 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
The day we die is the day we find out – but do you want to be wrong when it's too late to go back?
Go blow, Brony, you little dork.
If you have a good life, would it matter what happens after death? I think that's a better question.
What if the Zoroastrians are right? Oh crap! We're all screwed!
Do you really want to worship an azzhole who uses threats and torture?
Since that argument could be applied to any religion, I must ask you: which religion should I believe in?
(Not that your answer is likely to make me change my evil ways).
Do you honestly think, oh say, Native Americans who lived in their native land, oh say, a mere 521 years ago, gave a $h|+ about your worthless question? Do you think the fact they didn't made a difference in their supposed "after life"?
using Pascal's Wager: response
The false dichotomy you use suggests that the believer is either right and in heaven or wrong and gets nothing. Actually, the chance of the believer picking the correct god to worship and find the right way to obtain salvation are near impossible. How many gods have been praised and sacrificed to with burnt offering? Which one is correct? Prove it. We all are either wrong and gonna suffer or there is nothing and there is nothing.
Trust me there is no god. I wouldn't lie to you...
Well, someone had to say it.
When the nation of Cyprus has a higher percentage of people who can accept evolution, you as a nation have a problem. This doesn't go into the realm of atheism vs. theism as much as it does go into the realm of science vs. nonsense. I don't care what you believe in, organisms evolve. There is NO controversy in the science world about the basic premises of evolution. None.
Here are 3 phrases which will tip you off to not waste your time reading anything further from an obvious ignoramus:
• just a theory
• still a theory
• only a theory
Such phrases are never offered up with respect to the theory of optics, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter, thermodynamic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanical theory, the theory of plate tectonics, etc.; they only get trotted out with respect to evolution, and invariably by people who have no idea how scientists use the word "theory". Let me rectify that by quoting the nation's most highly respected scientific society:
"The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. ... The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong." —National Academy of Sciences
However, there is no proof. *wink*
You forgot the theory of gravity. When someone tells me that "evolution is only a theory" I ask them about their opinion on the theory of gravity (generally I tell them that I totally agree! The theory of gravity is obviously "just a theory" too and I don't believe any of it). Then I ask if they really believe that their child doesn't share any of their genetic traits. Only I do try to be polite and provoke thought. I actually had someone who came back to me and said she thought about it, and she believes that animals evolve, but humans can't have evolved. Well, I made some progress!
sciyep: Dang, you are right. I KNEW I was missing an obvious one.
Where exactly (to throw a log on the pyre) did mankind arrive at the idea that a 'day' for God (in whatever form one chooses) equates to a 'day' for thee and me? While I do not subscribe to the Book of Genesis as a literal version for what happened, let me throw this thought into the mix-
If "God" is timeless, then perhaps the concept of a 'day' is simply a human constraint. Heck, a 'day' on Neptune is quite a bit longer than a 'day' on Mercury. So, if one looks at the infinite size of the universe, then perhaps what to "God is a day is also infinite when viewed from our own brief existence, thus the creation of the world as the writers of Genesis saw it took seven infinities, or at least seven very very long days.
Expanding on this concept would leave room for both sides of the discussion. Creationism is assuaged, while science is given the time it needed for evolution to take place.
The creation order is all fvcked up, though. Pretty stupid for god to do that, wouldn't you say?
It took God more days to create earth than the rest of the universe. one million earths fit in the sun. The sun is nowhere close to being consider a big star. Does that make any sense at all to you?
But the bible says six days, we know a day to mean 24 hrs, or less if a day means the opposite of night. Did somebody rewrite the bible, aren't we supposed to take the bible literally? Why is the bible trying to confuse me?
"We know a day to mean 24 hrs..". Yep. And to perhaps oversimplify, we humans essentially created the concept ourselves thanks to the diurnal cycle caused by the sun as the earth wobbles it's way around the solar system.
