is just what it is).. He/She is just dead (accept that evolution did its thing).. Then the question is how do you know he is dead? Again, scientific requires us to understand death scene (evidences) and dictate a picture (hypothesis) in the cause (testing of hypothesis)... You can't eliminate the final two when you are talking about scientific principles.. Again, evolution is not being depicted in a history class.. A science class! Don't you just water down evolution more to being just speculation?
A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
from:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
@David R
You are the one attempting to water down what evolution is by using terminology in a very dishonest way. I'm beginning to think that you never were an evolutionist, and you don't actually understand the scientific process. If you want to put it into a more scientific terminology, all evolution states is that there is genetic drift over successive generations at a rate that cannot necessarily be predicted. This "natural force" (talk about loaded language) is not as you are characterizing it. Natural selection is just a name given to pressure based on the environment that will either cause certain negative characteristics in life to die out.
Your moronic assertion that we have not observed change is patently absurd. You're not even making clear your objection to evolution. We have concrete evidence for evolution and common descent. Try going to talkorigins.org.
When the Bible was written, man didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand evolution.
God laid it out in simple terms they could understand.
A day to God could have been several billion years.
No one would have understood that.
why would your god create an unintelligent man whose intelligence must evolve to understand?
Yeah, because "god put into motion processes that over a thousand thousand thousand years saw the earth grow and form from the dust and rock of the void, and once formed, life began, first as plants so tiny and simple they could not be seen. But over time, each new generation, being slightly different than the last, some differences being of helpful nature, life changed, adding complexity and over more thousands of thousands of years the plants and animals we know today slowly appeared," is waaaaay more difficult than a badly written, implausible story about creating stuff in six days, making two people, throwing a temper tantrum and punishing the people for the bad job he did making them, then glossing over where everyone else comes from, then throwing another temper tantrum and drowning everyone, and then rebranding himself suddenly as god 2.0, code named Jebus. /sarcasm
As our minds evolve:
What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
...but I visited another world...and almost nailed Ornella Muti....which I should have done instead of that other broad
What religion did the Greeks believe and what is called now? Greek Mythology. hmmm..... I wonder.
Good point. Let say the Greek belief in Zeus et al started in 2000 BC and ended approximately when the Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome (and Greece) in 312 AD. So it took about 2,312 years to make the change. Based on history, it looks like it will take another 300 years to change once again, this time with no gods needed or required but the following statistics show that we are evolving:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htp
Religion………………………… Adherents
Christianity ……………………..2.1 billion
Islam…………………………… 1.5 billion
Irreligious/agnostic/atheism…… 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese traditional religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million
Animist religions 300 million
African traditional/diasporic religions 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism…………………………………….. 14 million
Baha'i 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari Movement 600,000
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
Matthew 27:51-53
Anyone who is foolish enough to deny God, puts themselves in harms way. Over the past few days Bill Nye has denied God. Ironically, Nye resides in Los Angeles, which is currently being hit by hundreds of small earthquakes since his remarks.
It's unlikely Nye or anyone else who denies God the Father, and Jesus Christ His Son, will recognize that their very own words will condemn themselves. Satan realizes where he has power, it is where God is not.
If we deny God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, we open the door for the enemy to destroy our lives! It's a choice we make.
Dear god!
There shall, in that time, be *rumors* of things going astray, errrm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. Yea, it is written in the book of Cyril that...
for the demon shall bear a nine-bladed sword. NINE-bladed! Not two or five or seven, but NINE, which he will wield on all wretched sinners, sinners just like you, sir, there, and the horns shall be on the head, with which he will...
The Bible was written by men.
Stop trying to make believe God wrote it Himself.
the dark ages called. guess what they want back?
If that were true then why do the Bible Belt and Tornado Alley so closely overlap? Since that particular portion of the country has more "god" fearing people why aren't they spared year after year after year of suffering from tornado's? Every year innocent families are killed and displaced for what? According to your logic however they should be spared because they believe in "god".
So what? the bible say lots of stupid stuff, quit cherrypicking.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)"
There is no faith in Evolution. We've seen it happen life in small scale, and we have the fossil record which shows how it has happened in the past. Evolution is a *fact*. The *Theory* of evolution explains the *OBSERVATION* that life does indeed change over time. We've known life changes over geological time since before Darwin's time. Darwin simply came up with a theory that explained it – imperfectly. We've since improved on his theory – because science is not dogmatic and changes to fit the evidence. Simply put, the Theory of Evolution is one fo the most heavily evidenced scientific theories in existence.
Finally, if you don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory, please educate yourself. They are *NOT* interchangable.
We can see natural selection at work as species adapt to their environment through the process of natural selection. As the name implies genetic characteristics will be selected from the available DNA. No new information is added to the organism so it is not "advancing" in complexity. Also there is no observable progression of species found in the fossil record. You, like many others are confusing "artists conceptions" with the actual fossils that were found. If you want to place your faith in Darwinism, that is fine, but don't criticize people for putting their faith in the Bible.
MZ
Sorry but Steven is not confused you are. There are lots of fossils showing transition over time, do we have every step? No, but you don’t need every dot in a picture to know what it is do you?
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing. Time is the only difference.
Many creationists like to say that evolution is "just a theory", and that it's not a fact. Did you know that gravity is also one of those pesky little scientific theories too? Now you don't question gravity, do you? The reason that you don't question it is because there is no religious intersection. You may also want to look up the definition of a scientific theory. It's not the same as the other definition of a theory which is speculative in nature.
@Hal
according to @Lucy (bottom) of p27, creationism explains gravity. Oh, and water.
When somebody says that evolution is just a theory, what I hear is "I don't know the meaning of words."
I cannot judge an evolutionist. Nor should I.
What's an evolutionist? Is that like a gravity-est?
Wow. I can't belive the ignorance of the 46% that believe in creationism. Have an open mind, thats what "god" gave you a brain for, right? Don't take this the wrong way, I have faith, but people have to realize that god didn't write the bible, men did, and men are often wrong. Also, the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is overwhelming. To simply deny that evidence is itself a crime, and denying that information to your children is the equivalent of what Hitler did to the Jewish community. You cannot write history, you can only discover it.
If you thing evolution hasn't been proven and is still just a theory, let's see some proof for the theory of creation that you want to believe.