But 24 of our hours hours is several sleep/waking cycles to many of the smaller creatures on this little blue marble, while to a maple tree, a full cycle appears to be what you and call call a "year" (which is just a bunch of our days strung together). Thus, one can say that what to a human being is a day is perhaps several days to a shrew, yet is but a moment to a thousand year (our year) old tree... So again- who is to say that what God (your God, his God, their God..) accomplished in one of His "days" would not appear to be glacially slow to mankind, much as we appear to be glacially slow to the hummingbird outside my window as I write this?
I think that if we simply put aside the 24hr, largely huiman-created limit on the concept of "day", an entire universe of possibilities surfaces. Suppose (just suppose) that the writers of Genesis were merely told that it took "six days", then assumed that it was their version of a 'day' without realising that they were but little hummingbirds in their concept of time compared to God..
Just a thought.
Just to add a little more to the debate, consider if you will the proven concept of Time Dilation. Simply put, Time Dilation means that someone travelling at near light speeds will experience time at a slower pace than a stationary observer. It's already happening in a very minor way with astronauts venturing to and from the ISS, and Einstein's theory postulates that the phenomenon increases as speed increases. This is what has given many Sci-Fi writers the idea of the long-distance traveller returning to Earth after what to him was a ten year mission, only to find that the Earth he or she knew was long in the past.
Now, let's apply that to my earlier comment: If God is infinite, it is also likely that He can move at or near the speed of light- a power that Man may never possess. Thus, as God moves around the universe, time to God slows to what we would perceive as a standstill, although to God, it would be moving normally. As a result, while God is doing his various Divine tasks, such as creating the universe out of the Void, millions of years could pass, yet to God, because of the infinite speed He is moving at, a mere six days..
BTW- One thing both science and Creationism largely agree on- "In the beginning was the Void". It's everything that happened since that seems to be the problem.
One of two possibilities exist:
1) The theory of evolution is correct, or
2) God wants us to think that the theory of evolution is correct.
Science has proven the world to be billions of years old, and has proven that life has existed on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Therefore, either the evidence is correct or the evidence was faked by God.
If you believe in the latter, you must ask yourselves: why would God put fake evidence of evolution in the earth for us to find? It is religion's attempt to rationalize this that makes me believe in the former.
You forgot the creationist's choice
3) God wants to test our faith by making sure all the evidence supports evolution and none of the evidence supports creationism.
It is possible to believe natural selection and adaption to nature, and think evolution inaccurate. No scientist can prove evolution (as a whole) is accurate. There are too many massive holes in the evolutionary evidence that scientist think will be discovered one day in a fossil. Well guess what, they have been looking for these things since the 1800s and still cannot paint the whole picture.
@Adam "There are too many massive holes in the evolutionary evidence that scientist think will be discovered one day in a fossil"
Care to name some of those "massive holes"? The fossil record is extraordinary considering how little time we have spent looking for fossils, and how few places we have looked. And the fossil evidence is only *one* line of evidence. There are many other independent sources of evidence that confirm evolutionary theory: genetics, animal behavior, medicine and physiology, developmental biology, etc.
Given that the U.S. produces more engineers annually than any other country, I think Nye's statement, "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back" is terribly overblown. It is, however, a good example of sensationalism, but I guess that's the TV personality speaking rather than the engineer.
How many of those 'engineers' are 'theistic engineers' such as Akin?
Correction: We GRADUATE more engineers than any other country in the world. Half of them are from India and China. And they're no longer staying here to work.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer.
Was an engineer for Boeing.
@Jack,
really? Look at this:
"China adds 600,000 new engineers a year; the US, only 70,000. Even India, with 350,000 new engineers a year, is outdoing the US, the study suggests."
This report is now seven years old. You know nothing of what you speak.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p01s01-ussc.html
The question is where these engineers are from. I work in the field, and many US-educated engineers originally came from another country.. Some of these folks eventually return to their countries of origin.
46%, Jack. That's upwards of 150 million people. I wouldn't call that overblown.
@Richard SRussell,
you are incorrect too. The United States graduates more Masters candidates in Engineering, many, if not most of whom are from India.
The US is far behind in graduating engineers with bachelors degrees – which is all that is required to work in engineering.
It is incredible that anyone found this newsworthy.
Stuck in the 70s? China and India both produce far more engineers than the US annually. Do some reading once in a while. The recent stuff, I mean.
Awww, how cute, Bill Nye is trying to be significant again. He slams faith, he slams UFO's, he slams anything his tiny little brain can't explain with concrete facts. And yet, he can't seem to explain why humans, as evolved in all our greatness, still have faith in the first place. By his logic, shouldn't faith be nonexistent, since it doesn't contribute at all towards survival?
Face it , Bill, science has yet to prove faith, and your pathetic attempt to dismiss it proves that I lost nothing when I changed the channel whenever your stupid show came on in the 90's. You're a tool, and a fossil; the 21st century doesn't need some two-bit, bowtied geek who's angry that no one pays attention to him anymore.
Religion limits behavior in many ways in opposition to evolutionary law.
I would bet my last dollar that you are a Christian.
Oh my. Bill's feelings are gonna be sooooo hurt. I guess you won this round.
He has the right to dismisses faith in creationism. Since it's fact that humans were not "created" in our current state nor was another living thing. That fact makes faith in creationism silly.
Science does explain "Faith", it is called psychology and/or sociology,,, try it sometime, you may be surprised that other people really do understand you...
Hey, nice post. Will you tell me again how about that talking snake?
Grow up.
Oh, he can explain why humans have faith. It's not complicated. A little self-awareness and you'd be able to as well.
Pshhhh, gimme a break. Anyone can explain why humans have faith and how it totally helps human survival.
It's pretty simple, it's a mechanism that binds humans together in order to make our society more cohesive and thus allows us to protect ourselves better. It doesn't make faith a good thing or even right, but it definitely had its uses for survival back in the olden days.
"humans, as evolved in all our greatness" LOL!!!! You think you're great?! LMAO! There are over 1000 different species of insects alone, any one of which can kick your sorry a$$ into the grave in under 24 hours. Go back into mommy's basement and think about that for a while before getting delusions of grandeur.
Face it: We human beings are natural prey animals. No fangs. No claws. No armor. No fur. No poison. Crappy camouflage. Slow runners. P00r swimmers. Can’t fly. And, to top it all off, soppily devoted to our offspring, who remain helpless and useless for years after birth. (Contrast that with colts or fawns struggling to their feet within minutes of being born.)
How then to explain our success as a species? The main reasons are (1) these big honkin’ brains of ours and (2) the linguistic ability they’ve given us. In the ideal case, once a single human acquires a bit of knowledge about the world, he or she can transmit it to all other humans via language, so nobody else has to independently make that same discovery. In practice, it takes way more than one exposure for any bit of information to stick, and most of what does stick is transmitted no further than to other members of the same small tribe. Specifically, parents pass along information to their children, and thus knowledge is preserved, accµmulates over time, and gives its possessors a compet¡tive edge over rival tribes.
In addition to the knowledge itself, however, parents transmit something more subtle: an att¡tude. It’s the att¡tude that elders should be listened to and obeyed. This att¡tude is reinforced each time some young whippersnapper ignores the repeated abjurations to not go down by the river and ends up providing lunch for the crocs in full view and hearing of his soon-to-be-former playmates. Now, the elders didn’t say that this is what would happen, but the lesson underlined is that they should never have had to. (They may, in fact, have forgotten why themselves.) The point is that their word alone should have sufficed.
Note that this profoundly conservative att¡tude, if followed scrupulously, would soon mean the death of learning and innovation, as nobody would ever dare to try anything new. But there’s a countervailing force at work as well, namely that new knowledge of how the world works confers survival value of its own and is commensurately rewarded with, um, survival. And reproduction. And the passing along to future generations of not only the newly gained knowledge but also the tendency toward curiosity (if not the outright DNA for it).
Over the long haul (and evolution is all about the long haul) there are rewards (and thus replication) for both the conservative (caution, trust in the elders, traditional practices) and the innovative (curiosity, exploration, experimentation), so each of us inherits a built-in tug-of-war in the att¡tude department. There’s something good to be said for each approach, and we’re frequently conflicted about which tug to respond to.
This evolutionary history plays itself out in miniature in every human life. We start out trusting our parents completely — even when they tell us seemingly confounding or ridiculous things — and overall that’s good, because they’re right way more often than not. The occasional bit of misinformation or superst¡tion passed down in error is a small price to pay for all the useful wisdom that comes with it. This doesn’t last, however. While parents are much more worldly wise than a tiny child, it eventually becomes apparent that they’re not perfect. And, when a not-so-tiny child (a teenager, say) figures this out, the 2nd half of the human temperament — the challenging, questioning, inquisitive, experimental, anti-authoritarian part — comes to the fore. Finally, there’s the equilibrium attained when the adult human has to contend with its own offspring.
It may make life complicated, and certainly fills the teenage years with angst, but it beats the living daylights out of trying to outrun a lioness.
Todd, I think it's time for you to back away from the keyboard until you can actually contribute something meaningful to the conversation other than schoolyard bully insults.
Bill is spot on. Explain why we have faith? Pick up a history book. It originates from a time when people were understandably ignorant. They went from many gods, then invented the present day god. There is no excuse for such ignorance today. Many humans seem to lack the ability to comprehend that when life ends, it ends. There is no soul, there is no heaven, there is no afterllife. We really should stop believing in these silly stories in this day and age.
Science doesn't need to "prove" faith. There are plenty of faithful m0r0ns like you puttering around. That's proof of its existence.
Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill
Puddy, I would agree we should be doing the research. I just think to believe something without evidence, or even a good theory of explanation is described by a very simple word. Faith. There is no good theory that explains the formation of life from non-life and no experimental evidence of how it could occur. This doesn't mean there is God of course, but to say you know that life started through an unknown, unexplained process without outside influence is a statement of faith as sure as a theists statement of his faith. I am open to a materialistic explanation when there is one.
Science has inserted a synthetic copy of DNA into a living cell membrane. That is creating life like putting a Ford engine in a Volkswagen is inventing the car.
It's a much better story than inventing the car out of a ball of mud!
He is not talking about the origin of life. He's talking about evolution. Believe if you want that a magic genie named God created the first living organisms if you want. That does not change the fact life has evolved since.
Wayne, evolution is a fact.
Actually, science has been able to show how the very first proteins and cellular organism did evolve from non-life.
@Blame, I don't recall saying it wasn't a fact.
Darryl, please post a link to the experimental data. They don't exist. Sorry. Proteins yes, self replicating organisms? Not even close.
If you wish to have faith in the existence of a God, faith away. Scientists don't have faith in something that does not present empirical evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence and never will be. Faith is merely a cliff humanity clings to because they aren't brave enough to let go.
@Blame the deserving: Protozoa
I agree with Nye except on one point. In a couple hundred years that point of view will probably be in a strong majority, not non-existent. And for one simple reason: the creationists will strike first. They have two things is strong supply: ignorance and guns. At some point their world view will no longer harmonize and they will do what they have to to protect it.
I don't force you to believe my way, nor do I insist it be taught in schools. My Savior wants me to live by example, and to love thy enemy.
"Science" is a tool. "Evolution" is a theory. They are NOT the same. True Science isn't judgmental or passionate, it simply is or is not. AND, it's not all knowing. What we know today isn't everything. Just because something isn't proven today, doesn't mean it won't be proven tomorrow and that some of our "proven" theories might not be dis-proven. Kind of the same way "Faith" is a tool and "Creation" the theory... Bottom line, our country and everything great about it was founded in freedom of religion. This clown wants to destroy the very fabric of our great nation. Well, that's just plain un-American.
No, that is not what "this clown" wants to do. Your strawman isn't even in the right cornfield.
If you think that one man's reasoned argument based on a century of observation and discovery by the sharpest minds on Earth is "destroying the fabric of our society," you might be a Republican.
Big R, I'd advance a theory as to what the "R" stands for, but it would be unkind and politically incorrect. Suffice it to say that you are simply "unintelligent."
@Big R –
I don't recall ever seeing a post disintegrate in a more spectacular fashion. You were making reasonable sense up until your sentence beginning with, 'Kind of the same way "Faith" is a tool and "Creation" the theory'; then it all just went down in flames.
Please don't reproduce.
Faith is not the sharpest tool in the shed Big R*****, actually it is not a tool at all.
tc3hn..."sharpest minds on earth"? Ha! Maybe compared to the chimps you think they evolved from. Get out from your circle of liberal, collegebrainwashed, associates and you will discover a wholesome reality that your professors are trying to keep you in the dark about; after all they need to perpetrate the dumbing down of society to keep their hefty paychecks coming.
Q: Why couldn't jesus get into college?
A: He got hung up on his boards.
Jesus laid down His life for me and I will be eternally grateful. What will you be?
Newton, Copernicus, Galileo Tesla, even Einstein all believed in God ... what does that say about these "scientists"?
I will be partying for all eternity upon the balmy shores of the lake of fire with Jim Morrison & Keith Moon. No, you are not invited.
It says that their punctuation was better than yours.
Good one.
Thx.
I just watched the video. In his list of "proofs" for evolution, he doesn't mention a single evidence of evolution, but merely a handful of proofs that the universe is old. If the video is about evolution, talk about your proofs for evolution; mention all those links in the fossil record you've found. Try to dodge the Cambrian explosion or something. It's equivocation: All believers in a Creator (old-earthers and young-earthers alike) are reeled in under the term "creationist," and then "creationist" is defined narrowly from a young-earth perspective–which makes an all-too-easy target. Argue the issue; don't equivocate. If you're really all that, go toe-to-toe with the big dogs of Christian theism; try to argue with Craig, Meyers, Dembski. It's pretty easy to appeal to the future and say, "Someday there will be no more of these guys to pester us." Actually try arguing with them–and the real scholars, mind you, not straw men. It's a real shame too, because of all the impressionable youngsters who will read into this exactly what CNN hopes: Believers in God are idiots. You know, it's absolutely dishonest that he would use evidence for the big bang to disprove God in the first place: the implications are so theistic that you've got today's brightest atheists positing magical multiverses that are completely and ironically empirically undetectable so that they can elude the big bang implications.
The old-earthers are a severe minority in the Creationist community and are still ignoramuses.
Were you born that way?
... The "cambrian explosion" happened over 300 million years... and also coincidentally was around the time oxygen became a large component of our atmosphere, allowing the diversity of life to explode since aerobic life tends to be much more efficient at metabolising food.
... That's actually fairly well doc-mented. Honestly, don't you creationists ever have new arguments? Oh, wait, you're trying to return to what we believed 300 years ago, of course you wouldn't. The only arguments left are in the past.
PS. If Dembsky and Meyers are your 'big dogs', you've got a might fine set of chihuahuas over there.
No, not among the scholars. I would estimate there is a sizable majority of oldearthers within evangelical scholarship.
Would love to hear Nye in a debate with John Lennox or Ravi Zacharias; I suppose the evolutionists would say Nye hasn't fully evolved yet.
Andrew: I'm not saying anything against the Cambrian explosion; I'm saying it doesn't show what evolution predicts–not even close. Out of curiosity, what's your problem with Dembski and Meyer? You know of a good explanation for cell's having what Dawkins admits amount to 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica in their DNA? It seems evolution needs cells to get going. You can't really play the evolution card there. What's your argument with Dembski and Meyer?
"... 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"
This is very troubling. I had no idea that there were this many brain-washed people in this country.
The video isn't about evolution, it's about why children shouldn't be force fed creationism in America. The USA is one of the dumbest countries in the world, and no I am not referring to the blondes you see in pageants, I mean their children. Look at where they rank worldwide.
He isn't even bashing creationism, that is just the right-winged CNN trying to get a rise from it's viewers. Bill is simply stating that we need to redirect our children to knowledge that is more important, more sustainable, and helpful to the world as a whole.
If you take anything else away from the video it's your ego and personal beliefs getting in the way.
I work at a major American university, and several of my colleagues are extremely bright scientists and engineers who also happen to be religious! So I simply can't understand/accept how people are agreeing that Bill Nye "hit the nail on the head" in his assertions. I just don't see how it can be the main factor in so many Americans being scientifically illiterate.. maybe one of the many contributing factors, but there's so many other societal problems that play into this yet THIS is where he wants to begin? And at any rate, where is the evidence to back up your hypothesis Mr. Science Guy??
Bill Nye is addressing the small number of evangelicals that believe that the world is 6000 years old, not all religious people.
Nye has none. He believes he came from a rock.
Huh, I can only imagine what your "bright" colleagues think of you.
Do you honestly believe that the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream "atheist" scientific community. Bill Nye has come out publicly and admitted he is a fool.
Name-calling is the first recourse of the weak-minded.
Denying the nose on his face is also foolish and weak minded.
You are the one that believes in mythology so who is the fool?
If one truly goes in depth and tries to understand the creation of life, the person will eventually go insane. The meaning of life is to "make as much money as you can, save as much money as you can, and give as much money as you can" – ROCKEFELLER
CNN presents 1 side most of the time that must be a reason Fox is #1. The bible is a dated book with metaphors. ***Science IS simply an observation of gods creation.***
[citation needed]
Remember, citing the bible to prove the bible is like citing harry potter to prove harry potter.
If FOX is number 1, that just shows how many ignorant people there are.
Let's just decide what a fact is based on how many people believe it !
We can start with the 46% of Americans who think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
They'll all be Fox News watchers for sure!
"Say 'ello to my little friend!" ... very original, c'mon, you can do better than that!
Yeah, Andrew, that's a favorite analogy of mine. The bible thumpers will say "but there are PROVEN facts in the Bible, therefore it's true – Jericoh has been shown to really exist!" And Harry Potter describes Picadilly Circus. Therefore, it must be true. So watch out next time you think of saying the name of he who must not be named.
Ignorant? College grads are more likely to believe in god. Is it soo hard to understand science is simply an observation of god's creation. Science is how god made the universe. Not who made the universe and why.
There is no proof at all that the Bible is not in fact the work of the Devil.
Of course you will point at passages in the Bible to prove this statement wrong but isn't that just what the Devil would do? Put those statements there to mislead you.
Yep, the alleged "devil" WOULD be duplicitous and conflicting, indeed, just like the bible.
Thou shall not lie, cheat and steal isn't the work of the devil.
Why would you believe anything in a work of fiction?
I prefer to tell children fairy tails like evolution and the big bang until they are old enough to understand reality.
fairy TAILS? Please. go on!
G. Zeus Kreiszchte:
Yep, nymphs and satyrs .....
Cherubim and seraphim
Fairy tails (sic) that explains it all!! lol!!!
Cool, because I've never heard of anyone suddenly believing in God after being raised in a Godless environment unless they suffer a traumatic event.
This would be a gut-buster if it weren't so tragic. Do you realize what kind of moronic nonsense his kids are learning?
A nice piece of fairy tail ....... ( sorry, oh so sorry .....)
What do tails have to do with this?
What a mighty God I serve!
Can you serve the soup before it gets cold?
Yeah, yeah...the body of christ...blah blah blah
Tim Tebow, shouldn't you be at practice?
They have you brain-washed so you keep coming back to give your money every weekend. Have fun with that.
Visit Reality Land!